Tweet
Domestic partnerships in Washington are about protecting families. All families. Grandma & Grandpa’s included. Seattle Times staff writer Lornet Turnbull describes how anti-LGBT activists have framed the domestic partnerships debate around gays, sidestepping for them what must be an inconvenient truth: rejecting the domestic partnership bill would hurt heterosexual seniors.
John Boehrer and Lynn Elmore registered as domestic partners shortly after state law first allowed it two years ago because they wanted to be able to make critical decisions about one another’s care, if it ever comes to that.Together eight years and both in their 60s, they’ve chosen not to marry in part because Elmore, who is divorced, would lose certain benefits.
In Washington state, heterosexual couples can get a domestic partnership if at least one partner is 62 years old or older.
“I think people may not be very well-educated about the full scope of the law, that it affects more than just same-sex couples,” Elmore said. “They may not consider what it means to people like us.”
Inexplicably, the powerful senior citizens advocacy organization AARP has remained silent on the issue, despite their claim that
AdvocacyWe stand up for our members and society as a strong nonpartisan advocate for social change. We work on the issues that are important to 50+ Americans, including health and financial security and livable communities.
Domestic partnerships qualify under “financial security” at least. AARP members may want to contact their organization (1-888-OUR-AARP) and demand that AARP stand by seniors in domestic partnerships. Heterosexual seniors are getting domestic partnerships in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Washington state and Washington, D.C.. So vital to have these family protections in uncertain economic times like these.
Closer to home, The Washington Senior Citizen Lobby is on-board, and that is encouraging.
The Washington Senior Citizen Lobby, representing 26 agencies and organizations that deal mostly with senior issues, said it supported the expansion that passed this year and is working with Washington Families to win voter approval of the law in November.
Senior Services, Advisory Council on Aging and Disability Services Seattle/King County and Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans have joined with over 150 other organizations that endorse Washington Families Standing Together’s campaign to preserve the domestic partnership law.
According to calculations in the article, in Washington there are about 410 straight senior couples in domestic partnerships, many living “in smaller towns and rural areas, and large numbers are in Eastern Washington.” In other words, they’re in the places that need to hear their voices most.
Elmore said some friends and family members in Eastern Washington, where she grew up, may not support full protections for gays. She plans to e-mail them to let them know that a vote against the law is also a vote against her and Boehrer.“I need them to understand that this affects me, too.”
Friends and family of partnered seniors like Lynn Elmore need to vote APPROVED on Referendum 71.
24 Comments
This is how we were able to defeat it in Arizona the first time.May I suggest you contact Representative Kyrsten Sinema? She’s one of the people who got that done.
Interesting thought…I guess the debate is so centered on same-sex domestic partnerships, I never thought of it affecting straight people as well.
One thing I wonder, what benefits would he lose if he got married? Anyone know? Call me curious.
CakeI don’t think that a story about Grandma sidestepping the law is the best way to cover this either.
I understand that some heterosexual couples might choose to go this route as well, but usually when they talk about ‘losing benefits by remarrying’ they are discussing things like social security, spousal support, military benefits, etc. By choosing a domestic partnership, she’s getting her cake and eat it too.
Proving that the heterosexuals can use this as a legal loophole isn’t exactly the way to win hearts and minds.
wait, call me an idiotshould have read the article all the way….
Answered my own question.
The Anti-Gays Don’t CareTrust me, as long as their primary goal is to destroy domestic partner benefits for gay couples, they’ll gladly destroy anyone and anything in their way to get to that goal.
All that whining about “grandma” and “children” means nothing – they shouldn’t have been standing between them and teh gays in the first place!
PieYou are right, this won’t help DP efforts at all. More likely people will see it for what it is, trying to milk the most out of the system as possible. It is a loophole.
PACSThis is one of the things that made the French domestic partnership law so popular (the PACS). The initial interest in the bill was connected to the issue of same sex partnership, but the bill was constructed in such a way that it allowed for any number of domestic partnerships to be recognized (you could have a PACS with a same or opposite sex partner, a long time roommate, or even a relative that you were taking care of) It has benefited a large majority of the society. This has made the law really popular to the point where many of the main opponents of the bill now support it. (Including a legislator who literally lifted up a bible during her tirade against the bill when it was proposed.)
On the One Hand, but …On the one hand, this makes an argument on why DPs in Washington should NOT be thrown out, even if people hate same-sex couples, because doing so would hurt straight (mostly older) folks. Pointing this out to more people might get more sympathetic voters to help keep DPs.
But, on the other hand, the seniors who benefit from DPs now would object to future marriage legislation if that might mean the DPs go away.
(Meanwhile, in the here and now, don’t we same-sex couples wish we had the choice of marriage, or not, that John and Lynn have?!?)
However …Having learned their lesson by pissing off cohabitating oldsters in 2006, the bad guys came back in 2008 with a ballot measure that made it plain that only same-sex couples would suffer. And that, of course, passed easily.
yes but they don’t cast all the votes.there are a lot of people who may have no particular opinion on domestic partnerships until they realize that they may want one themselves. enlightened self-interest, not to mention true compassion for the seniors in their life.
cross that bridge when we get to it.we should be so lucky as to seriously need to consider maintaining the DP system even if marriage equality become the reality in WA. but for the forseeable future, the reality is DPs.
