opinion-Is This Discrimination?

07 Feb 02 - 06:23 PM (#644820)
Subject: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Rustic Rebel

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

---

07 Feb 02 - 06:32 PM (#644824)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: CarolC

What are the "common-law" marriage laws in your state? Your partner might be covered if the common-law marriage laws in your state recognize the two of you as being married even though you have not gone through the motions of getting married. If you are, in fact, considered "married" in your state by virtue of common-law marriage, that could be why the "domestic partner" language doesn't apply to you.

Or I could be full of beans. (Or both.)

---

07 Feb 02 - 06:33 PM (#644827)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: McGrath of Harlow

Is it really open to a state to refuse to recognize common-law marriages? I imagine they've been around longer than any other sort of marriage.

I doubt very much if it would be possible for a Nation in the European Union to take up that position and make it stick. Can States in the USA really do that?

---

07 Feb 02 - 06:39 PM (#644831)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Amos

The language of the contract according to what you have said was not constrained by the gender of the partner. If this is the case, my opinion is that you fulfilled a contract which they then breached, according to the information to hand. But you need to consult a lawyer on the finer points. As tyo common-law marriages I am perplexed as to how laws can not recognize common-law, but I suppose the law is an ass that can turn a blind eye to anything it chooses!!

A

---

07 Feb 02 - 06:44 PM (#644834)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: artbrooks

I don't know that I'd agree with the negative definitions that you've included, since discrimination really only means to choose between options. The real question is whether or not your situation represents improper or illegal discrimination. I'd suggest that you discuss this with your union representative, or someone at a higher level in the union if your local rep. had no involvement in the negotiations over your new contract, and find out what the understanding was during the negotiations of the term "domestic partner". If the contract, or the health insurance program if that is a separate agreement, spells out that this covers same-sex couples only, I think that you're probably dead in the water.

---

07 Feb 02 - 06:48 PM (#644836)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie

McGrath--

Yes, I believe that Constitutionally it is up to individual states of the Union to recognize or not recognize "common-law" marriages. There's a great deal of variation among states, in part because whereas some state codes were obviously taken practically wholesale from English Common Law, others (Louisiana) used the Napoleonic Code, etc., etc.

As to the main question in the thread, I think this is a great example of the pitfalls of trying to "liberalize" legislation. Meaning simply that it will take the state and all of its high-powered attorneys at least three tries to get it right, if they ever do.

CC

---

07 Feb 02 - 06:49 PM (#644838)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Joe Offer

Well, I think I recall that very few states in the U.S. recognize common-law marriages - although most make provisions for some sort of recognition of long-term opposite-sex unions. some have begun to make similar provisions for same-sex unions.

I'm a Catholic, and I've noticed that many Catholic right-wingers have joined the fundamentalist Christians in opposing health insurance and any sort of benefits for same-sex couples. An odd bishop here or then may have joined the anti-benefits movement, but I don't see an overwhelmingly large movement among Catholics to oppose benefits to same-sex couples. It's the same right-wing whackos, but they pretend to speak in the name of the entire church. Those people have papered our church parking lot with anti-gay flyers twice in the last year, and our Irish pastor was darn angry about it.

It might be very difficult to push through legislation to approve same-sex marriage in the U.S. - but if gys are willing to let that issue drop for ten years or so, there might be pretty good support for approval for same-sex couples receiving most of the benefits married couples get.

-Joe Offer-

---

07 Feb 02 - 06:53 PM (#644844)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: CarolC

Plus, the impression I have is that the amount of time a couple has to be together in order to be considered common-law varies from one state to another among those that recognize it.

---

07 Feb 02 - 07:16 PM (#644856)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: NicoleC

Folks, the US Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriages. (Reference: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) It's entirely a state matter, unless Congress passes a law about it (which then may or may not be constitutional.)

