posted on October 16, 2007 09:01:37 AM new
John Sullivan: The 515 ways Minnesota discriminates
Published: October 15, 2007
Imagine a life in which many of your decisions -- both great and small -- are dictated by laws that are in opposition to your best health and economic interests. Imagine a government that expects you to obey its laws and pay its taxes even while it sanctions blatant discrimination against you, both in your everyday actions and in the monumental events of your life.
Many Minnesotans don't need to imagine. They live it every day.
For one parent, it's a trip to the family's credit union with her 6-year-old daughter to open the girl's first savings account -- a life lesson in thrifty behavior. After completing the paperwork, she is informed that the little girl's account isn't wanted because the parents aren't married. In the eyes of the credit union -- and under Minnesota laws -- the girl's legal parent isn't a family member of an employee of the company that sponsors the credit union.
For another Minnesotan, the effect is far more serious. The home she lived in for more than 15 years, the home she expected to return to after burying her life partner -- who died too young after a long, expensive illness -- is taken by the state. Around-the-clock care forced them on medical assistance after they exhausted all assets except their home. The woman was told that the state would place a lien on the home to recover the costs of care. If the couple had been married, Minnesota law would have protected the home. Because they weren't, the state acted quicker than Snidely Whiplash.
So, you say, the solution in these and thousands of other similar cases is for the couples to marry. But, of course, they can't. They are two people of the same gender who have made a lifelong commitment to each other, but who aren't allowed by law to formalize their relationship.
However, let's save the marriage debate for another day. The reality is that thousands of Minnesotans are in committed same-sex relationships -- in fact, 9,000 or more, according to census data. Many are raising families, and all are contributing to their communities. Yet, they are confronted every day with blatant discrimination -- not from the actions of individuals, but from the state that for everyone else is expected to assure equal rights under the law.
A recently released study found at least 515 Minnesota laws that treat unmarried but longtime committed couples differently than married partners. Much of this discrimination affects both same-sex and heterosexual families.
This state-sanctioned discrimination flies in the face of what most Minnesotans think is right. A statewide survey conducted last year found that nearly eight out of 10 Minnesotans said government shouldn't treat people differently because of their sexual orientation. The survey also found that almost 70 percent of Minnesotans said they believe "gays and lesbians should have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else."
Yet, in 515 laws, the state treats gays and lesbians very differently. And as a result, it treats many families differently, including the children of these relationships -- children who are being raised to be decent, responsible citizens, yet who are learning harsh lessons at the hands of state government. These lessons aren't lost, even on 6-year-olds. The young girl who wanted a credit union savings account left the building clutching her piggy bank. Angry and frustrated, she refused to give anyone her money. "Would this be the policy if an employee who was also a grandparent, aunt or uncle wanted to open an account for a child?" her parent wonders. "If an employee wanted to open a joint account with a brother or sister, would they be refused?"
Probably not. But when it is the state that discriminates, where is the recourse?
Yet, over and over, our state's laws not only authorize unfair treatment, they demand it. For example, while family members of a patient in a public facility have the right to be notified if the patient is moved or if the patient's care has changed, these same facilities don't require notification of a patient's same-sex partner (Section 246.70). Or consider this: The spouse of a hospital patient is the first person a physician consults if the patient is unable to consent to treatment. But the same-sex partner of a patient is not included at all on the list of people who may provide consent (Section 253B.03).
In some instances, committed, same-sex couples are able to create contracts that anticipate and resolve the decisions and rights that most Minnesota families take for granted. But apart from the expense of establishing these contracts, how can anyone possibly predict all the twists and turns life holds for all of us?
And in many other cases, contracts do no good. It is Section 181.947 of Minnesota statutes, for example, that gives a person the right to take an unpaid leave of absence from work if a spouse is injured or killed during active military duty, but denies that same privilege to a domestic partner. Hospitals have refused to extend visiting rights to a same-sex partner even if he or she has legal paperwork describing the couple's wishes.
The report identifying Minnesota's 515 discriminatory laws isn't an advocacy document; it is a call for Minnesotans to understand the realities of same-sex families, to discuss the kind of state in which we want to live and to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong.
Many Minnesotans -- including many of the state's largest, best-known and most successful businesses -- already have had this discussion. Of Minnesota's Fortune 500 companies, 89 percent have developed policies to ensure that gay and lesbian employees do not encounter discrimination. And most have taken a step further to offer domestic-partner benefits to their employees.
Now it's time for all Minnesotans to have the same conversation -- not about marriage or civil unions or activist judges, but a conversation about fairness. A conversation that asks the question of whether we truly believe that all Minnesotans should be equal under the law. Today, that question has 515 wrong answers.
John Sullivan is senior vice president and general counsel of Imation Corp. He lives in Minneapolis.
