The linked post below in the Pittsburgh City Paper states that Allegheny County will extend domestic partnership benefits for one year, reversing an earlier decision to have them end at the end of July 2014. Pittsburgh blogger, Sue Kerr has been instrumental at pushing back against the previous decision.

It isn’t clear what affect if any Kerr’s efforts had, but at the very least, they raised awareness about the issue. On paper alone, there was little reason to think there was a harm in eliminating the benefits, but in the real world, the impact on County employees was far more complicated.

A short time ago, Allegheny County officials confirmed that the county intends to continue offering domestic-partner benefits to same-sex employees and their partners through June 30, 2015.The move, a formal announcement of which is due later this morning, extends the benefit one year beyond a June 30 termination date previously announced by the county. That termination date had been set in the wake of a federal court ruling in May that struck down the Pennsylvania law prohibiting same-sex marriage.

via BREAKING: County to extend same-sex benefits by one year | Blogh | Pittsburgh City Paper.

I have written a few posts here, here, and here, about this issue, and as Kerr has pointed out, we have not seen eye to eye on all aspects of it, even if we agree on the overall issue. For me, it is gratifying to read Rich Fitzgerald’s statement and see how well aligned my own ideas were to his own in this matter. Here is his statement:

One of my first official actions as County Executive was to offer same sex benefits to our employees — a fact of which I am very proud. Because same sex couples did not have the same option to formalize their relationship through marriage as opposite sex couples did, offering these benefits put those employees and their families on equal footing with their fellow employees.

Now that same sex marriage is legal in Pennsylvania, I believe that it is important to continue to keep our employees on equal footing and that means requiring proof of marriage for coverage of a spouse, partner and/or family members.

The July 31, 2014 date that was originally set is too aggressive. Working through the Human Resources Department, the eleven employees currently receiving same sex partner benefits will have until June 30, 2015 to make the personal decision regarding whether to marry and formalize their relationship. All new county employees, however, will be required to follow the same policy regarding how and when benefits are offered to partners and families.

At Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents, Sue’s post about this recent development however, tries to mix issues which are not connected at all:

Our hope was to tie the timeframe to phase out domestic partner benefits to the passage of HB/SB 300 which would create a truly level playing field by making it illegal for employers in the entire Commonwealth to fire someone for getting married to a same sex partner.

This represents a short-sighted view of employment, discrimination and also SB/HB 300. Here’s why:

• Employee benefits are just that, benefits an employer offers.  Domestic Partnership benefits accomplished a goal that we not achievable any other way originally.
• SB/HB 300 is far away from being passed. Make no bones about it! We are no where near close to getting these two bills passed and signed by a governor. Every blogger and other advocate for real equality needs to be screaming that loud and clear at every chance they have.
• It is a wonderful ideal to believe that SB/HB 300 will “create a truly level playing field,” but that is only partially correct. What is does accomplish is this- it allows cases of discrimination to be investigated by the State Human Relations Commission.  Passing a bill won’t ed discrimination, it is just one major step i that effort. Since PA is an “at will” state, employers have more leeway at least in firing an employee. In other words, we do a disservice to the PA LGBTQ community to suggest that simply passing SB/HB 300 will end discrimination or make it illegal for a person to be fired.
• SB/HB 300 cover discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. It is far more expansive than what this specific situation is all about.
• Lastly, SB/HB 300 protect all Pennsylvanians regardless of their sexual orientation from discrimination. It isn’t about gay identified or lesbian identified people, and most definitely not about couples! Consider a woman who appears at a job interview in a pants suit and the employer assumes she is a lesbian, even though she is a straight identified married woman and mother of three children. SB/HB 300 protects this woman every bit as much as it protects a gay or lesbian person. SB/HB 300 addresses bias, not sexual orientation!

We are extremely lucky to have a blogger like Sue here in Pittsburgh to jump on situations like this and bring them to light. Thanks Sue! But please, let’s make sure that any dialogue about the importance of SB/HB 300 isn’t tied to just one small item, a “right to marry.” We have to be willing to talk about more complex issues and bring urgency to them based on more than a “potential” fear of discrimination.

I realize that I speak as a legally married gay man, but I think we do a disservice to the whole of the LGBTQ community when we place the ability to marry as if it is the “end all” civil right. SB/HB 300 is not in any way, shape of form about getting married, and same-sex marriage isn’t the single most important part of the struggle for real equality facing lesbian, gay, bi, trans, and queer persons.

I remain disappointed that the focus of this event revolved solely around a “right to marry” linked to a “fear of discrimination.” Many same-sex couples as well as opposite sex couples will choose not to marry and for very valid reasons. This situation was and is really about access to affordable health care. At one time, this was only possible though an employer offered benefits package. But this is no longer the case. The Affordable Care Act changes all of that and opposite sex couples as well as same-sex couples who are legally married, or not may find it a more appropriate tool for ensuring one or both partners. As many health care advocates have been saying for a long time, a real hindrance to improving health is access! The ACA changes access in huge and important ways!  If LGBTQ activists only like healthcare benefits to employment, it is a step back, and not a step forward.

This situation was and will always be a case where the timeline to an employer benefits change created hardships for one or more persons. This was never a situation about discrimination. LGBTQ persons are no longer the isolated victims we once were. We can’t trot out the discrimination card at every bump in the road. Gay, lesbian, bi, trans, queer, and straight people encounter hardships because employers change benefit packages all the time. Let’s address those issues without trying to make everything be about discrimination.