That having been said, if the wording of the contract does not specifically state that the so-called domestic partners must be of the same sex, I can't imagine you wouldn't have a sound legal case. Although the intent was probably to provide coverage for those whom would normally get left out (i.e. gay partners), I doubt that there was any kind of "inept moral judgements on [your] belief system." It sounds like an oversight, not an intentional slight toward you; insurance companies are notorious for refusing coverage for the stupidest reasons -- it's just part of the mindset.

I suggest a talk with your union representative. You probably have a relatively painless and cheap arbitration process that will be much easier than trying to convince the insurance company yourself or hire a lawyer.

---

07 Feb 02 - 07:31 PM (#644872)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: katlaughing

According to this Cornell site, Minnesota doesn't recognise common law marriages. BUT, another site I checked, said they would recognise them, IF they became so in another state.

There are good resources at www.findlaw.com

I don't think most of the lesbigay community would mean for this to exclude hetero partners; it just sounds like an oversight as Joe said. Best bet is talk to your Union rep and/or a lawyer. Good luck.

kat

---

07 Feb 02 - 07:32 PM (#644873)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Jeri

It sounds to me like the insurance company is trying to pull a fast one. I agree with Nicole about asking your union rep. Nowhere in the term "domestic partner" does it indicate same-sex partners only.

I doubt they're making moral judgements. I suspect they're probably just being cheap.

---

07 Feb 02 - 07:47 PM (#644880)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: kendall

NO ONE EXPECTS THE INQUISITION. These whackos who are dead set against same sex marraiges have such flawed thinking. They say it threatens traditional marraige. HOW? Maybe you could adopt him?

---

07 Feb 02 - 07:55 PM (#644884)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Joe Offer

Yeah, Kendall - it really gets me mad how people can get so upset fight so hard, simply to deny medical benefits to people they disapprove of.
-Joe Offer-

---

07 Feb 02 - 07:58 PM (#644889)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Dave Wynn

Morally it is discrimination.

If you are asking if it is legally discrimination then I don't know.

This doesn't help much , except that if you feel angry then you have every right to feel angry and and full of quite righteous indignation about how you have been treated.

Wish I could say something more positive.

Spot

---

07 Feb 02 - 07:59 PM (#644890)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: M.Ted

You can call your union steward--but I'll bet that he tells you that the benefits don't extend to same-sex partners--We would have heard about it on the CBS Evening News if the State of Minnesota extended insurance benefits to same sex-partners--if I remember correctly no other state offers this benefit.

There are a few cities that provide benefits for same-sex partners, and, if I remember, there are some cities where efforts have been made to require that these benefits be provided--since a lot of employers only provide benefits for the employee, not the family, this created the possibility that only same sex partners would receive benefits--

If you feel that you are being discriminated against, your only recourse is to file a lawsuit--you may feel that it is worth it to find an attorney and pursue this, but remember that health insurance is not a blanket entitlement, like it once was, and since many workers with traditional families cannot get coverage for their spouses, you may find it hard to show a pattern of discrimination--

---

07 Feb 02 - 08:52 PM (#644927)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: catspaw49

Rustic Rebel.......There seems to be some confusion here. Or at least there is with me. Are you male or female?

Spaw

---

07 Feb 02 - 09:02 PM (#644932)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: RichM

Does it matter?

---

07 Feb 02 - 09:13 PM (#644937)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: catspaw49

I can't figure out what's up Rich....I'm just dense I guess.

Are you saying that your insurance did or did not originally say same-sex or is the problem that they don't cover opposite sex who are not married?

Spaw

---

07 Feb 02 - 09:28 PM (#644947)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: katlaughing

Spaw, I think it is the latter, as least that's how I read the original posting. Good to get it clarified, though.

---

07 Feb 02 - 10:26 PM (#644979)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Rustic Rebel

I am sorry for any confusion to this thread. First I am female. From my research on common-law, MN does not recognize it. Also the definition of domestic partner is;A domestic partner is defined as a relationship between an employee and another adult of the same sex, in which the parties hereafter called domestic partners: 1. have entered into a committed interdependent relationship with each other; 2. Are jointly responsible for each other's basic common welfare; 3. Share a common residence and intend to do so indefinitely; 4. Are not related by blood or adoption such that would prohibit marriage in MN., are neither married nor in another domestic partnership; and 5. Are legally competent and qualified to enter into contract. This definition is according to the open enrollment booklet, that I admittingly did not read the small print!

