[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S733-S737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 1636. A bill to provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal 
employees; to the Committee on Finance.


     the domestic partnership benefits and obligations act of 1998

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last October, Congressman Barney Frank 
broke new ground when he introduced HR2761, the Domestic Partnership 
Benefits and Obligations Act of 1997. I am here today to break ground 
in the Senate by introducing the Domestic Partnership Benefits and 
Obligations Act of 1998. This bill does not introduce new benefits; it 
simply extends existing benefits to a previously uncovered group of 
employees for very little cost.

  Mr. President, let me take a moment to outline my bill. This bill 
provides benefits for same-sex domestic partners of civilian, federal 
employees. Partners must be living together, in a committed, intimate 
relationship, and responsible for each other's welfare and financial 
obligations. It provides access to five categories of benefits in the 
same way that married spouses have access: participation in retirement 
programs, life insurance, health insurance, compensation for work 
injuries, and upon the death of a government employee, the domestic 
partner would be deemed a spouse for the purpose of receiving benefits.
  This is a bill about justice, about fairness, about equity in the 
workplace. This bill is about saying to our gay and lesbian employees, 
``We value your contribution to the workplace, and to show you we value 
you, we're going to protect your families, like we protect the families 
of married employees, by providing them with benefits.'' It is about 
providing the opportunity for same-sex domestic partners to provide 
their partners--who previously have been denied--access to such 
benefits as health insurance.
  For many people in this country, insurance benefits for their loved 
ones are automatic, they are expected, they are the norm. But benefits 
didn't start out that way. In fact, they are a relatively modern 
invention. Benefits in the form of compensation were created in the 
1940's, essentially to increase compensation for some employees who 
were prohibited by law from getting pay increases. So instead of more 
pay, employers paid for certain products and services such as health 
insurance to take care of their employees and to make their businesses 
more attractive to potential employees. For gay men and lesbians, most 
of these benefits are completely inaccessible.
  But where is it written in stone that only married spouses and their 
children deserve benefits? Yes, many employers have chosen to limit 
benefits to married spouses and their children, but more and more, 
governments, universities, and private businesses have been making a 
different choice. Business and organizations like the San Francisco 
49ers, Reader's Digest, Starbucks, Coors, Ben and Jerry's, Kodak, 
Disney, the Union Theological Seminary, the Episcopal Diocese of 
Newark, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers #18, 
Mattel, the Vermont Girl Scout Council, and more than 50 Fortune 500 
companies have made the right choice to offer domestic partnership 
benefits. A more fair and equitable choice. A more humane choice.
  I am disappointed that domestic partnership benefits have already 
been offered in some cities and by some businesses since 1982 but here 
we are in 1998 and we're just now talking about them here in the 
Senate. Today there are at least 42 cities and municipalities, 12 
counties, 1 state, and 342 private sector for-profit and not-for profit 
businesses and unions which offer domestic partner benefits. The good 
news, though, is that we have more than 15 years worth of employers' 
experiences with providing these benefits.
  By virtue of our vote on DOMA, we have said that same-sex couples 
cannot marry. But that doesn't mean that people in long-term, loving, 
and committed relationships don't deserve to have the opportunity to 
provide their loved ones with health insurance, survivor benefits, and 
other benefits. Domestic partnership legislation levels the playing 
field for same-sex partners who are not allowed to marry. This bill is 
aimed at correcting that inequity. Here is the story of how not having 
domestic partnership benefits effected one couple's lives:

       Anonymous: My partner and I have been together for almost 
     six. About a year ago, he had to leave work due to a serious 
     heart condition. Since my employer doesn't include domestic 
     partnership benefits, we had to pay all of his expenses out 
     of pocket. For quite some time I had to support him from my 
     salary, or else he would have ended up on welfare. We are 
     still scrimping and saving to try and pay off the health care 
     expenses that should have been covered by my insurance (if we 
     had dp benefits). Almost all of my heterosexual friends have 
     been ``married'' less time than my partner and I and received 
     benefits immediately after the marriage. Their relationships 
     seem no more permanent than my own. When my partner and I 
     have been together for fifty years, we will still not have 
     insurance for him through my employer.

  Not only are domestic partnership benefits fair and just, they cost 
very little. Employers have found that upon implementing domestic 
partnership benefits, one percent of all employees--at most--actually 
sign up their same-sex partners for benefits. And more often, it is 
less than one percent. Even taking the most liberal figures, there is 
no legitimate reason to argue that more than 1% of our almost 300,000 
federal civilian employees will enroll. And even though this is a 
relatively small number of employees--at most 30,000--let me tell you, 
these benefits are of critical importance to those who do.

  For example, Marieta Louise Luna is a graduate student studying in 
the Divinity School at Duke University. She says,

       I just returned home from the hospital on Thursday night 
     from having a knee replacement made possible largely because 
     of the fact that Kathryn is a Duke employee and I have 
     domestic partner benefits.
       Guaranteed, I could not have had the surgery if I had not 
     had domestic partner benefits. For me, it was the literal 
     difference between walking and being handicapped for the next 
     several years.

