No-sex partners
 
In Nova Scotia same-sex or common-law couples get rights that only married people used to have, over family assets, spousal support, estate inheritances and medical decisions. Published: Vancouver Sun, Kingston Whig - Standard, June, 2001, Op-ed By Deborah Jones VANCOUVER - Last week in Nova Scotia, Kimberley Vance and Samantha Meehan became the first couple in Canada to legally register a same-sex relationship. The officious and rather bureaucratic procedure was made possible by passage of landmark provincial legislation the previous week. Nova Scotia's Bill 75 gives same-sex or common-law couples rights that only married people used to have: Family assets can be divvied up; partners can be made to pay spousal support if the relationship ends; the surviving partner inherits the other's estate if there is no will; and registered partners can make medical decisions for one another if one becomes incapacitated. I have no objection to any of this. Nor do I object to same-sex partnerships being accorded the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual unions. What I don't understand is why these measures, and employee benefits, are mostly available only to people within sexual relationships. Take employee benefits and survivor pensions, introduced by North American auto and steel unions. Originally designed to provide for at-home wives and dependent children of a man who was usually the sole breadwinner, by the end of the Second World War they had become so commonplace that now they're almost a birthright. But the family structure they were designed for has changed significantly. A single parent used to be considered tragic or radical. Not so long ago, a common-law partnership was widely denounced as "living in sin." Today, if you sign a child up for soccer camp or school, you'll have to fill out addresses for both parents, because as often as not they'll be living apart. Unmarried partners who choose to live together and have children are commonplace. In the early 21st century, like it or not, it's inevitable that we'll redefine the very concept of "marriage" to include partners of the same sex. The fact is, in this day and age, sexual intercourse or sexual abstinence should be irrelevant to how we officially sanction domestic living arrangements. We should remove the "sex" factor from rules and regulations governing households and what life partners can and cannot do for each other. Say two 60-something siblings have a long-term commitment to share a home. One of them has access to dental benefits through her workplace. Consider that her co-workers with sexual mates can extend dental coverage to their partners, but the woman can't share her plan with her sibling. Why not? Say two single moms or single dads team up to raise their kids, and commit to sharing a stable home for a significant period of time. The adults might share household and financial responsibilities, but keep their beds and their libidos separate. All of the residents in such a household would benefit from being able to participate in programs taken for granted by sexual-couple families, from employment benefits like dental and medical coverage to a pension plan in the event of a tragedy. Why can't they? It's true that there are ways non-sexual families can make allowances for the lack of official sanction of their partnerships. They can give each other power-of-attorney, they can name each other as the beneficiary on their life insurance, they can lie about their status and register as a couple. But if all those measures could apply to no-sex couples, they're also true of same-sex couples. We're changing our laws to accommodate the wish of homosexuals to have the recognition, rights and responsibilities of heterosexual married couples. Why not expand the process? The concept is fraught with questions that would need to be answered. How much would the costs and benefits affect employers and the economy? How many people would be affected? (Some 11.7 per cent of Canadians lived alone during the 1996 Census, but Statistics Canada does not track "families" comprising people unrelated or not married to each other.) How could it be regulated to ensure that short-term roommates don't scam the system for the benefits? Non-sexual domestic partnerships are not a novel idea. Four years ago, Hawaii passed a Bill of Reciprocal Beneficiaries to allow any two adults to sign a formal document entering into a legal relationship. It was politically inspired by same-sex couples wanting formal unions. But it extended much, much further - to partnerships between virtually any two people who want to formalize legal rights and responsibilities, from sharing employee benefits to making death-bed decisions for each other, all independent of a sexual relationship. Canadian changes in same-sex relationships have mostly come about because courts are forcing governments to revise statutes that affect couples to eliminate discrimination against homosexuals. Those judicial rulings were sparked by powerful advocates for gay and lesbian rights who first lobbied long and hard for such rights, then fought the legal battles to claim them. Good for them. There's no uproar in Canada about the needs of no-sex folks, but in the U.S., the American Association of Single People exists to "promote the passage of laws at the federal, state, and local level of government to protect the rights of unmarried adults and domestic partners with or without children." "We oppose legislative proposals that discriminate against unmarried adults or that promote marital status discrimination," the association says. "We support domestic partnership measures that provide benefits and protections to all domestic partners regardless of gender. We encourage government and private employers to adopt cafeteria-style benefits programs that allow each employee to select the benefits that best suit his or her personal or family needs." Despite the lack of an obvious lobby group in Canada, there are good reasons to extend partnership definitions to asexual relationships. First, by making domestic partnerships inclusive regardless of sex, politicians could more easily lead the way (instead of waiting until they're pushed) in accommodating different kinds of families and partnerships - not least because opponents of homosexual unions would have less to protest about. Second, it would be fair. People not in sexual unions pay taxes and contribute to employment plans just as sexual partners do, and they should be able to direct the ensuing benefits as they see fit. Copyright Deborah Jones 2001 WHY DEFINE PARTNERS ONLY IN SEXUAL TERMS? There's been a lot of clamour about employee benefits for same-sex couples. But why do we define adults living together in terms of sexual relationships? Published: The Globe and Mail, March 21, 1998 FOCUS By Deborah Jones, Vancouver SAME-sex unions. Heterosexual marriages. Non-traditional families. We hear these terms bandied about a lot these days, as judges, law makers and employers grapple with the thorny question of whether and how to extend rights taken for granted by people in heterosexual marriages to same-sex couples. Should a lesbian partner receive health benefits from her partner's workplace plan? Should a man be able to designate his gay partner as the recipient of pension payments originally designed for heterosexual spouses? Answers to these questions have