The City should extend its equal benefits law
Jesse Beason
Sam's op-ed appeared in The Oregonian, Monday, April 10, 2006
Let me tell you about Kelly and Dolores. They've been a family for 17 years. While Dolores works as an electrician, Kelly stays at home to care for their 4-year-old son, Avery, and newborn baby girl, Evan.
Dolores' health care policy covers employees, married spouses, biological children, stepchildren, adopted children and anyone an employee is caring for such as siblings, parents, grandchildren, nieces and nephews. But the policy does not cover domestic partners. It does not cover Kelly, Dolores' partner of nearly two decades. This is wrong.
I am pro-family. Society benefits when two people like Kelly and Dolores make a long-term commitment to creating a family. Government should encourage the health and prosperity of all such families.
Sadly though, most federal and state laws that are designed to encourage families treat some as second-class. Families headed by married couples of opposite gender are awarded tax benefits and rights for being committed partners. Families headed by unmarried couples or couples of the same gender, who are not allowed to marry in Oregon, receive no tax benefits and few rights for being committed partners.
As a city commissioner, I cannot introduce federal or state changes to bring equality to all families. I can, however, help to end this second-class treatment at the city government level.
Our non-discrimination laws apply "whether carried out by the city of Portland directly or through a contractor." As a result, city benefits have applied equally to all employees' families since we began offering domestic-partner benefits in 1994. On Wednesday, I will introduce to the City Council an Equal Benefits Ordinance to ensure we are also following this standard when contracting.
Put simply, if a city contractor offers either employer-paid or employee-paid benefits to the families of its workers, it needs to offer those benefits equally - regardless of what those families look like.
If a city contractor does not offer benefits to the spouses and partners of its workers, I would not force them to do so - although I wish they would. But the city's principle of equal pay for equal work is clear. When you offer benefits to one kind of family, you offer benefits to every kind of family.
More than two decades of data speaks for itself; covering domestic partners is of no more risk to insurers - and should impose no additional costs - than covering spouses. Many Oregon insurers do not tack on these extra costs.
This is not a unique piece of legislation. Portland would join 12 other government jurisdictions to enact such policies. Their experiences, from tiny Tumwater, Wash., to sunny Miami Beach has been overwhelmingly positive and met with minimal costs to government and contractors.
Healthy families are the bedrock of our city. I will do all I can to ensure they are considered fairly. As Kelly wrote to my office recently, "If the city of Portland's [equal benefits ordinance] helps set the standard for what's right and decent, then maybe organizations will rise to a new level - and take care to treat everyone equally."
Exactly.
Sam Adams is a Portland city commissioner.
Posted by Jesse Beason on April 10, 2006
(13) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Equality, Front Page, Good Government, News, Our Initiatives
Comments by site visitors
Gee Sam, your legislation means that my "family" of 3 men and 6 women and 8 children will covered then, right? BTW, none of the men are the fathers of any of the children. And my neighbor, the one with 5 wives all "married" to him, plus their 11 assorted kids, they will all be covered too?
So what constitutes a family? If two gay folks living together constitutes one why would the cases above not constitute one?
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Apr 17, 2006 7:06:55 PM
"And my neighbor, the one with 5 wives all "married" to him, plus their 11 assorted kids, they will all be covered too?"
^That is an illegal choice. Last time I checked being a homosexual was not illegal nor a choice.
I would go on to argue that if you knowingly live next to a practicing polygamist you have the moral authority, if not a legal one, to report it to CPS.
"Social equality is not equal to an inalienable right. It is also not equal to a right."
so sad in a 21st century world this view can still exist and that the author wouldn't be embarrased to have his name tied to it. It further reinforces why Sam's position, and this requirement, is necessary.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Apr 18, 2006 1:08:50 PM
Actually, homosexual 'marriage' IS illegal, per the most recent state constitution change. Regarding if homosexual is a choice or not, the jury is still out - as far as I know there is still no definitive proof that it isn't a choice. Besides, the question/resolution is merely one regarding families - since two gay folks can't be married that part is taken out of the equation, so we're back to what is a family and how/who do you classify such a unit.