Now with that, my union apparently only fought for the domestic partner coverage, not opposite-sex partners, or what ever we are called! Rustic (female rebel!)

---

07 Feb 02 - 11:18 PM (#645018)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Rustic Rebel

One more thing I would like to add to MTed is that this is a fact. The State employees domestic partners are covered. When I called the Dept. of employee relations (doer) to see what was going on, that is when they told me that it only covered same-sex individuals. I guess MN is stepping forward on the issue of gay rights faster than other states.

---

07 Feb 02 - 11:21 PM (#645020)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: NicoleC

Ouch! Yeah, it sounds like you fell through the cracks by that definition. Time to discuss what to negotiate next time with your union rep -- unless you want to fight it. It sounds pretty unethical to me, even if I do think it's an accidental oversight.

Here in California the governor just signed into law some pretty significant steps in giving domestic partners some of the legal protections of married couples, like hospital visits and allowing the adoption of children as a step-parent. I don't think it includes any gender specific language. I know the State of California provides benefits to domestic partners, but they only cover same-sex partners.

That part stinks!

While investigation the immigration laws for Australia, I discovered they have a whole visa class that's equivalent to spouses for what they call "De-Facto Spouses," and it specifically states that it includes *any* couple (not just gays) as long as they meet a cohabitation requirement.

You sure you don't want to take an island vacation for two and get "married" by some local tribal chief just for kicks? As long as it's legal there, most places will accept it :)

---

07 Feb 02 - 11:28 PM (#645030)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: M.Ted

I contributed to the confusion because I tried to say too many different things, and ended up saying nothing--I just meant that the health insurance isn't really provided for the significant other, so you are not receiving insurance for one when the domestic partner gets insurance for two(which would mean that there was a different level of compensation for you. based on your gender)--Anyway, on reflection, I think that that point is wrong, , because your benefits are the product of collective bargaining, and not just arbitrary policy of you employer--My main point probably should have been that you can tell the union what you want, and if you can find enough other people who want the same arrangement, then in the next go-around, they can try to get it for you--

---

07 Feb 02 - 11:44 PM (#645040)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Rustic Rebel

M.Ted Yes that thought has already crossed my mind to get things rolling in that direction. I believe I will start with a letter to our Govenor Ventura, and other legislators. Also thanks for all on advise . I will talk to my union rep. And although the thought of coming over for a tribal wedding sounds tempting, I think the adoption theory sounds a little bit more interesting! lol! RR

---

08 Feb 02 - 12:30 AM (#645071)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: DougR

Consult a lawyer.

DougR

---

08 Feb 02 - 02:36 AM (#645121)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Bert

Doug has it right. Get yourself a lawyer. No matter how many Mudcatters agree wth you (me included) the judge will have his own biased opinion, which will most likely be based upon how friendly he is with the lawyers involved.

So do some research and find a lawyer who is highly respected by the judges in your area, and don't hesitate to swap lawyers if you find out that the judge doesn't like your one.

Personally, I think that, if they took your money in the first case without saying anything, then you should have a good case. You should be able to rightly say "You took my money so the insuransce is valid"

---

08 Feb 02 - 04:02 AM (#645145)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: katlaughing

It'd be nice, Bert, but there are so many insurance companies which take one's money, THEN tell one what they can and cannot have covered, it seems they have the upperhand in most cases.

I hope this can be worked out, as it certainly appears to be biased. I just hope it doesn't cause any of the hard-won rights of same-sex couples to be lost. BTW, I like that "de facto" designation! I've always called my son's female SO, my "pseudo-daughter-in-law;" now, I may change that to his "de facto" partner...I think she'd get a kick out of it!**BG**

kat

---

08 Feb 02 - 05:53 AM (#645182)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: McGrath of Harlow

Now of course if they'd just left out any mention of same sex in that first condition, it would still have covered same sex relationships but wouldn't have excluded you.

