IS THIS A CASE OF DISCRIMINATION?

To discriminate means to mark or differentiate. To make distinction. To make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit. Discriminating is making a distinction, discerning, judicious. Discrimination is the act of discriminating. The process of which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently. The power or quality of finely distinguishing. The act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. Prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment. PRELUDE TO MY STORY I work for the state of Minnesota. My insurance coverage is through the state health plan select (blue cross/blue shield) Our 2002 union contract (MMA) was settled Janurary 20, 2002. The contract allowed for "domestic partners" to be covered as dependents. Now upon my research the term, "domestic partner" refers to same-sex partners. That is now the given term for gay live in lovers. Based on the fact that Minnesota and for that matter, no state in the union will recognize legal marriage between same-sex partners, the state has apparently adopted a discriminatory anti-marriage bill called DOMA-Defense of marriage act. I say this without full knowledge of all terms and conditions to this bill, but I do know that domestic partners are now covered with the state insurance plan.I must also note here that when I last checked, the union did state it was pending legislation although the period of December 1-14, 2001 open enrollment for insurance changes did provide for domestic partner dependents.

MY STORY

I am living with a man I have been with for 17 years. An added note- Minnesota does not recognize common-law marriage. Now when all the contract talk was out about domestic partners, there was also talk about opposite-sex partners being added for dependent insurance coverage. When open enrollment came I added my partner to my insurance. You see I read domestic partner and I was under the assumption that meant live-in partner. I was billed on 1-9-02 with an added dependent. I payed the premium, and went with it, that he was now covered under my insurance. I would also like to add that he, dropped his coverage with another company, when we thought, he was covered under mine. So after the month of waiting for his insurance card, I finally called to see what was going on and that's when I found out that the coverage was not valid. and the term referred to same-sex partners. I had given them all information, age, sex, SS#, etc. They had it, they took my money, had I not called they would still be taking my money. They told me they will refund my money,and that was it.

SO, IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

I believe it is. I realize I have the choice to be married or not, but I choose not to be. I choose this because I don't believe in the concept of marriage. It is my right to believe as I choose. Is it right for those governing, to attach their inept moral judgements on my belief system? Being that the "domestic-partner" is in fact, not married, shouldn't I recieve the same benefits and rights? This should not even be considered a moral dilemma, because in my eyes, I have been married to the same man for 17 years, without going through the legal language of the Minnesota marriage statutes.

So that's my story, what do you think? Do I have a discrimination case? Rustic