It appears that Sam and you would like to make two people living together and whomever else lives with them a 'family' unit. If that is the case then the two cases I mentioned would suffice - to 'beat' the system one man and one woman in each of those living arraignments would be "the couple" and then everyone else would qualify for insurance too. That type of 'beat-the-system' is but one of many reasons that benefits are extended to married couples (easier to verify).
The statement should have read, "Social equality is not an inalienable right." Just as monetary equality is not an inalienable right. In the case of monetary it depends upon how hard you work and what you do to improve your lot in life. In the case of social, it depends upon what society wishes to encourage. Hetro couples have high odds of producing children, hence society continues. Homo couples have much lower chances of having children therefore incouraging those types of relationships does little to give a society longevity; hence society does not encourage those types of couplings.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Apr 18, 2006 11:07:16 PM
"Actually, homosexual 'marriage' IS illegal, per the most recent state constitution change."
No, actually it is not. Something not being recognized and something illegal are two different things. Marriage is defined as union between one man and one woman. It does not say that gays coupling together is illegal, nor does it say if a homosexual couple marry inside a church, their vows are illegal. What it does say is that the state will only recognize and extend marriage benefits on the terms provided, not that all other unions are illegal.
"Regarding if homosexual is a choice or not, the jury is still out - as far as I know there is still no definitive proof that it isn't a choice."
Do you choose, and I am assuming here, to be a heterosexual? I'm curious, if you choooose too, could you see yourself enjoying sex, life, love and a family with someone of the same sex? If you can't, why would you assume I can?
"It appears that Sam and you would like to make two people living together and whomever else lives with them a 'family' unit."
No, the issue wasn't that broad. We are talking about same-sex relationships. If you want to deal with extending family benefits (i.e. a daughter taking care of her elderly mother) that is a separate issue and needs to be addressed in its own forum by those that passionately want to see those benefits extended, not by someone like you who abuses apples and oranges to try and create an illusion.
"That type of 'beat-the-system' is but one of many reasons that benefits are extended to married couples (easier to verify)."
Only in your head is it easier to verify. If two people marry solely for the governmental benefits, being a hetero or a homo doesn't matter because you aren't marrying for love or commitment. I know of people I could marry solely for the benefits. However, I know of one person I want to marry because of love, and have been told no by a simple majority vote. However, the people of Portland did say yes, and by a fairly large margin, so this ordinance Sam is proposing doesn't impose anything on Portlanders they already haven't said (in mass) they think is fair.
"The statement should have read, "Social equality is not an inalienable right." Just as monetary equality is not an inalienable right. In the case of monetary it depends upon how hard you work and what you do to improve your lot in life. In the case of social, it depends upon what society wishes to encourage. Hetro couples have high odds of producing children, hence society continues. Homo couples have much lower chances of having children therefore incouraging those types of relationships does little to give a society longevity; hence society does not encourage those types of couplings."
Society wishes to encourage? Slaves, separate but equal, detention camps? Society has always been right when it comes to restricting personal freedoms so we should just allow society to continue to dictate rights of oppressed populations? Don't conservatives believe in less governmental intervention? Isn't creating new laws restricting people's rights expanding government's presence in our personal lives?
You are right on one point; homosexuals do have a lower chance of producing children. When I choose to raise a child in this world it will never be, "ooops, the condom broke, guess I need to quit school, work three jobs, and sell my car to pay for the pregnancy." It isn't that homosexuals can't have families, it is that a homosexual family is almost always planned. The gay couples that choose to have children will usually be financially stable, own their cars and homes, and have a strong commitment with their partner before adding children into the mix. When it comes to homosexual families, very rarely do mistakes just happen. If the mainstream society would plan their families the way we gay couples do, you would see less unwanted children left on firehouse steps, a lower abortion rate, less abuse from a parent that holds resentment, less abandonment of the family, and more engaged parents in child raising and early years education.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Apr 19, 2006 12:23:28 PM
So happy I got one thing right - however you twist facts and labels things that aren't so.