People do make things unnecessarily complicated don't they?

---

08 Feb 02 - 08:54 AM (#645254)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: GUEST

The State of Minnesota was quite clear in the negotiation of this contract, that it would only allow same sex partners to receive domestic partner coverage. It was an easy enough thing to throw into the contract, because it mandates coverage for only a handful of people. The State's reason for not extending coverage to opposite sex domestic partners is, there are so many of them that the cost to the State's insurance program (the State has it's own insurance program for state workers covered by the contract) would be prohibitive.

Is it discriminatory? Yes. But not because of the sexual orientation issue. It is discriminatory because it refuses to extend the benefits married domestic partners enjoy to unmarried domestic partners. The discrimination has to do with the sacred "institution of marriage" and is considered by conservative and fundamentalist politicos, bureacrats, religious leaders, etc. much more dangerous than recognition of same sex couples.

It is discrimination based upon marital status, and there is a considerable amount of it out there.

BTW, Minnesota does recognize common law marriage if the couple began their common law marriage in a state which recognizes it. But I don't think the legal case to be argued in this day and age is for common law marriage to be recognized in all 50 states. I think the legal case to be argued is that unmarried domestic partners are being discriminated against based upon marital status.

---

08 Feb 02 - 09:04 AM (#645257)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Jim Dixon

Wouldn't getting married be an easy way to solve this problem?

---

08 Feb 02 - 09:34 AM (#645279)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Rustic Rebel

Hey Jim, when I was younger I hated going to weddings. It seemed that all the aunts and grandmotherly types would come up to me, poke me in the ribs and tell me, "your next." They stopped doing that shit after I started doing the same to them at funerals. Ha! anyway doesn't that seem to be another strange law and difficult to prove where and when I met my partner, in order to prove we are legally common-law? My old man was in the tavern last night and talking to another guy who works with the state. He too is unmarried he came up with some advice. He say's I can claim his girlfriend as my lover, and he will claim my man as his lover! whoa, I guess there are ways to get good insurance huh? Rustic

---

08 Feb 02 - 12:22 PM (#645391)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Rustic Rebel

Well I talked to an attorney, and as many of you suggested he said talk to a union Rep. So I did. He tells me that this is a contract, not the courts and the courts have nothing to do with it. He advised me to call the buisness office and clear my name, because they could get me for fraud. He also said that this has been a real touchy subject and they tryed to get all family coverage, no matter your marital status, but it was Ventura who pushed for the "domestic partner" thing and it was a money factor that kept it limited to same-sex and not all.Most of the arbitrators felt this was a discriminatory clause, and that it wasn't a fair deal to all but that's what ultimatly went into the contract. One more thing he said, is that it might not be a done deal yet. The legislture might not accept the entire contract because of this. That would mean raises and all. So now I don't know what to do. I don't want to lose what has been gained for gay rights by raising to much hell,and I don't really know if I could create that much difference anyway,and I don't want to loose what we have earned on the contract, so SHIT. Write letters, I guess? Rustic

---

08 Feb 02 - 01:27 PM (#645431)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: NicoleC

It sounds like the attorney you talked to is giving you the straight scoop, and not trying to tell you what you want to hear. Sounds like a keeper! :)

The more I think about this, the more I think that it wouldn't hold up as discriminatory in a court of law. Since there is no legal impediment to you and your partner getting married, they are going to argue that it's just a consequence of your choice not to get married, whereas a same-sex couple cannot get married, and therefore it would only be discriminatory if they could not be covered at all.

"It seemed that all the aunts and grandmotherly types would come up to me, poke me in the ribs and tell me, "your next." They stopped doing that shit after I started doing the same to them at funerals. "

LOL, I wish I had thought of that!