  And at a cost of less than 1% of the total benefits budget--or less--
it is truly worth making this investment.
  Some might be afraid that domestic partnership policies could open 
the door to fraud with people signing up their friends in order to get 
health insurance.
  Most employers never ask for verification of a heterosexual marriage. 
I have never been asked to provide a marriage certificate to prove I'm 
married, and I doubt that many of you have either.
  But my bill has stringent requirements for qualifying as domestic 
partners. Among other requirements, partners must sign an affidavit 
certifying that they share responsibility for a significant measure of 
each other's common welfare and financial obligations. And they must 
show documentation to prove it--such as copies of a mortgage or lease 
with both names on it, copies of bank statements showing joint checking 
or savings accounts, copies of durable powers of attorney for property 
and health, or copies of wills specifying each other as the major 
recipients of each other's financial assets.
  In addition, my bill specifies serious consequences for fraud, 
including the possibility of disciplinary action, termination of 
employment, and repayment of any insurance benefits received.
  Finally, there are criminal statutes that provide that making false 
statements and defrauding the government are crimes which can result in 
a fine and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.
  The bottom line is that this bill creates serious consequences for 
fraud, establishes that every effort will be made to minimize fraud by 
those falsely claiming to be domestic and specifies that those caught 
will be seriously punished.
  Let me tell you one more story:

       Anonymous from Minnesota: I have had the same health care 
     benefits package for nearly 16 years. I began family coverage 
     when I married in 1978. Our two children were added when they 
     were born. My ex-husband remained on my insurance policy 
     after we divorced--at no additional cost--even though we were 
     not legally married.
       I am now in a committed lesbian relationship. My partner 
     had been teaching part-time in a private school for two years 
     before she became eligible for health insurance through her 
     employer. Two weeks before her insurance was to take effect 
     she was stricken with severe abdominal pain. Though we 
     considered ``toughing it out'' until her insurance kicked in, 
     it became increasingly clear that

[[Page S734]]

     she needed to be treated immediately. She had a large, 
     twisted ovarian tumor removed. By the time of the surgery, 
     her insurance was in place. We breathed a sigh of relief.
       Months later we learned that because her pain started (and 
     was briefly treated) before her insurance began, the claim 
     for coverage for the surgery and hospital stay were 
     disallowed because there was a pre-existing condition 
     exclusion in her insurance policy. We are now faced with over 
     $5,500 (plus 12% interest per year) in medical bills. This 
     may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but it 
     certainly is to us. And it's money that wouldn't have had to 
     be spent at all if she had been on my family coverage all 
     along.
       So why is it that my ex-husband (no legal relation) was 
     entitled to continue receiving benefits until he married, but 
     my life partner has had to go without medical insurance? The 
     answer is simple--discrimination.

  This is a bill about fairness. This is about equity in the workplace. 
This is about protecting employees' loved ones. It's the right thing to 
do.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Additional Stories Regarding Domestic Partnership Benefits