Homosexuality a choice - go to prison, many people there end up (while in prison) engaging in homosexual activity. When they come out they go back to hetrosexual activity - it is a choice.
Re-read the posting that Sam talks about, it's family, family, family - the bill can't be in regards to a married couple or the head of a family that is a married couple because gay marriages don't exist in the eyes of the law. So yes, the question is what comprises a family and again I ask since Sam wants to redefine that term why stop at a 'family' that is headed by two people - what is wrong with all those other alternative families? Further proof that he isn't JUST talking about gay folks is that the bill addresses (in Sam's own words) "Families headed by unmarried couples" he said earlier, "Dolores' health care policy covers employees, married spouses, biological children, stepchildren, adopted children and anyone an employee is caring for such as siblings, parents, grandchildren, nieces and nephews." This is the type of policy he would like to see and yes it covers parents, etc.
"Only in your head is it easier to verify. If two people marry solely for the governmental benefits, being a hetero or a homo doesn't matter because you aren't marrying for love or commitment. I know of people I could marry solely for the benefits." Yes, and we all know of folks who marry (often in name only and for money) so that one of the people can get a green card (although doesn't seem to matter as much any more). Any and every system can be beat, copyprotection is beat everyday - but the more obsticles you place in it's way the more people it discourages (no copy protection EVERYBODY copies, copy protection cuts off a sizable portion of those who don't pursue ways of defeating it).
"Society has always been right when it comes to restricting personal freedoms..." Correction, society HAS the right (via laws) to restrict various types of behavior which can be a 'personal freedom'. Society outlaws drugs because drug use is detrimental to society (crazed folks doing odd things, folks on drugs unable to do a job like they should and in turn someone else on the job gets hurt, etc). Society also regulates things like the speed a car is suppose to go, the fact that killing someone is a no-no. Society encourages that which it believes will help itself and discourages those things that it doesn't see as a benefit.
"... homosexual family is almost always planned." Oh yeah, all those folks who have a traditional marriage and then one of them decides/figures out that they are homosexual and take their kids with them, yeah, those are planned okay. We both know that for every statistic you show me showing that homosexual families are stable and a good enviroment, I can show you one that shows that it isn't.
We both agree that a loving stable family is best for any child. If the heads of the family, regardless of gender preference, are fighting and arguing (or worse behavior) it is not beneficial to any child. However, studies have also shown that a family headed by a male and female are the best for children http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50
(from American College of Pediatricians)
Posted by: mmmarvel | Apr 19, 2006 3:01:57 PM
Nice name, American College of Pediatricians. However, this is how they describe themselves. "The College was founded in 2002, out of concern for the welfare of children, who are often placed at risk emotionally and physically by contemporary societal forces, and to advocate for the preservation of their natural families."
Hardly the open minded, just trying to get down to the truth about gays you just tried to present them as. In fact, these people want push their opinion as fact so terribly bad that they even listed all their titles used to justify their "research." I went ahead and copy and pasted a few of the titles.
"Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting"
"Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality"
"Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence"
"Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,"
"Life Without Father"
"Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality,"
"No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting"
"Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,"
“The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner"
"Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,"
"Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey,"
and you use this ^ to justify your arrogance, bigotry and prejudices?
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Apr 19, 2006 3:51:02 PM
"We both know that for every statistic you show me showing that homosexual families are stable and a good enviroment, I can show you one that shows that it isn't."
I'm not going to show you statistics, I will show you fact. There are plenty of loving gay and lesbian parents in Portland. I'll show you five Portland gay or lesbian parents with exceptional children. You show me five Portland gay or lesbian parents that are guilty of the misparenting that you and this 'American College of Pediatricians' outfit claim happens.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Apr 19, 2006 3:57:42 PM
Ya know Mark, it's amazing, I try to keep the talk on the topic and the topic is health benefits for families. You want to make it a 'gay' issue and that is what you constantly slam on. So let's deal with your last comments:
First, I tried to find a website talking about studies with kids and gay parents that was neither pro-gay or christian, as I feel that both of those types of sites start with a huge bias; the one I found certainly wasn't pro-gay and didn't appear to be christian - if they too are bias, sorry. Try as I might, I find it very difficult to find info that isn't bias one way or the other.
