It is by coincidence that I can post this information. Last week, I had emailed Ron Frisch, University of Pittsburgh Associate Vice Chancellor, to ask if Pitt was planning to eliminate the domestic partnership status. A few days ago, He replied that there would be no change in the University of Pittsburgh’s domestic partnership benefits. I am printing that with his permission.

A month or so, I began a blog post about ending my own domestic partnership status at Pitt as I applied for benefits during the Pitt open enrollment period. Since Brad and I were married in March, I had planned to seek a change to my status so that he was my spouse for our benefits. At least in the Pitt system, being a domestic partner is not exactly the same as being a spouse. Your partner can have the health insurance benefits, but with a different cost arrangement. So, you get the coverage but it costs you. This may differ with different employers.

For me personally, signing the paperwork to say, that Brad and I were no longer domestic partners was poignant. I had, as many others had, worked very hard to get domestic partner benefits on the books at Pitt. By letting go of that DP status it felt wrong- like I was walking away from something that many had worked so hard to achieve. I got hung up in trying to describe that, and like many before it, that blog post sits unfinished. Yesterday, I received an email from Sue Kerr about her efforts to keep Allegheny County from ending their domestic partnership benefits, so here I am writing this.

Anyone who actually thought about it knew that changes would come after Pennsylvania had same-sex marriage. In other states, employers have done away with domestic partner benefits. It was just a matter of time. And I hadn’t seen anything from Pitt HR about this, so I sent Ron and email and asked. The official reply was that there would be no change to Pitt’s domestic partnership policy. I wonder if that will change as others announce ending DP benefits?  A clear case can be made for eliminating the benefits and an equally clear case can be made for keeping them. By “case” I mean business decision. It is all about business anyway.

The part I really want to write about- is the more personal part of this. I have been at Pitt as an employee through the whole of the domestic partnership issue. I remember how it came up and all that transpired. There are folks who were far more invested in it than me. I’m not trying to paint my role in it as bigger than it is. But the whole of it has been a part of my relationship with Pitt as my employer. And recognizing that the need for DP benefits has changed, is a thought I never really anticipated having.

As an activist and an advocate, we can work so hard for something. We often are fighting against something, but any activist can tell you, it is always easier to accomplish your goal f you are working for something. And once you have achieved it, it seems natural to want to keep it. So accepting that the time for domestic partnerships may be over feels odd, and hard, and like a loss. And even saying this much, doesn’t really express my feelings adequately. But I have enough unfinished blog posts, so this one is going out no matter what.

As a gay man, and one who has been in a committed relationship for 17 years, I write this. Our identity as individuals in our culture is defined by many things, but one of those is our relationship status. What we call ourselves, what others call us, and the “rules” about what that means. This type of thing is a part of our identity just as much as many other things. At work, I had relatively the same benefits as my married co-workers, but not exactly the same. My relationship was honored by my employer, but not really equal when I had domestic partner status. I celebrated gaining those benefits and, in a way accepted my second-class citizenship-ness. I write this to express that identity and rights are a complex mix of stuff.

So, I both get why people will work hard to keep domestic partnership benefits, and I also cringe as I realize it is a step backwards to fight to maintain a second-class status. And before you jump on me for that statement, remember I said, I could make a case- a business case for either side of this.