Wait - Isn't Moscow in Idaho?

Domestic Partner Benefits for City of Moscow Employees?

By Joan Opyr, 12-19-07

I’d like to begin with two disclaimers.  First, I supported Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney during her run for office, and I support her now. I like Nancy Chaney. She’s bright, she’s savvy, and I believe she’s on the right track in leading Moscow towards smart, sustainable growth. My second confession is that as a lesbian and the fortunate recipient of domestic partnership benefits myself, I do have a dog in this fight. It’s not a big dog - I receive my benefits from Washington State University just across the border. My interest is more like a border collie than, say, a pit bull. 

Offering domestic partner benefits to City of Moscow employees is not a new idea.  Nancy Chaney was vocal about the issue as a candidate, and I didn’t doubt that she would press the issue once she was elected. She says, “I broached the idea of offering benefits to domestic partners and dependents of City employees about two years ago. Having asked about that option a number of times since, our Human Resource Director only recently learned that those benefits are now available. It has been listed as a future agenda item on [the Administrative Committee] agendas for months.”

Sounds good to me, but as Pee-Wee Herman once observed, “Everyone I know has a big but.” What’s the big “but” here? In November 2006, Idaho voters overwhelmingly approved HJR 2, an amendment to the state Constitution banning same-sex marriage. The wording of the amendment was very simple.  It read: A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state. The implications, however, were broad. What would happen to those carefully-constructed guardianship agreements, wills, living wills, and the host of other expensive legal contracts that gay and lesbian people are forced to enact in lieu of the rights and privileges granted by marriage?

No one was quite sure then, and no one really knows now, but we may be about to find out. As City Supervisor Gary Riedner has pointed out, the proposal before the Moscow City Council is not specifically about same-sex partners - it’s about domestic partners, period.  Fine and dandy. However, HJR 2 addressed that issue. The state Constitution now prohibits recognition of all domestic partnerships. Attention unmarried straight couples in long-term committed relationships: this means you.

I am not an attorney. I don’t know what individual cities within Idaho can or can’t do. Maybe the Moscow City Council will approve this change, and domestic partners, both same-sex and opposite-sex, will have gained an important benefit. Or maybe the State Legislature down in Boise will have a fit and fall in it. There’s no telling. As much as I love Moscow, I have no faith in the Great State of Idaho. There’s a reason our motto is esto perpetua - it is perpetual. For years now, cars and trucks around the state have sported bumper stickers that say “Idaho Is What America Was.” I always carry a Sharpie marker with me so that I can add “in 1953.”

Still, Mayor Chaney is enthusiastic, and she’s pressing ahead.  I asked her to define exactly how offering domestic partner benefits to City employees would work.  This is what she said: 

“In order to offer the coverage, the definition of domestic partnership needs to comport with the definition provided by the insurance company. (I was told that Regence offers the plan to its own employees.) The definition provided by Helbling Employee Benefits says, ‘Domestic partners are defined as two individuals who, together, each meet all of the following criteria set forth in the Domestic Partner Affidavit: 1) Are 18 years of age or older. 2) Are competent to enter into a contract. 3) Are not legally married to, nor the domestic partner of, any other person. 4) Are not related by marriage. 5) Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the State of Idaho. 6) Have entered into the domestic partner relationship voluntarily, willingly, and without reservation. 7) Have entered into a relationship which is the functional equivalent of marriage, and which includes all of the following: a) living together as a couple; b) mutual support of each other (Financial); c) mutual caring and commitment to each other; d) mutual fidelity; e) mutual responsibility for each other’s welfare; and f) joint responsibility for the necessities in life. 8) Have been living together as a couple for at least six (6) months prior to registration with the Subscriber’s employer. (Share the same address) 9) Intend to continue the domestic partner relationship indefinitely, while understanding that the relationship is terminable at the will of either partner.’

Domestic partners who meet the criteria above would be eligible for coverage, without regard to gender or sexual orientation. That nondiscriminatory, non-exclusive language seems distinct from anything to do with marriage, same-sex or otherwise.”

Mayor Chaney also observes that, “Moscow is justifiably proud of our reputation as an accepting, compassionate community. We are regularly reminded of the good works of Moscow Human Rights Commission and the Latah County Human Rights Task Force. Moscow High School Human Rights Club is doing terrific work statewide. You know the many human rights-related activities that take place here, and the outspoken opposition to prejudice and bigotry. Moscow has earned the National League of Cities honor of being an Inclusive Community - the only one in Idaho! Our personnel policy reads, in part, ‘The City of Moscow believes that all persons are entitled to equal employment opportunity and does not discriminate against its employees or applicants because of race, color, religion, gender, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, veteran status, disability, sexual orientation, or any other basis prohibited by local, state, or federal law. Equal employment opportunity will be extended to all persons in all aspects of the employer-employee relationship, including recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, compensation, discipline and termination . . . ‘ Offering domestic partner benefits seems a reasonable fit.”

I agree, and I want to share Nancy Chaney’s optimism. I want to be enthusiastic about this. Adding domestic partner benefits to the City of Moscow’s employment package should help us to attract the best employees and keep them. There’s a reason that many corporations, universities, and cities both large and small offer inclusive benefits. Encouraging and supporting diversity seems to have a positive, measurable economic effect. A number of states, private companies, universities, cities, counties, and municipalities offer domestic partner benefits. The City of Pullman offers domestic partner benefits. The State of Washington recently passed, and Governor Christine Gregoire signed, a bill recognizing domestic partnerships. If you’re looking for comprehensive list of the places and employers that offer domestic partner benefits, check out the Human Rights Campaign’s website.

This is a smart move for Moscow. I hope the City Council agrees. I am selectively optimistic - I’m just a little worried about Idaho’s big but.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.