Second, regarding your "fact" - just as there are loving, supportive gay parents so too there are loving, supportive hetrosexual parents. Just as there are abusive hetrosexual parents there are abusive homosexual parents ... or are you trying to deny that? There is good and bad in every group. You love to talk about good parents and the love that parents have for their children. Do you believe that children raised in a commune setting are any less 'loved' than ones raised in a homo or hetro (single couple) household? Do you think that children raised in a poligamist household are any more or less loved than those raised in a traditional one couple head-of-household setting?
That is what I mean when I say you are missing the point. Sam is introducing a bill where he wishes to (essentially) redefine the term "family". He wants businesses to offer to all workers what it offers to married heterosexual workers - with the boundary that the 'family' be headed by a couple. Why stop there? What is wrong with expanding the definition of 'family' to the commune or poligamist family? Which is another way of saying that IS why the term 'family' shouldn't be redefined - where DO you draw the line and why there?
I'm not homophobic, I could care less what you do in your bedroom and I believe that you don't really care what I do in mine. If you're a homosexual, I don't care. I do care about what changes bring to a society - the rule of unintended consequences, the things that can, will and do happen because something was changed. Things that we don't expect or wish to happen - happen.
So again, tell me, why should the definition of 'family' be extended to two persons living together (regardless of sexual orientation) but not to a communal type 'family' or a polygamist family?
Posted by: mmmarvel | Apr 20, 2006 3:44:18 PM
FACTS REGARDING DP STATUS IN OREGON
Q:
How much would adding domestic coverage cost employers?
A:
Nothing unless the employer elects to pay for coverage for the Domestic Partner (DP). If not the additional cost is borne by the employee when they add a dependent to the plan.
Q:
If the employer does pay all or a portion of the DP insurance coverage how much of that cost can be written off for taxes?
A:
That depends -
Oregon Administrative Rule 150-316.007-(B)
States that:
1) The imputed value of health insurance benefits provided by an employer
to an employee’s domestic partner shall be exempt from state income tax.
Q:
How does the State define DP relationships?
A:
According to Oregon Administrative Rule 150-316.007-(B):
2) As used in this rule, “domestic partner” means a person in a relationship
with an employee, each of whom:
(a) is under no legal disability to marry the other person, but for the fact that
each is of the same sex;
(b) desires a relationship of marriage under Oregon law and would enter into
marriage with the other person, and only with the other person, if Oregon law
permitted it;
(c) is committed to the care and support of the other person;
(d) is responsible for the needs of the other person;
(e) is responsible for financial obligations to others equivalent to such
financial obligations that arise within a marriage recognized under Oregon
law; and
(f) is not married and has no similar commitment and responsibility relative to
any other individual.
So Adron, How exactly would requiring insurance companies to add a DP option cost YOU money? Pleas provide concrete examples backed by facts. You know - just like in high school writing class.
And
"mmmarvel" Regarding your question:
"So again, tell me, why should the definition of 'family' be extended to two persons living together (regardless of sexual orientation) but not to a communal type 'family' or a polygamist family?"
I'm surprised you ask - surly you would be kind enough to answer that one yourself. Or is it to much to ask of you?
Posted by: Matthew Ross | Apr 21, 2006 7:44:24 AM
If I were married to my dog can I get benefits if the dog dies or gets sick? The relationship dosn't have to be consumated does it? Just legal.
Somebody get busy and challenge the legality of this law.
Posted by: r. | Apr 21, 2006 5:51:07 PM
Matthew -
First I'd like to know the administrative rule that you quote - does the relationship have to have the items/qualities that are listed or is it one of those if you have two or three out of this list then you qualify for/as DP?
Second, I rather thought I had answered the question - to me once you redefine a term, a word - be that word marriage or family; you open up a pandora's box as to what the word now means. If marriage is expanded to merely two people (based on they love each other and want to be committed to each other) then people in communes and basically in ANY relationship where the individuals declare love and a commitment would fall under that definition. Likewise, if a family is defined as a group of people living together with someone (or two someones) taking responsibility for the well-being of others living in the same house (regardless of marital status) then again, many/any of the alternative lifestyles would fall under that definition.
