Unequal Spouse and Same-Sex Spousal Equivalent Requirements

Update: Our representative (Sara Salahi) who has been working on this issue will be at the meeting(s) where they discuss this issue, which won't be until after the academic year starts.

Health insurance under the Duke Student Medical Insurance Plan offered by United Healthcare Student Resources is available to spouses and registered domestic partners (and children). If anyone says differently direct them to the top of page 2 of our contract, which is linked from the Student Health website:

http://healthydevil.studentaffairs.duke.edu/insurance/

As far as offering it to couples who are not married or do not have another form of bona fide partnership, I do not foresee that being a good move.  Spouses and partners are the most expensive members on our insurance plan (that is why the rate is so high) and to make that open to anyone will leave the system wide open for abuse.  If the spouse/partner membership on our plan goes up by self-selection, it could drastically inflate the rates for everyone - something that would jeopardize the financial integrity of the plan.

If anywhere else you saw language that was ambiguous it was probably because the State of North Carolina, to my knowledge, doesn't mandate equal benefits or also has ambiguous language. I've never looked into it because it has never really mattered - Duke wants them to be equal - the committees that I have been on feel that spouses and partners should be treated equally; that is my impression of Duke's basic philosophy, even if they can't get it right all the time.

Sorry that I didn't notice that part earlier, I primarily responded to the Duke Card question because my friends just got married and couldn't get a spouse card until marriage records were sent from Mississippi...

Thanks again for your comments. I don't have answers to all of your questions, but I will forward along your message to the rest of the Exec Board and David Kahler, (David has been the lead GnP student on all things health insurance related).

I will, however, address a few things.

1. If people who identify themselves as SSSE's already cheat the system, how is that in any way a problem with these suggestions to make the system fair for all, regardless of sexual orientation?

In the exec board's meeting about the subject, the thought was brought up that this was finally something decent that the administration has been willing to do for same-sex couples, and that if it was extended to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples, the administration would take away the privilege for same sex couples. GPSC has not been treating this issue as though it would happen, as evidence by the fact that we have followed up on it, but it remains a possibility.

2. GPSC Representatives are not involved in the discussion. After re-reading the ema we recieved, there is no one specified in the discussion, but just that a number of people were. By the manner in which the email was sent, it was pretty clear we would not be invited to the discussion.

I appreciate the information you've provided concerning the social and political movement of unmarried.org, but I would like you to know that GPSC as a body must remain politically neutral.

Lej6, thanks for the update. Lately my soapbox has been tied up in moving, so it's good to know others are following this issue. We should ask the Duke Card office exactly who they're waiting to receive direction from, since earlier they told you the decision was at their discretion. In my ignorance, I never expected it to be so hard to find out who sets these policies. Are our GPSC representatives being included in this discussion, or are we all just waiting to be told what the unnamed "people" will decide for us?

Also, this issue goes beyond campus IDs - they would only be the first step. I would say health insurance is far more important to GPSC members in committed relationships, but our case for extending coverage will be much stronger once the GPS community makes a united statement in its favor. Of course the majority of GPS students may be against extending health benefits, but for now I will assume the comments on this thread are representative. For employees, that policy is clearly handled by the office of human resources. For GPS students, does each professional school have its own policy, or are they all determined by a single office?

A major problem with any of these suggestions is that what people already do is simply have their roommates or alumni sign up as they are partners to get the services.

This doesn't make sense. If people who identify themselves as SSSE's already cheat the system, how is that in any way a problem with these suggestions to make the system fair for all, regardless of sexual orientation? It would seem to be a problem with the way things are done now, and a powerful argument for changing them. However, if this possibility for exploitation is seriously being used as a justification against extending the spousal equivalent policy, we should request to know how many couples in the SSSE program have been unmasked as false, and what steps Duke takes to prevent such abuse.

I did a quick search for some policies at comparable schools:

MIT's policy (http://web.mit.edu/medical/pdf/spousal.pdf) makes no mention of gender as a criterion.

At Cornell, "The State of New York provides "domestic partner" health and dental insurance coverage for same-sex and opposite-sex partners. "

UNC makes insurance, leave, and other benefits available to domestic partners regardless of sexual identity. They even include domestic partners (gay and straight) in the Faculty Spousal and Partner Hiring Assistance Program that hires professors in committed relationships as a single unit. Damn, beat by UNC again.

The University of Washington makes certain programs like sick or bereavement leave available to all domestic partners, regardless of gender, while insurance is only available to breeders if they're married. UW specifically says it looks forward to extending insurance benefits to all domestic partners, but is unable to do so until more funding is approved by the state. Duke has no such funding problem - our endowment is bigger than Lara Croft's. UW's candor as to why committed, unmarried heterosexual couples are not covered is rare. Almost all the universities that restrict heterosexual benefits to married couples specifically say they do so because hetero couples have the option to marry, but in the same publications turn around and predict dire financial consequences if they were to treat all couples equally. Putting finances aside for the moment, the blanket statement that hetero couples have the ability to marry, and therefore should be forced to do so if they want to enjoy the benefits available to same-sex couples, doesn't do justice to the facts.

1) Around the country, couples who legally can marry are boycotting the institution of marriage in support of those who cannot. See www.unmarried.org for details on this and other subsets of the marriage-free population.

2) For US citizens, marrying a foreign national and claiming the benefits due a married couple are particularly onerous processes, and require spending months of preparation and thousands of dollars on lawyers and applications.  For different but no less binding reasons, some single-nationality marriages may require similar efforts.  By contrast, Duke's SSSE affidavit takes all of 2 minutes to complete.

