Family values

Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights as everyone else

The law now declares that there are two classes of city employees in Boston, separate and unequal.

For the favored employees, the majority, the city provides full health benefits. But for the others, a minority, it restricts them: health coverage may not be extended to a partner. The reason? It is not that the second group is less skillful or less hard-working. It is that the second group consists of gays and lesbians. And because same-sex marriage is not recognized in Massachusetts, gay and lesbian couples cannot take advantage of a benefit available to their heterosexual counterparts.

In 1995, Boston city councilor Tom Keane sponsored a bill that would extend health insurance to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian city employees. The city council approved the bill, and Mayor Menino supported it. But when it was sent to the legislature, it fell victim to House Speaker Tom Finneran's obstructionism.

Now, the legislature has before it a bill that would allow all Massachusetts cities to right this wrong. And so, with the nation meditating on the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., it is time for Beacon Hill to take this next, small step toward a society where men and women are judged solely, as King put it in another context, on "the content of their character."

In part, the issue is simple fairness. Why should someone in a committed gay or lesbian relationship be paid less in benefits than a heterosexual? Certainly it's not the expense: companies that have extended benefits to domestic partners say it has increased their benefits costs by less than one half of one percent.

Then there is the question of competitive advantage. A growing number of businesses already recognize that in doing the right thing, they can do well. BankBoston, for example, has extended domestic partner benefits and found its workforce strengthened by talented gays and lesbians. Shouldn't our city governments be doing the same?

That said, even this domestic partner bill (which would also apply to state employees) is only a stopgap measure. Gay and lesbian couples face all kinds of extra hurdles -- from hospital visitation privileges to veteran's benefits. The real problem is that Massachusetts, and the nation, does not yet recognize the legality -- or the value -- of marriage between people of the same sex. Social conservatives are fond of saying that the family is an essential building block of a strong society. They argue that committed, stable partnerships between people build committed, stable communities. Good points. But conservatives then do everything in their power to denigrate and undermine partnerships that involve members of the same sex. Intolerance like this has given "family values" a bad name.

Acting Governor Paul Cellucci likes to brag to liberals that he was the one who pushed Weld toward a more enlightened approach to gay issues. Now he has an opportunity to be truly bold, and truly imaginative: he should champion a bill that would give gays and lesbians the same marriage rights enjoyed by everyone else. There would actually be a certain political logic to the move. With Malone solidifying the GOP's hard core, Cellucci needs to find a way to bring independents into the Republican primary, the way Weld did in 1990. Supporting gay marriage would help accomplish that. And by taking a principled stand, he would kill one of his biggest negatives with voters: the perception that he is a hack.

Eventually, we hope, Massachusetts will come to see the moral and social logic of marriages between members of the same sex. And if it does, the state will have acted on one of King's great insights. To deny a people their dignity is not just a moral outrage; it divides -- and weakens -- us all.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.