The Daily Orange

Posted: 4/27/07, 1:02 AM EST Section: Front Page

After living together for more than 25 years, Wade Stringer and Janice Wilson finally decided to get married, but not because it was what they wanted to do.

Stringer has worked at Syracuse University for 21 years, but the university's benefits plan has never covered opposite-sex domestic partners who are not legally married, such as these two. Wilson was forced to work several jobs just so she could receive her own benefits.

"We finally decided to give in and get married," Wilson said. "We didn't want to do it, but it was the only way I could receive benefits without having to find another job."

After several similar complaints to SU, the University Senate Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Committee is looking to amend the current benefits policies by addressing five problem areas, including the exclusion of opposite-sex domestic partners.

The LGBT Committee has chosen five of its members to meet on a regular basis with two members of the SU Human Resources Department to fix policies that Thomas Keck, a committee member said, "are not compliant with Syracuse University's nondiscrimination policy."

LGBT Committee co-chair Jonathan Massey presented a progress report to USen April 18 explaining their concerns and goals.

"The working group will continue to research and meet over the summer, and we are hoping to address these concerns by bringing a concrete set of action items to the senate next fall," Massey said.

The five areas of concern for the committee are unequal documentation requirements, unequal eligibility criteria for same-sex couples, staying current on changing marriage laws, discriminatory tax treatment and the exclusion of opposite-sex domestic partners.

In 1995, SU first allowed same-sex domestic partners to receive benefits, but according to the report, the policy is now outdated.

"After a decade of implementation, we now recognize some limitations of the policy that were not at first apparent," according to the report. "As currently written and administered, the university's same-sex domestic partnership policy does not provide equal benefits to all employees."

Keck, assistant professor of political science, is on the sub-committee that is looking into the issue. He has also been in an opposite-sex relationship for more than 14 years and has dealt with the frustration of his partner not receiving benefits.

"Our committee has been doing research for about a year now and has been discussing whether the policies live up to the best institutions," Keck said. "It is also our position that the policies are not compliant with the nondiscrimination policy here."

Documentation and Eligibility

The first policy change the committee is looking at is the unequal documentation requirements for married couples versus same-sex couples.

Currently, same-sex domestic partners are required to show proof of a relationship, but this is not the case for opposite-sex spouses.

"We believe that the policy should be equal for everyone," Keck said. "If you are going to make same-sex domestic partners show written proof, then require it of everyone. If you don't want anyone to show documents and you just want them to sign an affidavit that is OK, too, but it needs to be consistent."

Another point of concern for the committee was unequal eligibility criteria. Same-sex domestic partners who do not share a residence are ineligible for benefits, while opposite-sex spouses are free to live in long-distance relationships, according to the committee's report.

Additionally, same-sex couples must prove they have been in a "committed family relationship" for at least six months, while opposite-sex spouses become eligible immediately after getting married, the report said.

"Same-sex couples have to prove they are in a relationship by showing evidence," Keck said. For example, they have to show financial interdependence by submitting a tax return form. This is not the case for married couples.

Marriage law

The committee also sees the constantly changing marriage laws as a problem with the benefits policy.

Same-sex partners are allowed benefits only if they declare they "are not legally allowed to marry under current laws of the state in which the employee resides" and "would marry or establish a legally recognized domestic partnership if it were available under the laws of the state in which the employee resides," according to the report.

Therefore, should New York state legalize same-sex marriages, then all same-sex partners who currently receive benefits would lose them, unless they were to get married.

"Basically, we just want to make sure that the policy will not discriminate against anyone, no matter what laws are changed in the future," Keck said.

New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer announced Monday he was interested in pursuing legislation to legalize same-sex marriages in New York.

Taxes and Benefits

Another concern of the committee is a federal tax which imposes additional costs on same-sex partners.

"Under current federal tax law, the employer-paid portion of same-sex domestic partner benefits is treated as taxable income," according to the committee's report. The committee hopes that the university will follow the lead of some corporations and pay this tax for the employees, something that no other university currently does.

Kim Isaac, who has been working for SU in the Department of Public Safety for five years, said she believes the tax is unfair.

"It is expensive," said Isaac, who has been in a committed same-sex relationship for 12 years. "We have to pay for the benefits after taxes while married couples can pay before taxes."

Hurdles for opposite-sex couples

Even though the committee does mostly focus on LGBT issues, they have made it a priority to fight for opposite-sex domestic partnership benefits as well.

"Some comparable universities across the nation have some part of what we are looking at already implemented," Keck said. "Georgetown, NYU and the University of Southern California all allow opposite-sex domestic partners benefits. None of the things we are asking for are unrealistic."

Additionally, all State University of New York schools, including the College of Environmental Science and Forestry, allow opposite-sex domestic partners to receive equal benefits.

"If Wade worked at ESF, we wouldn't have had this problem," said Wilson, Stringer's newlywed wife. "But since Syracuse is a private institution, they don't have to change their policies."

Another setback for the couple was that New York state has no common-law marriage title.

"When Wade and I lived in Colorado, we had common-law marriage status," Wilson said. "But since New York doesn't have that, the benefits would not apply to me."

Neil Strodel, associate vice president and chief human resources officer, has been working with the committee to discuss possible changes.

Strodel said the current benefits plan offered is better than most of the area and the region.

"We compete very well and recruit a lot of local talent," Strodel said. "We also compare favorably with other institutions across the nation."

Opposition

One of Strodel's main concerns about the committee's proposed changes is the cost, especially additional costs to the system that he says aren't fair to the people who are already paying into the system.

"Health insurance has been escalating and costs the university about $32 million a year," Strodel said. "Employees already pay 21 percent of the money used for benefits and if we were to include more people, the costs would obviously go up."

Isaac, from DPS and whose 3-year-old receives benefits through SU, agreed that the extra costs are not fair and does not want to see opposite-sex domestic partners receive benefits.

"Straight couples have the choice to get married but we don't have that option," Isaac said. "We cannot legally get married, and it will also cost more money."

Keck and the rest of the committee, however, disagree and said that cost should not be an issue that prevents these changes from being made.

"It is the view of the senate committee that the cost implications of any proposals are not likely to be prohibitive and are not high enough to make a difference," Keck said. "We recognize that health care costs are rising but we believe the university's budget can absorb this."

Keck also pointed out that the cost concerns should not be more important than equality concerns.

"Regardless of the cost, it is our view that the principle of equal treatment suggests we make these changes," he said. The committee hopes to have a concrete proposal ready to present to USen by the fall. Should the senate approve the proposal, it will then move up to the administration where Chancellor Nancy Cantor and the board of trustees will have the final say.

The Chancellor's Office could not be reached for comment.

"It is our hope that some of what we propose will go into effect Jan. 1, but we understand some parts might take longer to implement," Keck said. "It is our goal to have all of what we propose implemented as soon as possible so that all employees can be treated equally with respect to receiving benefits."

Article Tools