3) No one should be forced to marry so they can pay for medical care.

www.uoregon.edu/~ccsub/spouse.pdf

Ebt, this was just sent to us from the Duke Card Office. Basically, they are working on it but have no decisions yet. 

 
I apologize for the delay as I have been out of the office and trying to find out some information.  As of right now, we have not received direction on any new procedures for Same Sex Spousal Equivalents for Graduate Students.  There are a number of people in the discussion but a decision has not been made.

We will forward any updated information to GPSC to help distribute any new procedures.

If you have any questions, please let us know.

The problem trying to figure this out is that there is no clear group or individual in charge of making the policy. Until recently, it's strictly been to the discretion of the Duke Card office in making the policy, but now it is unclear. 

 A major problem with any of these suggestions is that what people already do is simply have their roommates or alumni sign up as they are partners to get the services.

 Do you have references to the policies at other universities? It would be much appreciated. 

Isn't the requirement at some schools merely an affidavit that you've been living together for X amount of time and have combined finances...  that would work well for both same sex and heterosexual partners who are living together as though they're married.

Lej6,

What has the executive board found out over the last month? I've gotten little or no feedback from my inquiries.

Hello Everyone,

The GPSC Executive Board thanks you for all your comments on this matter. Currently, we are trying to figure out who is in charge of the policy, but there seem to be no clear answers.

Once we find out, we will be able to discuss the suggestions put forth here.

Thanks again.

I am a new grad student enrolling this fall, and this is one of the questions I asked during an open house in the spring. Noone could really answer it.

As for the matter of discussion, wouldn't you think that the only fact of having different standards for same-sex or different-sex couples already constitutes discrimination for both? Why do same-sex couples only need to sign an affidavit and heterosexual couples need to be married?

I am an international student and although my fiance and I have lived together for over two years (that is considered a factual marriage in my country), she might not be able to access the Duke Gym and other facilities. That needs to change.

On May 14, a proposal to amend the NC Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman was submitted to the NC Legislature. 

I'd like to suggest that folks who want equal benefits at Duke for same-sex and non-same sex spousal equivalents, in addition to lobbying Duke, should also consider lobbying the NC legislature to oppose the constitutional amendment.  Especially now that maybe you see a tiny bit of what it feels like to have your relationship and rights denied.

http://equalitync.org/news1/20080514

Friends,

Thank you all for your input. I hope you will engage your friends and coworkers with this question, and I will be following up on it in the coming weeks, beginning with Mr. Drummond. Please feel free to send him your own questions as well. This issue is related to, but not the same as that of gay marriage. This may be naive, but I think that regardless of where you stand on the issue of marriage rights, the current uneven treatment of same- and different-sex couples would be problematic for you. Conservatives would be uneasy with the relative ease of obtaining benefits for same-sex partners, while progressives would dislike the patronizing implication that marriage is only important for heterosexuals, with spousal-equivalent policies a sop thrown to the BGLT community. The debate over marriage rights is a long-standing one that gets people very emotional, and I would hate to see this specific issue get absorbed into that monster and then left untreated because the GPS community couldn't present a united front to the powers that be at Duke, who have no say over marriage rights anyway. That being said, this is an election year, so there's no better time to write your state senators than now.

One argument against gay marriages by the "defenders of marriage" groups is that allowing same-sex couples to marry devalues the institution of marriage. The argument goes that if couples (such as a different-sex couple living together) only need to "affirm their commitment' to each other to receive the benefits of marriage and the privilege of going to Duke basketball games, then fewer couples would actually get married and breakdown of the family, society, etc. would ensue.

So it's very interesting to me that the recent California Supreme Court ruling requiring cities to allow gays to marry seems to be a strengthening of the institution of marriage. If same-sex couples could get married in NC, then the same-sex spousal equivalent policy the poster describes would not exist. There would be no need for a same-sex spousal equivalent if any couple could legally marry.

That would mean that the debate over whether health insurance should be offered to live-in boyfriends of female or male grad students would be separate from same-sex marriage. And to address the issue of foreign married couples, a signed statement saying that they are legally married in such and such country is all that would be required.

It looks like there may be some different experiences out there depending on who people interact with in the front office at the DukeCard Office.

However, it looks like partner ID requests will soon be handled by a different department all together.  We may need to wait to see what the result of this change will be before anything happens.

-David

I agree that the treatment should be equal in the attempts for couples to obtain privileges for their spouse or spousal equivalent. Furthermore, the requirements for married couples could be considered unreasonable. Since most of the services you mention are run out of the DukeCard office, your first point of contact should be Matthew Drummond at matthew.drummond@duke.edu. Ask him why this occurs in the first place - this will direct you to who you need to convince that a change is necessary. Since your point about international students is a strong one, you may also want to contact International House and Student Affairs to have them on your side moving forward.

As a point of information, these decisions are made by Duke administration and are rather independent of GPSC - I think you may be overestimating how much GPSC may actually control. GPSC does not differentiate between sexual orientation. GPSC does use the DukeCard, but that is because of Duke rules.

I also think this would be a great amendment.  My boyfriend moved to NC to be close to me while I'm doing grad school at Duke - and though we aren't married, I'd say we are very committed.  It would be great for him to be able to have the same benefits as a spouse (especially relating things like basketball tickets or using workout facilities). 

I agree and am in full support of not requiring legal marital status in order to obtain spousal benefits. Have you checked directly with HR or the Benefits Office about this? I'd be willing to help organize a petition if necessary.