       Wendy I. Horowitz: My partner was ill for almost a year. I 
     worked for a large conservative company that never considered 
     implementing domestic partner benefits. After seeing one of 
     my co-workers get married and have instant coverage for her 
     husband (after they had been married for a day), I decided to 
     apply for benefits for my partner. They were denied. Her 
     illnesses were related to her tonsils, and the doctors 
     suggested that she have them removed. I had to come up with 
     the money to pay for this surgery (over $4,000 by the end of 
     it all), which put a great financial burden on us and on our 
     relationship.
       Jim and Hal: As an employee of the State of Maryland 
     (through my graduate assistantship), I receive comprehensive 
     health benefits. Although I could share my benefits with a 
     married spouse, I am not able to do a thing for my partner 
     Hal. Hal is another ``starving student''; he is in a doctoral 
     program at American University. Unfortunately, American does 
     not offer full health coverage to its graduate assistants, so 
     Hal is having to make do with emergency health coverage. This 
     has adversely affected us in two ways. First, we have to 
     cover Hals' regular health maintenance (e.g., dental 
     checkups) which is a strain on our already stretched budget. 
     Second and more importantly, Hal has a heart problem for 
     which regular appointments with a cardiologist are 
     recommended. We are not in a position to pay specialist fees 
     out-of-pocket; thus, we are unhappily have to settle for 
     doctors at American University's health center.
       U Minnesota: R and S are their late 30's, and they have 
     been in a committed relationship for 20 years. S is self-
     employed as a psychotherapist and is registered with the 
     University as R's domestic partner.
       Four years ago, R gave birth to the couple's first child L. 
     R was able to put L on her health insurance policy as a 
     dependent. The couple incurred no additional cost or 
     additional deductibles for L's birth or subsequent medical 
     treatment.
       Three years later, S gave birth to the couple's second 
     child M. Because the University only recognizes formal 
     adoption (not guardianship) for direct dependent coverage, M 
     is only listed as S's child and not R's child. Since the 
     University's domestic partnership plan only provides medical 
     premium reimbursement for partners and their dependents, R 
     and S incurred significantly higher costs for M's birth than 
     for L's birth.
       Specifically, the couple pays out $526 every 3 months for S 
     and M's insurance policies which each have a $500 deductible 
     (the University plan has no deductible and low copays for 
     dependent care). Reimbursement from the University for this 
     cost takes additional 3 months after the couple pays. Due to 
     IRS regulations, which do not recognize the partners as a 
     couple, the University's reimbursement to the employee is 
     taxed. The end result of all the complications of this system 
     for the couple is that they have $1,500 in outstanding debt 
     for unreimbursed health premiums. In addition, they were 
     charged $1,000 in deductibles plus higher copays for M's 
     birth. They have had to take out a loan to cover these 
     health care related expenses.
       Becky Liddle: I am a tenured associate professor. My 
     domestic partner quit her job and moved here to Alabama in 
     June of '97, as the ``trailing spouse'' in a dual career 
     couple. We thought she would find work very quickly. But due 
     in part to sexual orientation discrimination in hiring, she 
     has been unable to find professional work and health 
     benefits. She is working full-time for Kelly Services, which 
     does not include health benefits. We brought her a 4-month 
     hospitalization policy before she quit her job, assuming that 
     would be more than enough time--it wasn't. She has no health 
     insurance. We have looked at policies she could buy herself, 
     but they are extremely expensive, and cover very little. My 
     university will not allow me to put my domestic partner on 
     our insurance (in fact, Blue Cross of Alabama explicitly 
     states in its policy that ``spouse'' is limited to someone of 
     the opposite sex). Consequently, every time she gets sick it 
     is a crisis, and we make potentially life-threatening choices 
     about whether she should go to the doctor. For example, she 
     got pneumonia a few weeks ago. This is, she had all the 
     symptoms of pneumonia, according to our Time/Life ``medical 
     advisor--complete guide to alternative & conventional 
     treatments'' book, which has become her primary care 
     ``physician''. The book said if it was viral she should just 
     go to bed, but if it was bacterial it could be life 
     threatening. It appeared from her symptoms to be viral, so we 
     did not spend the money to go to a doctor. This time we were 
     right. She recovered fine in about a week. Of course, if we'd 
     been wrong, she could be dead. I think we make good decisions 
     about how to spend our limited health-care dollars. But I 
     ought to be able to put her on my insurance.
       Eva Young: I live with my partner of 10 years in 
     Minneapolis. I have benefits through my work place. Even 
     though the University of Minnesota offers ``domestic 
     partnership'' benefits, these don't work for us. To be able 
     to get pretax benefits (analogous to what a married couple 
     get), we would have to declare my partner a dependant. This 
     is degrading to my partner. Although I currently have a 
     better job than she does (it pays better and is permanent), 
     it doesn't mean we should have to declare her a dependant 
     (with all the negative connotations that has) in order to get 
     the benefits we are both entitled to. To add insult to 
     injury, I am taxed at the single rate, even though I am 
     primary breadwinner for a family of 4. I consider this an 
     equal pay for equal work issue. Why should I get paid less 
     than my married coworker, just because I am not legally 
     married?
       Not having the same benefits that a heterosexual married 
     couple keeps my family in poverty. My family would not be in 
     poverty if we had the same rights as married couples do. It's 
     that simple. This isn't something that is just for the gay 
     couple--it also will affect a lot of children. Actually, 
     domestic partnership will do little for the dual career gay 
     couple, where both individual are in good jobs--it's going to 
     make a difference for gay couples who have families, or have 
     one partner who is uninsured. Allowing gay couples to insure 
     their partner and partner's children through their workplace 
     insurance could also help some individuals get off 
     government assistance.
       Kirk A. Nass: My domestic partner and I have been together 
     nearly 14 years. My partner, Michael E. Gillespie, was an 
     attorney in Seattle when we met, now he is self-employed and 
     runs a business in Oakland which provides physicians as 
     expert witnesses to lawyers and insurance companies for 
     plaintiff work. Michael's past employers never provided good 
     medical coverage, if they provided it at all. In 1989 I 
     finished graduate school and started a job with Chevron. 
     Michael quit his job to move with me to the San Francisco Bay 
     Area. Chevron provides excellent health coverage to its 
     employees, but I was unable to cover him because domestic 
     partners were not eligible for coverage at the time. The 
     prospect of him having a major medical event and us not being 
     able to pay for it bothered me for years.
       After starting his own business five years ago, he joined 
     an HMO (Kaiser Permanente, No. Calif.) under an individual 
     plan. In 1995 he was diagnosed with Type II diabetes; in 1996 
     he suffered a heart attack and underwent an angioplasty to 
     open the blocked artery. Because of his HMO coverage, all of 
     his diabetes care, his stay in intensive care, and the 
     angioplasty were covered. He's now in excellent health. If 
     his business failed--even if he still worked for some of his 
     past employers--we would not have had the financial resources 
     to pay for his cardiac care.
       On Jan. 1, 1998, Chevron began extending medical and dental 
     coverage (and some other benefits) to the same and opposite 
     sex domestic partners of employees and the partners' eligible 
     children. The coverage Chevron provides for Michael through 
     Kaiser is even better than what he was paying for himself at 
     Kaiser. It's the first time since we've been together he's 
     had full coverage and the first time I haven't had to worry.
       Having domestic partners benefits such as medical coverage 
     is important to us because it makes me sure that the most 
     important person in my life can be taken care of when he 
     needs to be. The experiences we've gone through together, 
     although they've led to successful conclusions, have shown 
     too often that ``what-if'' scenarios can be all too real.
       Dan Ross: My partner of 5 years has cerebral palsy (a 
     congenital condition; in his case, it creates overly-tight 
     muscle tone). After orthopedic surgery to correct some 
     aspects of his gait, he had to make significant changes to 
     his walk, and work on daily stretches, most of which require 
     assistance. He is (and was) able to walk on his own, although 
     now does so with a cane. He travels quite a bit for his job 
     and works long hours, so it is difficult for us to work on 
     this on a regular schedule. He can't take a leave of absence 
     form his job, or even temporarily resign, to work on physical 
     therapy full-time, because he absolutely needs his health 
     insurance and he is afraid of jeopardizing that. (Some 
     insurance plans even make cerebral palsy a ``pre-existing 
     condition''.) My health insurance won't cover him, of course, 
     and until recently, I wouldn't have been able to take sick 
     leave to stay with him in the hospital and at home. He was 
     bedridden for a total of two weeks after the surgery. As it 
     was, I hurried back and forth between work and home, because 
     I had just begun a new job, and didn't want to make a bad 
     impression there; but he had scheduled the surgery for around 
     Christmas, so there were many