Folks argue that it is the slippery slope argument but in fact it's actually already a reality. In the Netherlands the first three person civil union took place back in 9/05 (link:http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301)
THAT is why I'm against it, you start the redefinition, and everyone has the right to ask so why is the new line drawn there? BTW - while I was against last sessions SB 100 which tried to give gay couples the same rights as married hetrosexual couples, I didn't object to the reworked bill that indeed would have allowed a son who's sick mother lived with him to be covered, or two elderly sisters living together (non-sexual) to have coverage under one or the other's health insurance policy. However, the gay community wanted the "bedroom test" and wouldn't go for anything less - Sam wouldn't even have had to try to introduce this bill if the revamped SB 100 had been agreed to by the pro-gay forces.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Apr 23, 2006 8:56:12 AM
I love it... whenever somebody suggests that same sex couples should be treated equally to opposite sex couples, there is always at least one person in the crowd who argues the slippery slope of either polygamy or bestiality.
Marriage is no longer simply a matter between two individuals and their religion. For the past couple of centuries, marriage has evolved into a legal contract of explicit and implicit rights and responsibilities that is enforced and recognized by the state.
One simply needs to look to Las Vegas to see how marriage has evolved from what it once was. "Sanctity", as a battle cry, lost legitimacy the day that you could be married to somebody you met two hours earlier by a guy dressed up to look like Elvis while sitting in your car at a drive up window.
If marriage is a matter of religion (like a baptism or confirmation) then the government has no place getting involved. In fact, the Second Amendment of the Constitution specifically bans any law respecting an establishment of religion. You'll never find the government passing a law making a baptism illegitimate.
If marriage is a contract, then the government has no right to only recognize the contracts between opposite sex couples. The purpose of the government should be enforcing and arbitrating the contract. The only time the government should have a role in invalidating a marriage is when it involves a minor or somebody of clearly limited mental capacity. Basically anybody who is unable to understand the decision of entering into a contract. Any other argument is fascism dressed up in the disguise of "Family Values".
By the way, to be clear: I love capitalism. I believe that in a free market, it is up to the individual company to decide whether or not they want to offer health coverage at all, let alone to the spouse of an employee. Companies should be allowed to discriminate on any basis including gender, sexual orientation, race, eye color, city of birth, how many fingers you have on your right hand, your middle name... take your pick of random characteristics.
Here is the "but"... but, when we are using taxpayer money by hiring contractors, arbitrary discrimination must not be allowed. The government must choose to do business only with companies that do not practice discrimination. Taxes are taken by force. As a citizen I don't have a choice to withhold paying taxes. (And gay citizens pay more than a pro rata share of taxes since they are denied the tax benefits that come from marriage). It is abhorrent to have a government that turns around and spends that money on companies that discriminate against gays and gay couples.
Posted by: Greg | Jun 5, 2006 12:20:18 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
That'll raise my costs. Thanks dude... really appreciate it. :( That makes me sad and ashamed.
Social equality is not equal to an inalienable right. It is also not equal to a right. To think or to attempt to perpetuate that it is would be and is a perversion of simple and direct logic. To tell people who don't think these things thru, and think they deserve whatever neighbor #2 has even though they produce less at the expense of neighbor #2 two is horribly wrong.
It is a sad and deplorable act to say every family is the same and by thus association that we are all the same. We are not and no amount of petty legislation and law will ever make us the same.
The above actions to force everyone into a similar state of affairs regardless of whether they do their fair part to earn it is deplorable and offensive.
I am ashamed and offended by such a socialistic thought, and fear the other such future forced situations that will only increase my cost of living, taxes, and other such things.
I love Portland and I love living here, but I can only take so much of this before I (and I assure you many others) will be forced to leave.
When you don't have the jobs or the payrolls to cover these costs, then what will you do?
Posted by: adron | Apr 16, 2006 11:03:36 AM