far-reaching repercussions for all of us. But hold on a minute. What about no-sex folks? If you're a worker with a live-in lover, chances are he or she already shares your employee benefits, especially in a traditional marriage, and in some cases in same-sex unions. But if you're not having sex with a co-habitant -- who is, say, an aged parent, an impoverished sibling or a needy friend -- you may be paying the same costs as partnered colleagues for benefits you can't share. Lois France is currently working on a contract with Bain Apartments Co-operative Inc. in Toronto, whose permanent employees enjoy a benefits package that includes a pension, dental and eye care, and subsidies for hospital care, medication and visits to a massage therapist. Ms. France is not married, her children are grown and she would like to name her sister as recipient of any future benefits and pension. But even though she plans to live with her sister and a brother, she would not be able to extend benefits to her sister, because they currently apply only to spouses. Canada is gradually overhauling its tangled and often arbitrary relationship rules, but so far it has been in a piecemeal way. B.C. recently announced changes that give same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couples regarding child custody and support. "A lot of pension plans already give benefits to same-sex couples," says Toronto economist Monica Townson. Some businesses, including IBM Canada Ltd., Levi Strauss (Canada), Bell Canada and the five major banks, offer spousal benefits to employees in same-sex unions. When governments and private employers balk at extending benefits to workers in non-traditional sexual unions, courts increasingly force them to. In Halifax last year, the Canada Public Service Staff Relations Board ruled that a Canadian government employee, Ross Boutilier, was entitled to five days leave to get married to his same-sex partner. Although the marriage was not recognized under Nova Scotia law, the board said it was covered in a collective agreement that provided for marriage leave. That agreement contained a clause stating that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sex. Meanwhile, in Ontario, a court challenge is under way regarding federal restrictions that prevent same-sex partners from receiving survivor benefits in a union pension plan. The laudable goal of these changes is social justice and equality. But frankly, why are benefits distributed only to sexual partners, when non-sexual partners in a home might be equally deserving? Employee benefits and survivor pensions were originally set up to provide for at-home wives and dependent children of a man who was usually the sole breadwinner, says Stephen Havlovic, professor of human resources management at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. First introduced by North American auto and steel unions, "by the end of the Second World War they had become the norm," says Prof. Havlovic. "Now they're not designed on the basis of need, but of tradition." That tradition endures even though the family has changed radically. In most traditional marriages in Canada today, both spouses work. Non-traditional unions, from same-sex to common-law partnerships, are common. Families have many configurations, from single parents raising youngsters to elderly people living with adult children. Maybe it's time for an even more radical revision of family structure: families no longer defined by the sexual activity within. Recent efforts to stop discrimination have focused on giving same-sex couples the same workplace rights as those enjoyed by opposite-sex partners, but Shelagh Day, senior editor at the Canadian Human Rights Reporter, points out that many employees are still excluded from such rights. "There are a lot of single women who are responsible for others, such as an elderly parent or a child of a sibling," she says. But while benefits that let employees take care of dependent family members are an integral part of standard pay packages, unpartnered workers are often unable to take advantage of them. Ms. Day proposes another way. Instead of allowing workers to share benefits and pensions only with sexual partners and dependent children, employees could name one adult beneficiary in addition to children. "That system would put everybody, from same-sex spouses to elderly parents, on the same footing," she says. An elderly parent living with her daughter, for example, would be entitled to benefit from her daughter's dental plan or a provision for physiotherapy treatments. There is a precedent: The bill of Reciprocal Beneficiaries, legislated in Hawaii last year, allows any two adults to sign a formal document entering into a legal relationship. Politically inspired by same-sex couples wanting formal unions, the concept extends much, much further, to partnerships between virtually any two people who want to formalize legal rights and responsibilities, from sharing of employee benefits to making deathbed decisions for each other, all independent of sexual relationship. "For example, two sisters can live together and declare, under the legislation, that they want this package of rights," says UBC law professor Douglas Sanders. "It's a real breakthrough." Would Canada ever consider such a plan, at least for the workplace? There are daunting barriers. Cost to business and governments is the biggest issue. "People might structure their living arrangements to take advantage, and premiums might soar," Prof. Havlovic says. "At least with traditional family structures you can restrict who is eligible." And then there's attitude. The idea of extending employee benefits to designated others elicited a guffaw from a spokesman at the Fraser Institute when he was asked if researchers there had ever considered the idea. "Where would we stop? he asked. "Could an 80-year-old designate her pet poodle as a recipient of survivor benefits?" Prof. Sanders says changes in Canada's relationship rules have come about through agencies reacting to court challenges and human-rights complaints, rather than through active design. Setting up a system like Hawaii's Reciprocal Beneficiaries requires leadership, and while some politicians have talked about the idea, there has been no action, he says. And there is no organized constituency of people in non-sexual relationships to lobby for change. Lois France and her siblings don't make up a lobby group, but they do want changes that would let them share Ms. France's benefits package. Her sister does domestic work and has a low income. When she needs dental care, "very often it goes by the wayside," says Ms. France, whose dental plan would be a boon to her sister. "The gay community is slowly changing the laws to include a much broader definition of family, by saying, 'Although we are of the same sex, we are a family.' Well, for all intents and purposes, so are my brother and sister and I a family," says Ms. France, adding that extending benefits would help "many, many people. I say, let's try it." Deborah Jones is a Vancouver writer who lacks a benefits plan. Copyright Deborah Jones 1998 About this website: Text and photos by Deborah Jones except where otherwise noted. Please contact me for reprint rights. All material copyrighted ../About.htmlshapeimage_1_link_0
Why define adults by sexual relationships?
Home    Report    Think    Explore    Essay    Play    About