Why ‘Pick’ On Dr. Pollack?

Legislators Put On ‘Circus’ at Hearing for Domestic Partnerships

Critics See Legislation As Threat To Traditional Marriage at Cost of $15 Million/Year

Bryan Rudnick and C.J. Doyle spoke out in opposition to domestic partnerships.

By Ed Oliver
August 2001

Supporters of proposed domestic partnership legislation packed a hearing room last month on Beacon Hill to testify in favor of three bills under consideration by the Joint Committee on Public Service.

If passed by the legislature, the bills will provide health insurance for “partners” of unmarried state employees, heterosexual and homosexual, and their dependent children. The bills would require municipalities to extend the same benefits to their employees.

Executive Director of the Massachusetts Citizens Alliance, Bryan Rudnick, warned that the cost of domestic partnerships to Massachusetts taxpayers would be an estimated $15 million in the first year based on a study by the Beacon Hill Institute. He said an expensive agency would have to be formed to prevent abuse by determining the veracity of each application.

He also called the domestic partnership bills “a Trojan Horse for gay marriage.”

Supporters of the bills were allowed to testify first. Those who lined up included representatives from various gay and lesbian organizations, the ACLU, churches, current and former state employees, municipal politicians and homosexual heads-of-household with their children as well as other individuals.

There was a strong showing from approximately 30 state senators and representatives testifying in favor of the legislation. Although they are only 15% of the 200 legislators on the hill, they put on a good show.

At one point, a group of 14 legislators stood shoulder-to-shoulder before the committee prompting the chairman, Senator Brian Joyce, to say they were the largest contingent of legislators to do so in his time there. “The breadth and depth of commitment is duly noted,” he said.

Representative Paul Demakis even stepped down from his committee chair to testify in favor of the legislation. Demakis said domestic partner benefits “are not a radical notion,” and are “not anti-family, it is pro-family.”

The main argument used by proponents of the legislation was a call for fairness. “Equal work for equal pay,” was the mantra. Sen. Jacques used that line when she told the committee, “All of you here have family benefits, I don’t have health insurance for my family.”

Chairman Joyce interrupted testimony several times to voice his sympathy and to say he cannot believe that in these “enlightened” times, people are still treated like years ago when there were “gross racial disparities.”

Another argument by proponents was that many private corporations are offering domestic partnership benefits to their workers, so the state must offer them too in order to remain competitive and attract employees. Some, who testified, such as Rep. Alice Wolf, said there would be essentially no increase in costs if health benefits were extended. Wolf said, “Any employee we hire potentially has a family anyway. One-half to one percent will take advantage of this.”

Openly gay Representative Jarrett Barrios, who is on the board of directors of the radical “Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders”(GLAD), urged the committee to vote favorably on the bills as a defense against the proposed protection of marriage act. He warned that the marriage bill “goes further than any other” by limiting benefits for married public employees to traditional married couples.

Executive Director John Auerbach of the Boston Public Health Commission said homosexuals have greater health problems than heterosexuals. He did not mention risky behavior as a cause but offered his theory that, “Because of discrimination they are more likely to be less healthy.” He said homosexuals are more likely to smoke, to be victims of violence and to commit suicide.

Chairman Joyce interrupted the co-chair of the “Freedom to Marry Coalition,” Robert Debenedictis, during his testimony and politely asked him to refrain from characterizing the opposition’s arguments, but instead to testify about why they should support the legislation.

Mary Bonauto, an attorney with GLAD, was one of several who mentioned that the legislature has to act in order to extend benefits to modern families since the SJC ruled that there is no room to maneuver with current insurance laws. “We’re certainly overdue to revisit these definitions,” she said.

Arguing for benefits normally afforded to married couples, a homosexual Worcester Police Officer asked the committee, “What if one of the firefighters in that tragic Worcester fire was gay or lesbian?”

Professor Patricia Markunas from Salem State College, who is a member of the American Psychological Association, testified that children benefit from having gay partners integrated into the household and any negative effects on the kids come from society.

Rep. Brian Golden surprised Markunas by asking her if it was fair that two brothers or two sisters living together could not have domestic partner benefits under the proposed legislation. He asked her, “Why would I deprive others with this bill?” He said he would vote for the bill in a heartbeat if the blood relation restriction were removed, although he admitted it would “cost us a ton.”

Markunas did not know what to say other than gay and lesbian partnerships are more committed.

Golden said “I am deeply disturbed, I’m dying for a good answer.” He said he is dying to hear a principled distinction as to why you would not extend benefits to family members living together long term. Golden said until he is satisfied with an answer he will recommend voting against the bills.

Markunas said she was not prepared with a better answer.