By SARAH LUTHENS
Guest Writer

Hopefully most Real Change readers already understand the great need for marriage equality for same-sex couples. Washington state grants over 400 rights through legal marriage that are unfairly denied to loving, committed gay and lesbian couples.

Marriage equality also advances the important principle of non-discrimination.

Current bills pending before the state legislature, Senate Bill 5335 and House Bill 1350, would end unfair discrimination in marriage laws.

As a lesbian activist who has helped to lead the struggle for marriage equality, however, I feel it is important to make clear that marriage equality is not enough.

Many loving and committed couples, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, will never get married no matter what. Their stable relationships, nevertheless, need default legal protections through domestic-partner legislation, especially for emergency medical decision-making, funeral arrangements, and other tragic circumstances.

Current domestic-partner bills (SB 5336 and HB 1351) are good steps in a progressive direction. If passed, some vulnerable populations would greatly benefit: same-sex and mixed-sex couples involving a partner who is at least 62 years old. The legal protections extended to these groups of people would be absolutely invaluable. Extremely important!

If these bills pass, however, who is left behind? What could be the unintended consequences?

The New York Times recently reported that 51 percent of women are living without a spouse, including 70 percent of Black women.

Consider Tanisha, a middle-aged bisexual women who has lived many years in a committed, loving, and unmarried partnership with 50-year-old Alfonso.

Should they be ineligible to make decisions for each other regarding emergency medical procedures or funeral arrangements if they face an unexpected tragedy before either of them reaches age 62?

Some people would argue that Tanisha and Alfonso should get married if they want legal rights for their relationship. Yet many women have experienced that a marriage license seemed to give their spouses psychological license to inflict domestic violence. Maybe that’s why Tanisha doesn’t want to get married. Or maybe Alfonso’s parents had a very difficult marriage, and he does not want to risk the chance of repeating that cycle.

Who is to judge whether or not these are “good” reasons not to get married?

The real needs of diverse unmarried families are best addressed through comprehensive domestic-partner legislation honoring non-discrimination.

Early studies at the city of Seattle showed that 80 percent of employees who used the city’s seven-year-old domestic-partner health benefits were actually in unmarried mixed-sex relationships.

I believe that no one should be forced into marriage in order to access critically important legal rights regarding their intimate partner.

Arbitrary distinctions on the basis of gender — distinctions the domestic-partner bills maintain — create confusing situations, if not outright injustices, for transsexual people. Consider the situation of Mark and Sophie. Mark is a female-to-male man who has been living for 10 years with Sophie, a genetic woman. They are both about 39 years old, raising a young child. Can they legally wed? Would they be eligible for domestic partner benefits under the proposed legislation?

Also consider the scenario of Massachusetts, where many domestic partner programs were limited to same-sex couples. There, when marriage equality became law, many large non-union employers who had offered domestic partner benefits only to employees in same-sex relationships then rescinded the benefits.

We need to lay the groundwork now so that domestic-partner benefits and eligibility will not be taken away when our state finally achieves marriage equality for same-sex couples. The best way of doing so, I think, is to expand such programs to fully include couples without discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or age.

Fortunately, many employers in Washington state currently do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or adult age in their employee domestic partner policies, including 20 cities (e.g., Anacortes, Pullman, Burien, Seattle, and Des Moines).

Major employers offer domestic-partner benefits regardless of sexual orientation, like Starbucks, Safeco, and Weyerhauser, as do some union-trust funds including SEIU janitors, IATSE stagehands, and some IAM machinists.

Let’s learn the lessons from France and Massachusetts, as well as many Washington state cities, employers, and union trust funds.

Let’s support imperfect interim measures, like SB 5336, SB 5069, and HB 1351.

Just as importantly, let’s also encourage Equal Rights Washington, the five openly gay state legislators, and others to work for improved public policies in upcoming years that address the needs of other diverse, unmarried couples through inclusive domestic-partner eligibility. n

Sarah Luthens serves on the Real Change advisory board. She is an organizer, attorney, and mediator who has worked for various LGBT organizations and labor unions. She is also active in the statewide coalition on marriage equality. Her contact information is (206) 328-4037, equalbenefits@yahoo.com.

[Take Action]

Contact your state legislators to encourage their support for marriage equality (SB 5335, HB 1350) and domestic- partner benefits (SB 5336, SB 5069, SB 5659, HB 1351, and HB 1658). The legislative hotline is 1(800)562-6000.

Contact Equal Rights Washington (info@equalrightswashington.org) with a message that urges them to push for more inclusive domestic-partner legislation next year that honors the principle of non-discrimination.