[[Page S735]]

     people off on vacation time during that period. The issue 
     of domestic partnership benefits--whether equity in 
     providing health insurance, or even just uniform treatment 
     in granting sick/caregiving and bereavement leave--is 
     important to us as a result.
       Pam Herman-Milmoe: I am a federal employee and Sara has 
     just finished her Masters Degree in Clinical Psychology. 
     While she was in school she had access to limited benefits, 
     but now that she is job hunting she is completely uninsured. 
     She is working in a paid internship position that is 
     providing great experience and a real service to the 
     community, but no benefits. As she moves on in her career she 
     would like to establish her own practice, but if she does 
     she'll have to pay for her own benefits without any support. 
     The practice of denying benefits to domestic partners puts us 
     at a severe economic disadvantage compared with my coworkers. 
     They can use the money their spouses save on benefits for 
     investments and other purposes. Sara and I plan on having 
     children, who will be covered by my benefits, but money that 
     would support their education and upbringing will have to go 
     to pay for benefits for Sara.
       Steve Crutchfield: A year ago, my partner of 22 years was 
     fired from his job. When he lost his job, he lost his health 
     insurance benefits. He was able to maintain benefit through a 
     COBRA plan, but it cost us an additional $150 per month to 
     maintain his health benefits. Now that his COBRA benefits are 
     expiring, he has to buy individual medical insurance at a 
     cost of over $300 month.
       If we had a domestic partner benefits law in place, I could 
     have put him under my insurance benefits as the spouse of a 
     Federal Government Worker. However, since our relationship is 
     not recognized as a marriage, I am unable to enjoy the 
     medical insurance benefits accorded to my colleagues who are 
     in traditional marriages.
       David Perkins: My partner of fifteen years came with me to 
     Champaign-Urbana, Illinois in order that I might take a job. 
     We have been here over three years and he has not been able 
     to find anything other than part-time work that offers no 
     benefits. Because the state or the University does not extend 
     benefits to same-sex partners, he is without any health 
     benefits whatsoever--and as he will soon turn forty-five 
     years old, health insurance is too expensive for us to pay 
     out-of-pocket. If anything, should happen to him--it will 
     either completely wipe me out financially, or he will be 
     thrown on the mercy of the taxpayers as an indigent case. Not 
     a dramatic story, true--but a fear we live with daily.
       Anonymous: My partner and I have 3 children ages 15, 13 and 
     3. I gave birth to the first 2 before getting together with 
     her. The youngest one we had together. Shortly after the 
     arrival of our youngest, the opportunity arrived that I could 
     stay home and care for her instead of putting her in day 
     care. But in quitting my job I also had to give up my health 
     care benefits. My partner's company does not offer domestic 
     benefits so I am not covered for my asthma medication that 
     I need to breath. I also am a high risk for breast cancer 
     due to family history (mother, grandmother and 3 sisters) 
     but I agreed to stay home for the benefit of all our 
     children.
       Anon: My (same-sex) partner moved in with me in 
     Pennsylvania two years ago. She had been self-employed (a 
     clinical psychologist with a private practice) in CO. We are/
     have been in a long-term committed relationship for three 
     years. She had been paying her own health insurance, but 
     since she gave up her income to move here, she had no way of 
     continuing to pay it. My employer (a college) has a 
     subsidized health insurance benefit for married couples only; 
     if we had been married, the additional coverage would have 
     cost $60. Instead, I had to pay $175 monthly so that she 
     would have less adequate health insurance than I have. Since 
     she needed surgery within months of moving here, with a long 
     recovery period, she also could not earn money to help with 
     expenses. We had to spend money on a lawyer to get documents 
     assuring the hospital that I (an ``unrelated'' person) could 
     make decisions for her were she to be incapacitated, etc. 
     Furthermore, she could not avail herself of the physical 
     recreational facilities at the college since she was not a 
     bona fide spouse. I had to pay a membership fee for her to 
     join a ``Y'' so she could use the physical exercise equipment 
     she needed to recover from her surgery. All in all, not 
     having our partnership recognized has cost me a bundle.
       Mindy Kurzer: My partner Linda and I have been in a 
     committed relationship for 7 years and have a 2 year old 
     daughter named Della. I was very pleased when the University 
     of Minnesota instituted a domestic partner policy about 3 
     years ago. This policy has helped our family, because Linda 
     is self-employed and previously carried only catastrophic 
     coverage with lots of exclusions for pre-existing conditions. 
     Since the U of M started this policy, we have been able to 
     purchase a very comprehensive medical policy for her. This 
     has turned out to be extremely important, because she was in 
     a car accident 2 years ago, and sustained serious injuries 
     for which she underwent two surgeries and still requires 
     medical treatment. With her current health insurance, we have 
     been able to get her excellent care--without it, I doubt we 
     would have been able to do so.
       Domestic partner benefits are important to our community, 
     but I think they are also important to the broader society. I 
     have had numerous opportunities to leave the University of 
