For Immediate Release

July 1, 1998

The co-founders of the national Alternatives to Marriage Project said they are appalled by Massachusetts Acting Governor Paul Cellucci's statement that he wishes to exclude unmarried male-female couples from receiving employment benefits. A bill currently under consideration by the state legislature would extend the same benefits to domestic partners, such as gay and lesbian couples, that married couples already receive.

Massachusetts residents Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot founded the Alternatives to Marriage Project this year to provide resources and support to people of all sexual orientations who have chosen not to marry, are unable to marry, or are in the process of deciding whether marriage is right for them. According to the U.S. Census, 69% of unmarried partner households are male-female couples.

In a June 22 letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, Cellucci said that while he supports domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples, he does "not support extending those benefits to heterosexual couples who choose not to marry, because that runs counter to our efforts to strengthen families and curb father absence."

"The Acting Governor has made it clear that he is willing to discriminate on the basis of sex and marital status," Miller said. "Considering that this is an election year, I'm particularly concerned at his use of the family values smokescreen to hide his blatant discrimination."

According to the Los Angeles-based Spectrum Institute, which fights law and business practices against people who are not married, all states currently offering domestic partner benefits include both same and opposite sex partners, and the vast majority of municipalities and employers offering domestic partner benefits are open to both same and opposite sex couples.

"The precedent has clearly been set by legislatures around the country," said Solot. "It is stunning that Cellucci is taking up a position that is contrary to widely accepted standards of equality." If passed as it is drafted, state employees of any sexual orientation seeking domestic partner benefits would have to file an affidavit certifying that their domestic partnership is one of mutual support, caring, and commitment and that they intend to remain in such a relationship; that the partners reside together; that their relationship is exclusive; and that they consider themselves to be family.

"The affidavit has quite rigorous criteria, well beyond the standards married couples are held to. We're talking about two-parent families here - there is no absent father," Miller said. "If Cellucci is concerned about strengthening families, he should be concerned about all families, regardless of martial status and sexual orientation."

Attorney Thomas Coleman, Executive Director of the Spectrum Institute, said, "I don't see why it is a legitimate business concern to an employer as to whether an opposite-sex couple chooses to be registered domestic partners rather than become legally married. If the opposite-sex couple are willing to sign the same affidavit and assume the same obligations as the employer has same-sex couples sign, then why should they not be able to do so and get the same employment benefits?"

Solot and Miller pointed out that this is an issue of equal pay for equal work, a concept polls have shown most Americans support. "It is not the role of the government to decide that some workers deserve more benefits than others based on their race, religion, marital status, or beliefs," Solot said.

Definitions of domestic partnership that include both same and opposite sex couples have widespread support from places as diverse as the National Organization for Women, the California Chapter of American Association of Retired Persons, the American Civil Liberties Union, many gay and lesbian organizations, and Abigail Van Buren ("Dear Abby").

"Domestic partnership benefits a wide variety of individuals and groups, including single people, seniors, and people with disabilities. The same-sex only plans are sexist and violate freedom of choice to form family relationships without discrimination," Coleman said.

"It is wonderful that Paul Cellucci has a history of support for gay and lesbian issues. But he is foolish to think he can sell out on male-female unmarried couples using the absurd rhetoric of father absence," Solot said.

---