---

08 Feb 02 - 01:30 PM (#645433)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: GUEST

No, for some of us who feel the institution of marriage is an oppressive one, the answer is NOT to simply get married. It is to get equal rights to married couples, under the law.

If I am a law-abiding, tax paying citizen, in a committed long-term relationship with a partner of the opposite sex, why shouldn't I have the same rights as a married person? Why does our society afford special rights to married people that it doesn't extend to people doing the exact same thing as married people, without the legal sanctions of the state?

---

08 Feb 02 - 01:58 PM (#645445)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: JohnInKansas

The only constructive thing I might add is - most states have an "Insurance Commission," with, usually, a Commissioner, who have responsibility for regulating what kinds of insurance can and can not be "sold" in the state.

While the courts (and the lawyers) have limited "jurisdiction" to challenge contracts - unless you can show that the terms of a contract have been violated - your "Commissioner of Insurance" in many cases has almost dictatorial authority over the insurance companies and the policy forms they use.

I would not hold out much hope that you would get an immediate change in your situation; but if you wish to promote change, you should try to communicate with those who have some authority in the matter -i.e. with whoever "licenses" the insurers in your state.

Staying in touch with the union is, of course, essential, since, as they are a "party to the contract," they are about the only ones who would have legal standing in the matter if something does get to court.

John

---

08 Feb 02 - 02:22 PM (#645470)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: harpgirl

...another example of corporations and capitalism not being inherently moral. Many fewer same sex partners than common law partners to insure in the world, I imagine. bottom line is the thing...never assume any corporation but your own has your best interests at heart!

---

08 Feb 02 - 04:28 PM (#645533)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: M.Ted

Marriage, under the law, is a contract in which two individuals agree to share certain obligations and liabilities, a mechanism that allows a "partnership"--insurance is a contract in which a third party, for a financial consideration, agrees to guarantee certain specified liabilities--in this case, certain defined healthcare needs--without a marriage contract, there is no legal obligation for the insurer to assume--the "domestic partner" is that there is an desire to share legal obligations and liabilities, but no legal mechanism to facilitate it--technically, there would have to be some sort of proof of intent, such as, in the concept of common-law marriage, shared residence for a given period of time.

The legal arguement for marriage is that these things can be established pro forma, by simple taking what amounts to an oath, rather than establishing them de facto, which is to say, by looking to see if people share a bed, share food, share expenses, in a manner with consistant with an implied mutual agreement--

This all seems like a lot of silliness to some people, and, at least as long as everything is abstract, it may be. However, I had a friend who was the longtime companion of a very successful executive who died suddenly--the family stepped in and, he suddenly found himself out in the street--(am I rambling again? Sorry--)

---

08 Feb 02 - 05:57 PM (#645576)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Steve in Idaho

Is it right for those governing, to attach their inept moral judgements on my belief system?

I think there are two sides to this line - since I am married I'd have to argue, most gently of course, that it is not a morally inept judgement. (I'm grinning here - OK?) But I have also cohabitated and thought that was morally OK.

But the deeper issue for me and my partner was that we wanted the paperwork to make a statement about our level of commitment to each other. It is a tad more difficult to walk away from a marriage contract (and it is indeed a contract) than to pick up and move with no legitimacy socially to a portion of the union's resources. We are also clear that true partnerships are made in the heart. We felt that what we had, and what we would achieve, deserved formal protection by the sanctifying ritual of state marital conditions being met. So we made that choice.

I think that substantive change is in the wind for partnerships achieved outside of the state sanctioned union. But all of that social change, and yes Folkies we are about that, comes at a price. The price for you Rebel is the loss of insurance for your partner. I'm sorry for that but I also know that the first person to set in the front of the bus down South found she had friends and the more they made noise - well you know history as well as I do.

What I would encourage is that you begin a "Tort Claim." A suit filed on "behalf" of all partnerships. It is how we Viet Nam Veterans were finally able to sue the chemical companies that killed so many of us. But don't expect rapid change - it took us a lot of years to achieve this. And the long term piece of this is a much more responsive system to meet veteran's needs. Just a thought - just takes someone willing to give up their life and go after this.

