WeHo Bridges The Discrimination Gap
West Hollywood, CA, is registering gay partners so they can collect health benefits, among other things, writes Richard Fausset in the LA Times:
When Aimee Wilson asked about adding her gay partner to her corporate health insurance plan earlier this year, her employer told her it would be easy. All she had to do was get a government body to sanction the relationship.But for Wilson, a resident of Frisco, Texas, that was going to require some fancy bureaucratic two-stepping, because the Lone Star State doesn't officially recognize same-sex partners.
Wilson found her solution 1,400 miles away at West Hollywood's City Hall, where, for a $25 fee, the clerk placed Wilson and her then-pregnant partner, Margaret Richmond, on the city's domestic partnership registry in March. The couple dropped their check and a notarized application in the mail. Richmond made the company's health insurance rolls in time to deliver twins.
"It really felt weird, especially having to go all the way across the country to get it," Wilson said in a phone interview recently. "But it was kind of neat. We even got a certificate."
As the new gay rights battles rage across the American landscape, creating a conflicting, state-by-state patchwork of rules on marriages and domestic partnerships, West Hollywood is among a handful of state and local governments that have been quietly reaching out to gay couples beyond their borders. The city offers to officially sanction unconventional relationships and, just as important, to do it by mail, saving out-of-state partners the cost of a plane ticket.
The policies are by no means as dramatic as those in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed gay couples to marry this year, until the actions were blocked by the California Supreme Court. Despite its cachet with insurance programs, the registration has no legal status outside the city boundaries.
But the registrations exemplify the peculiar jurisdiction-shopping gay couples are employing to maximize their rights in a deeply divided country.
Other governments that allow nonresident couples to register by mail include the city of Seattle and the states of Hawaii and California. The Golden State enacted its domestic partners law in 1999. A California secretary of state spokeswoman said the out-of-state provisions were necessary to extend pension benefits to former state employees who had moved elsewhere — and also to help non-Californians sign up for corporate health insurance benefits.
But it is West Hollywood's pioneering domestic partner registry, created in 1985, that remains one of the country's best known, with its mail-in procedures listed on a number of gay rights websites. This year, the city's loose registration rules have enticed 193 out-of-state couples to register — accounting for about 60% of West Hollywood's total domestic partnership rolls for 2004.
They are gay couples who are not allowed to marry and straight couples who choose not to. Many of their hometowns — such as Grain Valley, Mo., and Waveland, Miss. — are cultural galaxies from the raucous boys' town bars of Santa Monica Boulevard.
This brings up an interesting point -- straight couples who choose not to. We are legislated by religious hand-me-down to have only marriage as the recognizable form of committed relationship. If my boyfriend gets sick, I won't be allowed to visit him in the hospital. Committed partners aren't allowed on each other's health insurance. If you love somebody from, say, Italy, you must marry them if you want to be with them, or they might not be allowed to stay in the country. We need a registered partner agreement in the USA, like the PACs in France, to allow people to make a commitment to each other in the way that works for them; not necessarily lifelong, but dissolvable, like the PACs is, by one or the other partner going to city hall and saying it's dissolved. Oh, and P.S. Don't make me laugh by saying marriage is a lifelong commitment. Seen the line at divorce court lately?
> If my boyfriend gets sick, I won't be
> allowed to visit him in the hospital.
Can you seriously, seroiusly, contend that this is a problem? I can imagine any number of corners of this planet where it might be a problem for gays, but for straights (let me be gentle here) approaching midlife, it's just not possible that you'd be turned away at the nurse's station.
JUST ONCE, just one fucking time, someone who wants to change the parameters of marriage should describe how it will ADD financial value to society, rather than allow a new class of peeps to EXTRACT it.
Crid at December 3, 2004 11:47 PM
"Despite its cachet with insurance programs, the registration has no legal status outside the city boundaries."
I've love to know more about that "cachet." Are the legally registered partners of homos a relatively lower financial/health risk, on average, than are married people in general? (Thus, making it less likely that the insurance companies will lose money paying out claims to the health care providers of the healthy homos?) I mean, I find it hard to believe there's some great strand of progressive altruism running through the insurance industry. Or are the employers of homos the kind of business that the insurance industry doesn't want to lose (because they generally employ a low financial/health risk demographic). Someone please help here. Whatever happened to that lovely blogger Peggy? If my Alzheimer's serves me, she actually worked in the health insurance industry and knew tons about it.
Lena at December 4, 2004 12:41 AM
"JUST ONCE, just one fucking time, someone who wants to change the parameters of marriage should describe how it will ADD financial value to society, rather than allow a new class of peeps to EXTRACT it."
This one's simple - just end the unearned subsidies heaped by society and government on those who choose to participate in a religious cerimony before living together, and those who choose not to participate in said cerimony won't feel cheated out of said garnishments.
Jeff R at December 4, 2004 6:38 AM
First, you misspelled ceremony.
Second, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the world garnish.
