Wilson’s Latest Anti-Gay Wedge Misses

At today’s meeting of the UC Board of Regents, Gov. Pete Wilson is expected to paint domestic partner benefits for university employees as too risky or radical for the state of California.

IBM is not known for radical social philosophy or risky spending; neither are UC Regent Ward Connerly, Chevron, Yale, Bank of America, American Express or, for that matter, the people of California. Yet all of the above, for reasons financial, idealistic or personal, have come down squarely in favor of domestic partner benefits.

What puts so many distinctly centrist, even conservative types at the forefront on this issue? Well, it boils down to level-headed realism. The question is whether to recognize at last a very mundane reality: Gay and lesbian relationships and families do indeed exist and have everyday survival needs just like anyone else.

Californians (59% in the most recent Field Poll on the matter) don’t find this a difficult call: Loving, committed couples and families need certain protections from the rough spots of life. Health insurance. Bereavement days. Family leave. That’s because most Californians are realists, not anti-gay ideologues.

Our governor, on the other hand, is twisting as many arms as he can to prevent the University of California from offering basic family survival benefits to its gay and lesbian employees. He sits on the Board of Regents and occasionally shows up for meetings, especially if he can find a crack to drive one of his signature wedges into. In all likelihood, he’ll drop in today, wedge in hip pocket.

Quietly anti-gay stances provide Wilson a cheap and relatively low-risk opportunity to mollify his party’s not-so-cuddly elements, but he’d better start being careful: The regents and the rest of his party aren’t so amenable to anti-gay politics these days.

If my brother, a dyed-in-the-polo California Republican, is any indication, the sharp end of Wilson’s anti-gay wedge may cut into his own party. My brother supports domestic partner benefits unequivocally; he sees them as a logical and necessary extension of his conservative, pro-family values.

“The state should encourage as many people as possible to settle down,” he says, sounding just a little bit righteous.

Simple fairness--equal compensation for equal work--would be my justification for domestic partner benefits, but whenever an argument works for my brother, I don’t quibble.

For those middle-of-the-roaders and conservatives who aren’t as interested as my brother in promoting family values (and whose minds automatically shut down when the words compassion and “fairness” start getting tossed around, a habit we liberals can’t seem to shake), there are still plenty of reasons to support domestic partner benefits. Bottom-line reasons. Pinstriped reasons.

Think about it: 13% of all American companies offer domestic partner benefits. The figure jumps to 25% if you’re counting just larger companies, those with more than 5,000 employees. And the numbers are growing by leaps and bounds, despite the doomed efforts of the far right’s relentless crank callers and poison pen pals.

Did corporate America suddenly point a search beam deep into its soul and locate a heretofore hidden zeal to create a more just society? Come on, even their flacks don’t have the nerve to make that claim. No, corporate America is behaving just as it always has and will: It’s following the promptings of its bottom-line heart. Domestic partner benefits are a cheap and easy way to attract prospective talent and hold on to current employees, saving costs and building a better work force.

That’s why business giants like IBM and Apple have cheerfully shrugged off the hate mail they get from outsiders opposed to fairness. Shouldn’t UC have a fair crack at landing all of the best and the brightest employees?

Why is Wilson going out of his way on this issue? Follow the jubilant noises should he succeed. That tiny, distant trumpet blare is coming from the very, very far right, the unfriendly folks who dedicate their lives to fighting fairness. The folks who, sadly, still have a lock on the Republican presidential nominating process.