And the reason we have marraige is because of our Puritanical roots. We have another couple hundred years of evolution to get beyond those straight laced beginners!!

Best of Luck to you Rebel!!

Steve

---

08 Feb 02 - 06:36 PM (#645596)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: GUEST

From today's Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Census study paints grim picture of marriage in U.S. David Westphal Star Tribune Published Feb 8, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Census Bureau will issue a marriage outlook today that it hopes will prove altogether too pessimistic.

In their most comprehensive study of marriage trends in two decades, census demographers project that as many as 50 percent of first marriages will end in divorce.

The report's author, Rose Kreider, said the forecast might prove to be too high, especially if recent evidence of a small decline in divorce continues. "If anything, this could be wrong on the side of assuming too much divorce," she said.

At the same time, the study documents the rapid increase in the incidence of divorce in the last half of the 20th century, which has made the United States one of the world's leaders in failed marriages.

In 1975, the Census Bureau projected that one-third of married couples 25 to 35 would end their first marriage in divorce. But two decades later, at least 40 percent of those marriages already had ended, and indications are the number could rise to 50 percent.

The new report comes amid heightened efforts by political leaders to shore up the institution of marriage. Bush administration officials announced that strengthening marriage would be one of Bush's top priorities when the welfare law is rewritten later this year.

The Census Bureau study is based on 37,000 interviews conducted in 1996 and represents a rich trove of information about recent divorce trends. Census officials said their projections are not forecasts of the future but simply extensions of trends they spotted at that time.

Princeton University Prof. Joshua Goldstein said divorce rates started flattening out in the early 1980s and might have even declined a bit since. But he said it's too early to tell whether the more stable trend will continue.

While the report documents how Americans are spending more of their lives alone, both because of delayed marriage and then divorce, it also suggests that the institution of marriage is alive and well.

Nine of 10 people are likely to be married at some point in their lives, the study said. And of those who divorce, about three in four will remarry.

But sometimes it isn't for long. The median duration for a first marriage ending in divorce was about 8 years, the study found. While 90 percent of couples married in the late 1940s reached their 10th anniversary, only 73 percent of those married in the early '80s reached that milestone.

Those who ended first marriages stayed single an average of three years, according to the report. Second marriages ending in divorce lasted about seven years.

Other findings:

• The average age of first marriage rose almost four years between the early '40s and the late '80s to 24.9 years for women and 27.1 for men.

• Divorce is least likely to occur among Asians, and most likely to occur among blacks.

• Contrary to some earlier theories, college-educated people are much more likely to marry than those who haven't attended college.

---

08 Feb 02 - 07:16 PM (#645636)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: NicoleC

Well said, M.Ted.

I understand why some people would find the cultural baggage distasteful, and I personally find the "wedding" nonsense about as big of a waste of time and money as you'll ever find. But I don't find the legal recognition and protection, common law or otherwise, of a de facto relationship oppressive or demeaning in any way.

If this were a where or when in which marriage was forced upon women or conferred a reduced legal status, I would certainly object. As it is, I think it's nice that we have a choice.

Of course, I have it on reliable anecdotal evidence that certain individual marriages are oppressive :)

---

09 Feb 02 - 12:33 PM (#646032)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: GUEST

I wanted to draw attention to a couple other websites for the original poster. First, there is the Minneapolis Domestic Partners Registration info site:

http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/Diversity/Gay/domesticord.html

I mention this, because the trend for government institutions who are now offering domestic partnership benefits to their employees are (of course) requiring some sort of certification process for their employees living in domestic partnership arrangements.

Then, there is Alternatives to Marriage Project

http://www.unmarried.org/res.html

I mentioned this excellent web site in the other thread I started titled "Alternative to Marriage Resources".

I am also including in the following post, an article from the Boston Globe back in 1998, which addresses the very issue our original poster raised--the question of domestic partner benefits for state workers. I found the link to this article at the Alternatives to Marriage Project website.