     Minnesota and have chosen to stay here in part because the 
     University has shown a commitment to reducing discrimination. 
     As more and more businesses and Universities institute 
     domestic partner benefits, institutions that do not 
     (including the government) may be disadvantaged when it comes 
     to getting and retaining top-notch employees.
       Sibley Bacon: I work for Peoplesoft, Inc. who provides 
     domestic partner benefits to same sex couples. My partner, 
     and I have been together for 4 years * * * she is self-
     employed, so we opted to have her covered through Peoplesoft. 
     This year she developed a 5.5 cm dermoid tumor on one of her 
     ovaries which was causing her a great deal of pain on a 
     daily basis. Our health insurance paid for the surgery and 
     follow up visits. This would have cost us thousands of 
     dollars had we not had the coverage through Peoplesoft. 
     Additionally she's been able to see a physical therapist 
     to address some old gymnastics injuries. Needless to say, 
     I am eternally grateful that my company provides these 
     benefits to its gay and lesbian employees. Domestic 
     partner coverage will certainly be a deciding factor in 
     the future if I ever end up looking for a job outside of 
     Peoplesoft.
       Toni A.H. McNaron: My partner, and I have been in a 
     committed relationship for almost 20 years (our anniversary 
     is in June). We own a large home in south Mpls., pay lots of 
     property taxes, earn well over $100,000 a year, and are the 
     first people in our neighborhood to shovel our walks in 
     winter.
       One of our very nice heterosexual neighbors just married 
     his girlfriend and sometimes doesn't shovel until the next 
     day.
       The moment he and she signed the marriage license, she had 
     his full health coverage and retirement plan benefits from 
     his quite successful legal coverage and retirement plan 
     benefits from his quite successful legal practice. My partner 
     has never had a PENNY of coverage during the 34 years I've 
     worked as a professor at the University of Minnesota. And, 
     even more unfair, if I were killed by a drunk on the freeway 
     on the way home tonight, she would not even get a condolence 
     letter from the University. Instead she would get a check for 
     the ENTIRE amount of my retirement--considerable after 34 
     years. Furthermore, she would have to pay the federal 
     government approximately $90,000 at tax time because of her 
     ``windfall.'' (How amazing to consider it a windfall to have 
     your beloved partner of 20 years killed.)
       My neighbor's wife would get a condolence letter from his 
     firm explaining to her her options for collecting his 
     retirement funds. She is smart and would choose to have them 
     delayed until she is older and then to have them parceled out 
     over time so that she would pay next to no taxes on them.
       Nancy: I am in Texas on internship. Rose, my partner, is 
     back home in Minnesota. Rose has fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue 
     syndrome and a number of other health problems. She is in the 
     process of leaving her job and applying for disability. 
     Partly because of her health problems, we would like to 
     relocate permanently to Texas. However, it will take several 
     months for her disability claim to be processed so she can 
     get on Medicare. She can continue her insurance coverage 
     under COBRA, but that would only be good in Minnesota, since 
     her coverage is with a local HMO. I can't put her on my 
     insurance due to lack of domestic partner benefits. So we're 
     faced with a number of unattractive options: (1) I could look 
     for a job in Minnesota, even though both of us would rather 
     move south and that move would be good for Rose's health. (2) 
     She could move here and be without insurance coverage for her 
     multiple health problems until she is approved for 
     disability. (3) We could prolong our geographic separation 
     and have the expense of maintaining separate households 
     until she gets on disability, which can be a very long 
     process. I think this is typical of the difficult choices 
     gay and lesbian couples are forced to make without 
     domestic partner benefits.
       Julie Ford: My name is Julie Ford, I am the Director of 
     News and Public Affairs for a television station in Sarasota, 
     Florida. My partner is Vicky Oslance, who is a surgical 
     technician by trade but who has chosen to work per diem 
     instead of full time in order to maintain our household since 
     my full time job is very demanding and time consuming. 
     Working per diem, she of course has given up health benefits. 
     This is an added expense for us, one that the other married 
     department heads at my workplace do not have to deal with. I 
     an my partner have been together nearly 9 years . . . longer 
     than most of the married people I work with. We maintain a 
     joint checking account, stock portfolio, and own property 
     together. It is totally unfair for me to have to pay an 
     outrageous amount to insure Vicky's health when other married 
     people at my workplace can get inexpensive company health 
     insurance for their spouses.
       Susan Hagstrom. When I was hired by UC Berkeley five year 
     ago, I was struck by the lack of equal compensation for equal 
     work. What I did not know then was how close to home this 
     inequality would hit.
       I recall vividly the day Debra, my partner of seven years, 
     suffered an excruciating ruptured disk. I cried as I watched 
     her in so much pain that she could not stand, sit, or work 
     and had to literally crawl to the bathroom. I cried when she 
     refused to get an MRI because we couldn't afford the $1000 
     procedure or the expensive doctor visits. I cannot fully 
     describe to you how difficult this lack of benefits has been 
     for me and for Debra.

