Virginia Del. Robert Marshall (R-Manassas) introduced four amendments to prevent gay citizens from receiving benefits from their domestic partner’s employers. One would have denied benefits to any person who belongs to a group that the American Red Cross
refuses to accept blood donations from. Gay citizens are in that group. (Photo by AP)
MORE INFO Proposed constitutional amendment “Amend Article I of the Constitution of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15-A as follows: That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”
The Virginia House of Delegates on Feb. 24 approved a bill that would repeal a law that made Virginia the only state in the union to prohibit private companies from offering health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.
Delegates approved the bill by a 49-48 vote just two weeks after the Virginia Senate voted 26-14 to approve the same measure, guaranteeing its final clearance in the General Assembly. Governor Mark Warner (D) has said he would sign the repeal legislation.
News of the domestic partner measure’s passage was overshadowed by the General Assembly’s approval two days later, on Feb. 26, of a joint resolution calling for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and other forms of legal recognition of unmarried couples.
Gay activists, nevertheless, said they were pleased with the overall outcome of the General Assembly’s brief 2005 session, noting that five anti-gay bills were defeated. Among them were bills calling for banning gays from adopting children and prohibiting gay-straight alliances from forming in the state’s public schools.
“All in all, this was the best we could hope for in Virginia,” said Del. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria), the only openly gay member of the General Assembly.
“We expected the constitutional amendment,” Ebbin said. “That did happen. But nothing else did,” he said, referring to the other anti-gay measures that some predicted would also pass.
To become part of the state constitution, the General Assembly must approve the marriage amendment a second time next year, and voters must approve it in a statewide ballet referendum.
Officials with Equality Virginia, a statewide gay group, said they would enlist gay activists and straight supporters throughout the state in an effort to defeat the resolution in 2006.
But most state lawmakers, including those who support gay civil rights, noted that the marriage resolution passed by comfortable margins in both houses. They predicted it would most likely pass the full General Assembly again next year.
Public opinion polls show that a solid majority of voters also support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Gay groups stay in background
The bill repealing the ban on company health benefits for domestic partners, SB1338, was given the innocuous name, “Health insurance; coverage for certain persons” by its author and chief sponsor, State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston).
Equality Virginia and other gay groups took a back seat in lobbying for the measure, leaving the visible support for the bill to business groups such as the Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
Sources familiar with the bill’s progress in the General Assembly said supporters feared that labeling the bill a “gay rights” measure might have motivated the state’s conservative, religious groups into mobilizing greater opposition to the measure.
In the debate that preceded the Feb. 24 vote on the bill by the House, Del. Robert Marshall (R-Loudoun County) introduced four amendments seeking to weaken or nullify the bill. All four were defeated.
One of them called for the bill to ban employers from offering domestic partner health insurance benefits to anyone belonging to a group from which the American Red Cross refuses to accept donated blood. Gay men are among the groups that the Red Cross bars from becoming a blood donor on grounds that they have a higher risk of carrying the AIDS virus.
The Chamber of Commerce argued that businesses should have the right to decide for themselves whether to offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of their employees. Ebbin said at least one large employer, the D.C.-based Bureau of National Affairs, which publishes business related newsletters, indicated it might choose to move to suburban Maryland rather than Northern Virginia if the state did not repeal the domestic partner ban.
The firm, which is considering leaving D.C., currently offers partner health benefits to its employees and believes this benefit helps it attract qualified employees, company officials have said.
The exiting law, which was passed in 1986, does not specifically state that company health plans cannot offer domestic partner benefits, according to Aimee Perron, an attorney with the ACLU of Virginia. Ebbin said the state’s insurance commission has interpreted the law to exclude a third party health insurance provider, such as Blue Cross-Blue Shield, from providing employee health insurance policies to categories of persons other than those listed in the law.
The law names only the categories of an employee’s married spouse or blood relative as being eligible for employee health insurance from insurers.
Employers choosing to create their own self-insurance entity are free to offer health benefits to their employees’ domestic partners under the current law, but few have chosen to do so because it involves a greater expense.
House, Senate agree on amendment language
The General Assembly approved the resolution on Feb. 26 calling for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage after a Senate-House conference committee resolved differences in separate versions of the resolution approved earlier by the two bodies.
Most gay activists believe the amendment would ban legal recognition of civil unions and possibly other forms of same-sex relationships, including domestic partnerships, as well as same-sex marriage.
“Virginia says it’s for lovers, but that slogan should be retired as false advertising,” said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, a civil rights group. “In a state whose legal code is already filled with laws discriminating against gay people, this proposed amendment would cement into the state constitution second-class citizenship for gay and lesbian Virginians.”
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