Hope this is some help to Rustic Rebel, and others who are living in or considering changing to an alternative to marriage type relationship.

---

09 Feb 02 - 12:34 PM (#646034)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: GUEST

Why Not Benefits for Unmarried Couples By Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller We're one of those couples on Acting Governor Paul Cellucci's list of Menaces to Society.

No, we're not violent criminals. We haven't cheated on our taxes. We're hard-working, law-abiding, put-out-the-recycling-on-time citizens of Massachusetts.

But we've decided not to get married.

Paul Cellucci doesn't want to encourage people like us. That's why he declared last week that he would veto legislation passed unanimously by both houses of the Legislature that would have extended health benefits to domestic partners of state employees.

Forget equal pay for equal work, says Cellucci. Married couples are entitled to health benefits for their spouses and children. Cellucci made clear that he supports extending health benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees (though his veto squelched the notion that he was truly committed to supporting the rights of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community). It's those dangerous unmarried male-female couples -- we're the only ones he really hates.

Has Cellucci heard that every state and the vast majority of municipalities that have already extended domestic partner benefits to their employees have included both same and opposite-sex couples?

Has anyone told the Governor that in Santa Barbara and Oakland, California, "gays only" domestic partner plans were later opened up to opposite-sex couples because the state Labor Commissioner ruled that the original plans discriminated on the basis of gender and sexual orientation?

Has Cellucci noticed that, given court decisions around the country, limiting benefits to same-sex couples has been decided to be discriminatory, illegal, and possibly unconstitutional? Has it occurred to him that passing a sexist law sets the stage for costly lawsuits and plenty of negative publicity?

One of the Governor's pet projects is to reduce "father absence," and he has said that denying health benefits to opposite-sex couples like us will strengthen the family. We'd like to point out that nationally, one-third of unmarried couples are parenting children. If Cellucci is truly worried about families without fathers, there are plenty of actions he can take legislatively. Targeting unmarried couples doesn't make sense if you think about it -- we're couples. There is no absent father. Cellucci risks weakening our families by denying us health coverage for our partners and children. There is no logic in his argument.

People fall into the "unmarried couple" category for a variety of reasons. Many have strong personal, philosophical, economic, or religious beliefs for not wanting to marry their partners. For some there are significant financial reasons that prevent them from marrying. More than half of Americans cohabitate -- sometimes for years -- before marrying. Frankly, it is none of the state's business to intrude into matters as personal as whom one chooses as a spouse or domestic partner and when -- or whether -- one chooses to marry or not.

There have been stringent criteria established that couples would have to meet in order to be considered domestic partners. The proposed criteria in this case were based on Bank Boston's domestic partner benefits plan, which is inclusive of all couples regardless of sex and sexual orientation. It is blatant sex discrimination on Cellucci's part to decide that some domestic partners are more equal than others.

Cost shouldn't be a factor in this decision, since non-sexist domestic partner plans around the country have seen enrollment increase by an average of only 1%. This is not an issue of money; it's an issue of fairness.

Certainly, a discriminatory domestic partner plan that would provide benefits only to same-sex couples would satisfy some gays and lesbians. And indeed, it would be one small, long-overdue step toward making society an equitable place for all, regardless of sexual orientation. But selling out on some families in order to please others does not make Massachusetts an equitable place to live or work.

A version of this op-ed appeared in The Boston Globe on August 5, 1998.

---

09 Feb 02 - 06:13 PM (#646187)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Rustic Rebel

Wow guest, that last article is exactly what I am saying!And feeling about being discriminated against. This is good. I'm going send this article to some Mn people bacause that is what is going on here also. So Mass. opposite-sex partners aren't the only ones. Thanks to all once again for advice and insight. RR

---

09 Feb 02 - 10:44 PM (#646327)
Subject: RE: opinion-Is This Discrimination?
From: Peter K (Fionn)

McGrath, I thought that common law marriage (now anyway) had no legitimacy in the UK?

---