[[Page S736]]

       Lori Stone: Until recently, my partner had a job that 
     provided a much inferior benefit plan to my own. Because the 
     deductible on her plan was so high, she would often elect not 
     to get treated for illness, preferring just to ``ride it 
     out.'' Of course this was a risky way to go, and it back-
     fired on us, when she came down with kidney stones, and was 
     eventually hospitalized. The physical trauma plus the debts 
     we have incurred, because I was unable to cover my partner's 
     expenses, have been difficult to surmount.
       I currently work for an organization that has excellent 
     medical benefits but no provision for me to be able to cover 
     my partner's medical expenses. If I had been able to cover my 
     partner under my plan, I believe we wouldn't be in the 
     unfortunate financial situation that we are today.
       Thanks so much for taking this bold move. I pray for the 
     day when I won't feel so disenfranchised in my own country.


            DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS--VIGNETTES--CLV/GLCAC

                              [First case]

       Bill and his partner Joseph have been living together in a 
     committed relationship for 8 years. Bill worked as an 
     attorney for a large Minneapolis firm for 12 years before he 
     was diagnosed with MS and had to leave his job within a year 
     from diagnosis. Joseph works as a maintenance engineer for 
     the State of Minnesota. Bill's income was two times Joseph's 
     current income when he was able to work. The benefits Bill 
     received on the firm's short term disability plan have 
     expired, and no long term disability plan was in place. Bill 
     requires 24 hour care, but is not yet eligible for inpatient 
     nursing care.
       Bill's doctor visits and medications are covered by Medical 
     Assistance. Medical Assistance will not, however, pay for the 
     cost of Bill's in-home care attendants. Bill's doctors have 
     recommended 24 hour care. Joseph must continue to work to pay 
     household expenses. The loss of Bill's income and medical and 
     care expenses have forced the men to sell their home and trim 
     many other expenses. The insurance plan offered by Joseph's 
     employer would cover the cost of in-home care for the spouse 
     or dependent of the employee. The State of Minnesota does 
     not, however, offer health care benefits for unmarried 
     partners of its employees. At the rate Joseph is spending 
     money to pay for Bill's care, it is likely that he will have 
     to leave his job at the State, collect public assistance and 
     care for Bill himself.

                             [Second case]

       Debra and Sara have been living together in a committed 
     relationship for five years. They own a home together and 
     have made other major purchases together. Debra and Sara had 
     a child (Michael) 2 years ago. Sara gave birth to the child. 
     Debra's employer offers health and life insurance benefits to 
     domestic partners, and children of domestic partners are 
     considered dependents of the employee for purposes of 
     insurance coverage. Sara is self employed. Michael, Sara and 
     Debra are all covered by insurance as a family through 
     Debra's employer's plan. Six months ago Debra was recruited 
     by a competing business because of her unique skill and 
     experience, and was offered a job. The job would be a step up 
     for Debra in the advancement of her career. The pay is about 
     the same, but the prospective employer does not offer health 
     and life benefits to unmarried partners and would not cover 
     Michael as a dependent of Debra's. For these reasons, Debra 
     decides to decline the offer of employment and delays career 
     advancement as a result. The competing business misses out on 
     Debra's unique skill and experience.

                              [Third case]

       Joe is a student at a private college. His partner Jim 
     works for a mid-size accounting firm. Jim's employer does not 
     offer benefits to unmarried partners/dependents of its 
     employees. Jim and Joe can't afford to pay the $160.00 per 
     month for Joe's health insurance, and since Joe is only 38 
     years old, they hope the risk of health problems is low, and 
     decide that he will have to go without coverage. Within a 
     year, Joe is diagnosed with Crohn's disease and requires 
     surgery, treatment and ongoing medications that are very 
     expensive. Joe quits school under the financial pressure to 
     look for a job that offers health benefits. Joe gets a job 
     quickly and applies for health coverage, but the insurer will 
     not cover any costs associated with Joe's pre-existing 
     condition of Crohn's disease.


