Thanks for the response.

Here’s where I see an apparent contradiction–the organization providing health benefits–be it IU or any other institution, corporation, society, etc.–is in a sense declaring the employer a “partner”–and enacting an economic union. Once declaring that the institution can decide to confer benefits of that partnership (I wanted to call it paternalism–but it’s less “loving” than that!) to the family of the partner. This is determining to become a kind of protectorate.

How does the organization benefit from the further legal action of requiring marriage if it can just as easily determine via economic documents the reality of a domestic partnership?

Finally, if it’s willing to offer this status to two individuals who are unmarried why is it not willing to offer it to other similar partnerships? It’s a CHOICE the university to keep this affidavit narrow. HOW does the choice to not extend the benefit to other partners prove beneficial?

I worked at a large science society–notoriously and extremely republican and conservative to its core–their partner recognition was for ALL domestic partners–not just same sex. So that bastion of conservatism is more liberal than a liberal university system.

Are there actions to take to influence a change–is a letter to the editor the best one could do?

When you come to the issue of “legal recognition,” it gets thornier. That’s what civil marriage IS–recognition by the state of your partnership, for the purpose of awarding certain legal benefits. The state does not and cannot sanctify a relationship; that’s left to churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. If Americans understood that “marriage” is an exclusively religious state, and that what we call legal marriage is essentially a civil union, or a recognition by the government of a contractual commitment, many of these issues would go away.

Where do you stand with respect to “Domestic Partner” affidavits–the Indiana University (your system?) offers Domestic Partner status for health care BUT restricts this status to only “same-sex” couples.

How did “marriage” become a requirement for recognition of a life partner. I’ve been in a heterosexual relationship for 3 years (IU requires domestic partners to be in a committed union for 6 months). My partner and I are ambivalent about marriage as an institution but health care almost twists our arm into doing so.

Because IU has a restrictive domestic partner policy (going so far as to require the applicants to pledge that they WOULD get married if only Indiana would allow it) I cannot get health insurance under my partner’s plan.

It is an irony that this policy discriminates against us. We may be able to be married, but we choose not to. Why should this bar us from a legal recognition of our partnership?

thanks for your thoughts!

I agree that gay marriage is the last major civil rights milestone yet to be surpassed and I hope is this case if eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court gets a 5 to 4 decison to overturn Proposition 8 and not a 5-4 decision as in the case decided in Bush v Gore decided wrongfully against Vice President Gore!!