TrueAnd BTW, when I said “all that whining about grandma and the children”, I meant as in when they say “Obama’s out to kill grandma!” and “….but what about the children?”.
Not to be confused with anything anyone said in this thread LOL!
crumbs, not cakemany seniors live on very small fixed incomes. part of that income is often social security benefits from a deceased spouse. if that senior remarries, that benefit stops. seniors in this situation can’t afford to re-marry.
i watched my own dad go through this very same calculus. he had been a baptist minister, which is not a lucrative job unless you’re a charlatan. so dad was relying heavily for subsistence on my mom’s pension and social security.
after mom died, he decided to remarry and faced losing a lot of that financial security. luckily for him, his new wife was getting the pension of her deceased husband, who had a good general motors pension. so they decided they could afford to get married. but only just. and now, because of the economic collapse, the g.m. pension benefits have been slashed. if they had been able to get a domestic partnership in the first place and not lose the social security stipends from both deceased spouses, they’d be much more financially secure than they are today.
Another reason the Goopers should be put on the defensive.They keep accusing us of being un-American and putting kids and old people through death panels (and although the government is totally incompetent and should be trusted with anything important it will be very good at doing this) and all that so questions should start being asked. This is kind of pulling the plug on old people, and they apparently support pulling the plug on mothers and kids. The good Samaritan was an evil socialist nazi commie and should have been stoned/shot at a town hall meeting.
I think that I am to cynical at this point. The other night, I think that it was on Rachel Maddow’s show, there was a clip about the aftermath of Katrina. A woman was wondering why we send emergency aid to foreign countries right away and why they had to wait for basic supplies such as water. The only answer that I could come up with is that to send it overseas is patriotic and makes us proud to be Americans. To use our taxes to help our people is socialism. We just can’t have that, can we?
As for DPs/marriages, isn’t it interesting how people can think that stuff that absolutely doesn’t concern them personally is all about them? Keeping people from marrying the people they love is their number one priority, and yet they can be talked out of supporting their own self interests in stuff that affects them totally, like their health care or how much is spent on fool’s errands in the Middle East without much of an effort. All it sounds like anyone should do is to yell words from the 20′s-80′s, have the person who hears it pretend that they make sense and are something to be angry enough about to repeat. It never makes sense but that never seems to impede teh stoopit, does it?
I’m not sure what to scream about SSM, I’m just not that creative, but surely someone can come up with something to get the angry mob on the side of the facts instead of bizarre speculation about “what if…?” that results in some even more bizarre answers. Oh, those birthers, deathers, etc. It has gotten to the point where Rachel’s “Holy Mackerel” stories are less “holy mackerel” than her main stuff. (facepalm, repeat)
There are healthcare issues as well though.Marriage can change entitlement to healthcare coverage – and for some people, that can literally mean the difference between life and death if they’re reliant on the coverage for medical care and unable to afford an alternative.
Of course, this wouldn’t be an issue in a socialised healthcare system…
good pointsBoth of these are very good points. It is always hard to lose something you rely on, but at the end of the day it’s still cheating the system.
I’m not sure why they haven’t forced people to give up divorce/widow benefits if you enter into a DP, when you’re forced to when remarrying.
There was a court case in in Californiawhere and ex husband sued to end alimony payments to his ex wife because she was now a domestic partnership…the family court said ‘no’ that alimony would only end if she remarried. I say FU to the system. Equalize the playing field or else everyone will attempt to maximize “the system”. I say nothing wrong with that. I like to point out to people the reason WHY senior in CA become DPs rather than remarry…because HEY there are benefits to being able to OWN the the MARRIAGE.
The system is CHEATING LGBT citizens because we aren’t equal.
They wouldn’t need to cheat the system…if the system was set up to benefit everyone.
Doesn’t that make Domestic Partnerships SPECIAL RIGHTSfor heterosexual’s over 62?
Special rights for heterosexuals dp or marriage lol
Same sh!t, different dayWent through the same thing in Florida when they passed their law a couple of years ago, maybe last year, time flies so who knows. But it had an effect on every type of common law marriage, even the heteros. You can’t educate everybody unfortunately. I’m young, so I have time I hope, but the paradigm shift is coming in this country on that issue.
If they allow senior citizens to be domestic partnersthe schools will to teach kids about senior citizens having sex.
your dad is an exception,being in a profession where he made less money than his wife. For couples older than a certain age, the man almost always made more money, had the pension, and had higher social security benefits because the only job the woman could get was a pink collar one, or she took care of the kids and house full-time for no pay. She did her part for years and years for low or no pay, he dies, she still gets his pension or his social security benefits as part of the societal contract. The unfair part is that same-sex couples cannot share benefits so that one doesn’t have the option of staying home with children without penalty, or getting the higher social security payments if the best lifestyle for the family is one working in a high-paying job, the other in a lower-paying, part-time job. The problem is not having universal health care that all of us to go to the doctor whether we’re straight, gay, or bi, married, single, divorced, or widowed. The problem is not straight seniors finding a way not to lose their (deceased spouse’s) health insurance, small pension, or social security check just because they fell in love with another senior who may not have a pension or health insurance built for two.
^^