              personal statements--university of minnesota

       Selected personal statements of gay and lesbian University 
     employees on the impact of not having equal benefits.
       1. The University should honor its nondiscrimination policy 
     statement by eliminating all polices that discriminate on the 
     basis of sexual orientation. The University should recognize 
     domestic partnership couples as they do married couples. I 
     simply want for my family what a married employee can count 
     on for his/her family. If, as an employee they receive a 
     benefit, so should I. The solution is to provide similar 
     benefits to domestic partnership couples or remove the 
     benefits from married couples. As employees of the University 
     we should have the same treatment. Gays and lesbians employed 
     by the University have been systematically excluded from 
     benefits that have been provided to their heterosexual 
     colleagues with whom they work side by side, sometimes 
     performing exactly the same work. That is very wrong and 
     needs to be corrected!
       On a personal level, for the 25 years I have been employed 
     at the University I have been denied the full employment 
     status and benefits provided to my heterosexual colleagues. 
     This has cost me dearly financially, and has sent me the 
     message that who I love is not valued. This treatment tells 
     me that my family concerns are not important to the 
     University. Although I am also an employee of the University 
     I am not provided with the same health care security for my 
     family as are my married colleagues.
       Finally, as I approach retirement, I am outraged to find 
     out that my partner can not defer taxes upon receiving my 
     retirement money in the case of my death as a married spouse 
     is able to do. This amounts to a huge financial loss for my 
     partner and other gay and lesbian employees and their 
     partners. Imagine your spouse having to pay 28% of $250,000 
     ($70,000) or 31% of $300,000 ($93,000) right off the top, 
     thus diminishing the amount received by our partners to 
     $180,000 and $207,000 respectfully. This is a concrete 
     example for two of us currently long time employees of the 
     University and who are also in long term domestic partnership 
     relationships. In addition, both couples have registered 
     under the city of Minneapolis domestic partner ordinance.
       I am angry, disappointed and frustrated that the Board of 
     Regents, President Hasselmo and the administrative leadership 
     of the University have not taken action to enforce the 
     University's nondiscrimination policy. The University should 
     be playing a leadership role in righting this wrong, first, 
     for its employees and then in initiating changes for the 
     state of Minnesota and in urging Federal tax law changes.
       2. When my partner's mother unexpectedly committed suicide 
     five years ago, I was scheduled to leave that morning for an 
     out-of-state business trip. I'll never forget my struggle 
     over how I would approach my supervisor to request permission 
     to either cancel the trip or to send someone in my place. I 
     was up for a promotion and I was afraid that to acknowledge 
     my sexual preference to this person, who I knew held 
     fundamental religious values, would compromise my work and my 
     livelihood.
       I ultimately equivocated and asked if I could send someone 
     else on the trip, because my ``housemate--slash(/)--best 
     friend needed my support. As you might guess, this didn't 
     sound sufficiently persuasive and I left on the trip 
     (shortened by two days) with the ``blessing'' of my partner, 
     who, of course, was in shock. I succumbed to fear and in 
     doing so compromised my own humanity and my bond with my 
     partner. It is still deeply painful for me to remember the 
     coerciveness of the situation, the fear and intimidation that 
     I experienced, and my own personal failing.
       It was one of the most demeaning and dehumanizing 
     experiences of my life. I ask those of you who are married to 
     imagine having to make such a choice: imagine having to ask 
     permission to be with your grieving partner. There are no 
     reparations the University can offer me to recast the past. I 
     would, however, like to think that the Board of Regents and 
     central administrators have the compassion and courage to act 
     now so that others will not be confronted with such a choice.
       3. The University is discriminating on the basis of sexual 
     orientation. My family doesn't receive the same benefits as 
     families of heterosexuals.
       I have had the Group Health Plan benefits package for 
     nearly sixteen years. I began family coverage when I married 
     (1978), adding my spouse at a nominal monthly fee to the 
     single coverage I already carried (which was paid in full by 
     the University). When my children were born (1983, 1986) the 
     cost of family coverage didn't change. In fact, the cost of 
     family coverage is constant no matter how many dependents you 
     have on the policy. I was amazed to learn that the cost of 
     family coverage (including coverage for my ex-husband) 
     remained the same even after getting a divorce. My ex-husband 
     remained on my insurance policy--at no additional cost--even 
     though we were not legally married.
       I am now in a committed lesbian relationship. My partner 
     and I have a relationship every bit as stable and committed 
     as a marriage, but we are not entitled to the same benefits I 
     enjoyed when I was married.
       My partner had been teaching part-time in a private school 
     for two years before she became eligible for health insurance 
     through her employer. Two weeks before her insurance was to 
     take effect she was stricken with severe abdominal pain. 
     Though we considered ``toughing it out until her insurance 
     kicked in, it became increasingly clear that she needed to be 
     treated immediately. She had a large, twisted ovarian tumor 
     removed in October, 1990. By the time of the surgery, her 
     insurance was in place. We breathed a sigh of relief.
       Months later we learned that because her pain started (and 
     was briefly treated) before her insurance began, the claim 
     for coverage for the surgery and hospital stay were 
     disallowed because there was a pre-existing condition 
     exclusion in her insurance policy. We are now faced with over 
     $5,000 (plus 12% interest per year) in medical bills. That 
     may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but it 
     certainly is to us. And it's money that wouldn't have had to 
     be spent at all if she had been on my family coverage all 
     along.
       So why is it that my ex-husband (no legal relation) was 
     entitled to continue receiving benefits until he married, but 
     my life partner has had to go without medical insurance? The 
     answer is simple--discrimination.
       4. One of my colleagues, a male who is heterosexual, 
     received his Ph.D. the same year I

