Ruling adds twist to benefits debate

A late summer ruling by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court has provided an ironic twist for… A late summer ruling by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court has provided an ironic twist for the on-going same-sex benefits soap opera at Pitt.

The decision, issued Aug. 20, legalized so-called “second-parent adoptions,” allowing homosexuals to adopt their partners’ children. Interpreting Pennsylvania’s Adoption Act, the unanimous court ruling declared that nothing prevents two unmarried partners, regardless of their orientation, from adopting a child.

The court’s ruling extends a number of significant legal rights to the children of gay and lesbian couples. As adoptive parents, gay and lesbian individuals can now provide health care insurance to their partners’ children. Their children will have inheritance rights and be eligible for Social Security benefits in the event that either parent dies. Same-sex individuals who adopt their partners’ children will have the right to make school and medical decisions.

The interpretation of the Adoption Act to allow “second parent” adoptions will certainly ensure greater stability for the children of gays and lesbians. Such an interpretation also provides for a consistent standard in what is an otherwise murky legal area, granting judges significant leeway in decision-making.

The ruling, nonetheless, has some ironic implications. Though it, as a matter of policy, stands against same-sex health care benefits, Pitt will now be, at least in some senses, granting same-sex benefits by providing health care coverage for the adoptive children of gay and lesbian employees. The ruling also extends existing limited fringe benefits granted to gay and lesbian Pitt employees, including tuition benefits and library privileges.

According to Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs Robert Hill, as quoted in the University Times, “It doesn’t matter who your partner is – if you’re a Pitt employee and you adopt a child who becomes your legal dependent, that child would be eligible” for the same benefits offered to the dependent children of all Pitt employees.

Clearly the ruling and resulting state of affairs fly in the face of policies, including Pitt’s, which prevent same-sex partners from the same rights as heterosexual couples. Underpinning the court’s decision is the recognition that same-sex couples and their children compose families just like any other, entitled to the same rights and benefits.

Without the generalized and stated recognition of same-sex partners and their children as families, the legal issues surrounding gay and lesbian partnerships will continue to be as confusing and as contradictory as the current state of affairs. What logical sense does it make to legally recognize children of gay and lesbian couples as family members, but not the partners themselves? Wouldn’t it just make more sense to make all things equal and allow same-sex partners to marry?