Same-sex couples at this university have long fought for the same privileges as their heterosexual counterparts. Last year, they were brought one step closer to having equal rights as married couples when the Board of Regents voted to grant same-sex spouses who are university system employees the same benefits a husband and wife would enjoy.
But because this state hasn’t legalized same-sex marriage, the extension only applies to couples who marry in a state that does allow it. Although the General Assembly came the closest it ever has to passing such a law this spring, the legislation ultimately failed. Therefore, same-sex couples who are not married but define themselves as in a domestic partnership are still left without some of these crucial benefits, such as taking sick leave to care for a partner, bereavement leave to mourn their death or applying tuition remission to family members.
Different university groups are working to change that. A University Senate committee recently passed legislation urging the regents to extend these benefits once more — this time to include domestic partnerships. The full senate body could vote on that recommendation within the next month; if passed, the legislation would send a powerful message from the system’s flagship institution. The Student Government Association is also taking up the issue and will debate it at tomorrow’s meeting.
But only the Board of Regents — the 17-member committee that oversees policy for all of the state’s higher education institutions — has the authority to change the policy, and the body hasn’t indicated any intention to do so. System Chancellor Brit Kirwan said the regents haven’t discussed the issue because the legislative tides regarding gay marriage in the state may soon be changing. According to Kirwan, there is a strong chance same-sex marriage will be legalized in the state in the next legislative session. If that happens, Kirwan says, it’ll be a moot issue. Same-sex couples will be afforded the right to marry, barriers to inequality will be removed and the need to discuss such an extension will effectively be ended.
But this editorial board isn’t satisfied with passing the buck to state lawmakers. The regents should vote to extend benefits — regardless of what will or will not happen in the General Assembly — to ensure everyone is given equal privileges.
Because some lawmakers in the General Assembly must represent their socially conservative constituents, LGBTQA causes have fared much worse in Annapolis than in the university system. Although the legislation will likely be introduced again in the upcoming session, it’s not fair to postpone equality any longer, and it’s certainly not fair to let those rights hinge on the action of a legislative body that has proved to be less than friendly toward gay rights. This editorial board is optimistic this will be the year same-sex marriage becomes legal in our state, but until that time, we urge system officials to take equality into their own hands.
In this state, domestic partners are defined as same-sex or different-sex individuals ages 18 or older who aren’t in a marriage or civil union and have consented to be in “a relationship of mutual interdependence.” Couples affirm their partnerships by providing sworn affidavits and two other forms of proof, such as a shared bank account or joint liability for a mortgage or other loan.
This editorial board agrees that because same-sex couples are still denied the right to marry in this state, these devoted individuals deserve the same benefits given to the devoted individuals whose relationships are different only in that they’re recognized as more legitimate by the government. In the interest of fairness, we support extending marital benefits to domestic partners.
The motivation driving this discussion is to give same-sex couples equal rights. The only reason domestic partnerships should be extended the benefits is because, absent the right to marry, doing so is the only way to put everyone on an equal playing field. But because it’s another discussion entirely whether heterosexual domestic partnerships should warrant the same rights as heterosexual married couples, the extension of benefits for domestic parternships could be revoked once same-sex marriage is legalized.
At that time, officials and lawmakers can revisit the issue of extending marital benefits to domestic partners — both same-sex and different-sex — if they feel it’s necessary to re-evaluate the structure of awarding benefits in this state. The question would be whether long-term, committed relationships deserve the same legal status as marriages.
It wouldn’t be an issue for the LGBTQA community, and it wouldn’t be about sexual preference — that factor wouldn’t even be part of the conversation. And that’s how it should be.