[[Page S737]]

     did. We have taught the same number of years and were tenured 
     here the same year. However, he has received health benefits 
     for his wife and two children during this time. I believe 
     that would add up to several thousand dollars more that he 
     has received from this University than I have. My partner is 
     self employed part time and works at the University only to 
     receive benefits. I feel that I am discriminated against 
     based on my sexual preference and have suffered significant 
     financial loss by having to pay for health benefits for my 
     partner and our child.
       5. I feel discredited in all but the most professional 
     senses since my University will not acknowledge the 
     centrality of my relationship with my partner of 14 plus 
     years. This level of constant and costly discrimination makes 
     any positive responses to me from the institution bittersweet 
     at best and hypocritical at worst. My family life is erased 
     and made invisible by an institution of learning which tauts 
     acceptance of diversity and pursuit of truth. When I'm not 
     furious, I'm terribly sad.
       6. It is very demoralizing to see the incredible benefits 
     that my married colleagues (heterosexual) get and know that 
     it will be a fight to get the same. My partner is self-
     employed and health coverage is astronomical for self-
     employed people. In order to buy a plan similar to that at 
     the U, it would cost us $5-$7000 a year. Since it's so 
     costly, my partner does not have very good health coverage 
     and as a result I am very concerned about what would happen 
     if a serious health crisis occurs.
       So I am not just losing the $1500 or so the U would pay out 
     to cover her because of the lack of recognition, I will have 
     to pay $5-$7000 per year more than most of my colleagues. I 
     view this as if I received that much less salary per year. 
     How can the U have sexual orientation, gender and marital 
     status in the equal opportunity statement and not consider 
     this discrimination?
       I wrote a letter to Gus Donhower when I heard of the 
     proposed changes in health coverage. One option proposed was 
     that those people covered by their spouses' employment could 
     get the cash equivalent of coverage instead of being covered 
     by the U. I suggested that if that were done, then those of 
     us without spouses or dependents should certainly get the 
     cash equivalent of spousal/dependent coverage. It seems an 
     obvious parallel to me. He responded by saying it was an 
     interesting idea but there's no money for this added benefit. 
     Well, I think that's like saying it would be nice to pay 
     blacks or women what we pay men, but we just don't have the 
     money. One has no choice but to find the money. If there 
     really isn't enough then some benefits may need to be removed 
     from those who have them, in order to provide for those who 
     don't. Maybe people with more than two children need to pay 
     for their health insurance, or perhaps the cost for an 
     employee for spousal coverage needs to increase. The current 
     discrimination is so clear to me (of course I'm not a lawyer) 
     that I wonder if a lawsuit could successfully challenge the 
     University's non-compliance with its equal opportunity 
     statement.
       At this point, my commitment, dedication, willingness to 
     work hard under increasingly difficult pressure, is affected 
     by my feeling of not being seen, recognized, and treated 
     equally to my heterosexual colleagues. Right now, it's hard 
     not to feel taken advantage
     of . . . .
       7. My partner returned to school to pursue a second 
     advanced degree. She attends the University of Minnesota. At 
     the same time, one of my married colleagues' spouse returned 
     to school. Their health insurance profile did not change at 
     all. Ours changed dramatically. Because I cannot get health 
     insurance for my partner of 10 years (longer than my married 
     colleague), we have paid 2,500 per year in health insurance 
     and routine health care out of pocket. Over three years, the 
     tax on being a lesbian has been $7,500. I realize of course, 
     that the cost of my health insurance would have increased 
     during this period, so the net cost to us would have been 
     above my current health insurance but below $7,500. This 
     economic burden is a clear example of otherwise similarly 
     situated people being treated differently solely on the basis 
     of sexual orientation.
       Let me add that I do not think that the University should 
     require public registration of partnerships to receive 
     partnership benefits unless the state revokes the so-called 
     ``sodomy'' law. To ask for such registration imposes the 
     acknowledgement of legal risk as a cost for benefits. In 
     addition, if reduced tuition is available for other family 
     members, this benefit should be extended to gay and lesbian 
     families as well.
       8. The University considers me ``single''. As a ``single'' 
     person, I subsidize both married couples and individuals with 
     children. But as a domestic partner I should be able to enjoy 
     the same benefits as other ``married'' couples.
       Last summer my partner required minor surgery for skin 
     cancer. Because she was a substitute teacher, she had no 
     coverage. As a result we became responsible for the bills. 
     This created more financial and emotional distress for us 
     which I am certain impacted my own productivity.
       Another issue I have is that it seems the administration 
     wants us to provide documentation (e.g. registration, 
     affidavits, etc.) to prove we are indeed a couple. Does the 
     University require married couples to provide an affidavit or 
     their marriage license when applying for benefits?
       Furthermore, the domestic partnership applications become 
     public records. Given the history of the discriminatory 
     treatment meted out on gays and lesbians in ours and other 
     cultures, I would not want to be that public in my sexual 
     orientation, especially in a state without a human rights 
     amendment protecting us.
       9. How do I feel about the University's treatment of 
     domestic partners? Not positive! My partner and I each have 
     one dependent. We must each pay for family benefits which is 
     a huge commitment, especially since my partner is self-
     employed and self-insured. Many of us are on federal 
     benefits. If the University changes its policy we'll need 
     help so that we can move to University benefits.
       10. I feel that if the University is unable to provide 
     health benefits to unmarried partners they should also refuse 
     benefits to married partners and only cover under age 
     dependents. I consider the lack of these benefits to be an 
     unequal and discriminatory pay scale, with married employees 
     receiving higher compensation levels just because they are 
     married.
                                 ______