A curious debate has arisen here in Washington politics. Earlier this year, after several decades of pushing against one of society’s glaring injustices, the state legislature finally passed a gay rights bill that prohibits most forms of discrimination against gays. The bill, which was signed into law by the governor and enjoys broad although not overwhelming popular support, nevertheless has one major omission: It does not provide for gay marriage. Indeed, the state supreme court ruled a few weeks ago that gay marriage is not going to be happening in Washington anytime soon.
So now, with the new gay rights law in place but still no way for them to marry, many mated gays are seeking to achieve some of the
legal benefits of marriage—health insurance coverage, inheritance rights, etc., etc. And you might think that would be the end of the story, eh? Christian fundamentalists still get to have “marriage” all to themselves, while gay couples can pursue limited legal benefits under the law.
Except it’s
never the end of the story. Here’s the problem:
Gay couples are now a protected class, just like married couples (except gays have fewer protections). They enjoy special rights and privileges that other people do not—again, just like married couples (except gays have fewer rights and privileges). Therefore, some opportunistic
straight couples, who are mated but are not actually
married, are now suing their employers to achieve the same rights as gay couples. The Seattle Times
explains this “Whaaaaa?!” moment:
One of the first complaints under the state's new gay-rights law comes with a surprising twist: A former Honeywell employee is challenging employers' ability to provide domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples but not unmarried straight partners. […]
Employers who exclude opposite-sex partners from their benefit plans usually justify their action by pointing out that straight couples, unlike gays, have the option of marriage.
My first response was to roll my eyes: Christian fundamentalists will do
anything to defend their title as
Greatest Shitheads in the USA. However, a major corporation helped me to change my mind: You see, Starbucks already offers benefits to
all couples—gay or straight. And Starbucks is a corporation I respect, so their opinion is always one that I make it a point to consider.
The result is that now I’m not sure whether this is a good idea or not. On one hand, I do see the wisdom of providing benefits to all unmarried couples rather than just gay couples. Such a policy helps reduce the importance of marriage, an institution I’d like to see overhauled or maybe even destroyed. But on the right hand, giving benefits to all unmarried couples rather than just gay couples is bound to be devastatingly expensive to many companies. How much of the total workforce is mated but not married? The costs would be unbelievable. Starbucks has shown that it isn’t impossible, but I’ll bet many companies would have a hard time absorbing such a massive expense.
What do you think, and why?
Poll