Let's say you're an unmarried female. You work for state government,
and you live with another woman. By law, your employer must
extend health benefits to your roommate.
Now let's say you're that same woman but you live with
a male. By law, your employer owes your roommate nothing.
This absurd situation exists in Oregon because of the Tanner
decision, a ruling made last year by the state Court of
Appeals. According to the decision, state and local agencies
must provide benefits to same-sex partners. The only conditions
are that the partners live together, have a joint checking
account and are both over 18.
Partners of different sex? They don't qualify--unless they
are married.
This kooky state of affairs is likely to lead to yet another
statewide election on gay rights, one that will be as divisive
as any Oregon has suffered through in the past.
The Tanner decision itself isn't silly. Written by Judge
Jack Landau, it's a reasoned and even groundbreaking attempt
to recognize that gays deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
But since Oregon doesn't allow gay marriage, Tanner had
no choice but to tip the scales--way on the side of gays--by
giving almost all gays rights that unmarried heteros don't
enjoy.
Actually, sexual orientation is not even the issue. Conceivably,
if a straight male state employee shared a house with both
a man and a woman, he would be able to get health insurance
for his male roomie but not for the woman.
A good deal of gab was uttered in Salem last week as the
House considered the issues wrought by Tanner. While it
was a welcome respite from the school budget battle, the
proposals that emerged were about as creative as oatmeal.
Most Republicans, led by Reps. Bill Witt and Kevin Mannix,
are backing House Joint Resolution 29, a constitutional
amendment that would overturn the Tanner decision and deny
benefits to same-sex partners. The Democrats, led by Rep.
Randall Edwards, are offering up a different amendment that
would keep the Tanner decision in place. If either measure
were to get through both chambers, it would go directly
to the ballot--perhaps as early as this November.
Unfortunately, both of these efforts fail to acknowledge
the real hand Tanner has dealt Oregonians: the case for
same-sex marriage.
The legal recognition of same-sex unions is the only way
around the mess Tanner has created for us--a situation in
which the most casual of same-sex relationships has to be
treated as seriously as a binding and legal commitment between
a man and a woman.
Of course, there's little hope that the Legislature will
embrace this issue, even though a number of elected officials
have privately expressed support. No state in the union
currently recognizes same-sex marriage. In Hawaii, there
was an effort to make gay marriage legal, but it was defeated
last year. Moreover, last year Congress passed--and President
Clinton signed--the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows
states to refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages that
may some day take place in other states. Even the gay lobby
seems frightened to discuss the matter.
The truth is that same-sex unions would help save the institution
of marriage. If non-married couples can get all the privileges
that are extended to couples who make a legal commitment,
marriage will eventually become meaningless. But because
of the equal-rights provision of state constitutions, more
and more courts will have little choice but to agree with
Tanner and say that marriage is really nothing very special.
Call us old-fashioned, but we think it is.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally
published June 9, 1999 |