Third, the point seemed to fly right over your head: There's more to life than TAKING things from society. Sometimes one participates by putting things into the kitty.
Marriage used to be just such an arrangement, a compact between the united and the larger society. No one thinks that way anymore. Several generations of folks seem to think they've been given life only to suck value and support from the lives of others.
Cridland at December 4, 2004 7:22 AM
"someone who wants to change the parameters of marriage should describe how it will ADD financial value to society"
Why is financial value the issue? I could think of a few ways, besides financial, in which the relationship exchanges of others affect society. Remember "negative externalities" from macroeconomics 101? That's when the sound of someone beating the shit out of his wife keeps you awake at night.
Lena is single and free! at December 4, 2004 8:43 AM
Take it from a homo who knows- a PACS in France won't get you a visa. But, I still think the idea is a good one and it is not just for same-sex couples. A brother and sister can even get a PACS.
And if the parents of Amy's boyfriend decide they do not want her visiting their son in the hospital, it could easily become a problem for her.
Jason Stone at December 4, 2004 11:16 AM
> Why is financial value the issue?
Other people's money is never an issue for liberals; they ALWAYS have plans for it.
> I could think of a few ways, besides
> financial, in which the relationship
> exchanges of others affect society.
But again, no one ever makes those points, do they? Rather they go harping about how their 'rights' are being horribly trounced, and there's so much value (of whatever sort) that's being denied to them.
And just for the record, I've never heard anyone beating the shit out of his wife. Of course it happens, but it's a strange thing to drop into this.
Jeff, I'm still pissed:
> the unearned subsidies heaped by society
> and government on those who choose to
> participate in a religious cerimony before
> living together
Find a young couple who's starting a family. Tell them about the "subsidies" being "heaped" upon them. Be patient when they laugh in your face.
Cridland at December 4, 2004 3:49 PM
I'm actually against giving financial benefits to people who marry. Thanks, Jason -- I actually have detailed info on the PACs, from research I did, but it's on my home computer, and I'm in Detroit fro the weekend. From what I understand, there is "speeded" immigration and naturalization -- or was, a few years back, when I did my research. Perhaps this has changed in light of Europe's problems with their previous rather open immigration policies.
Amy Alkon at December 4, 2004 5:31 PM
"I've never heard anyone beating the shit out of his wife. Of course it happens, but it's a strange thing to drop into this."
Why "strange"? We're talking about marriage, and marriage makes the individuals involved relatively dependent on each other in ways that lead, more than occasionally, to negative outcomes that effect individuals outside their exchange. I've lived in apartment buildings my entire adult life -- in several boroughs of New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and Los Angeles. I have normal hearing, and I'm surprised by the atrocities that can pass as acceptable behavior for people who are married with children. On more than one occasion, I've agonized over whether I should call the police. That's a negative externality, baby, because I'd much rather spend my evenings reading a good book or making out with someone to the music on the radio, uninterrupted. (And please note that I said nothing about a "right" to do so. I find contemporary rights rhetoric to be fairly dreary and unconvincing across the board.)
Lena-doodle-doo at December 4, 2004 5:59 PM
Marriage with safewords? Doesn't that take all the pervy thrill out of it? Even with divorce court, at least you still get to feel the sweet sting of your ex's lawyer's lash across your delicate, quivering bank account. Legalized lifestyle kink is dead without palimony.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at December 5, 2004 12:35 AM
Marriage used to be a social contract. A contract, that involves the education of children, division of property and so on, shouldn't be exclusive to heterosexuals or married heterosexuals for that matter. Why should I have to get married, again, just to enjoy some poor saps health insurance?
I went a step further and had my attorney draw up papers dictating who gets to make decsions about who can and cannot see me if I'm hospitalized. I'm enough of a nut that I also had my best dog certified as a companion animal so he can stay with me if I'm hospitalized. Amy, I'd advise the two of you to look into your legal options.
On another note, why do conservatives like Crid think they can jump up and down about how liberals spend money? The last time I checked the budget deficit was insane. How much money has the current administration poured in to their dirty little war?
Sheryl at December 7, 2004 12:16 AM
" I'm enough of a nut that I also had my best dog certified as a companion animal so he can stay with me if I'm hospitalized. Amy, I'd advise the two of you to look into your legal options."
How do you do that, and do you mean my dog and me, or my dog and me and Gregg and me?!
PS George Bush has yet to veto ANYthing.
Amy Alkon at December 7, 2004 2:24 AM
Amy,
You and your dog, you and Gregg, all three of you. Whatever floats your boat.
Sheryl at December 8, 2004 3:16 AM
Yes, I am doing bong hits. It's a New Mexican folk remedy for arthritis and boy does it work.
Re the dog; check around for an AKC Companion Animals class. It's one step up from obedience training. You can visit folks in nursing homes, rehabilitate youth in juvie, stuff like that.
Re you and Gregg; talk to a decent attorney.
Sheryl at December 8, 2004 3:28 AM
Thanks -- that's great to know.
Amy Alkon at December 8, 2004 5:30 AM