programs

publications

reading room

press

support us

Editorial
Orange County Register
Monday, April 5, 2004

California already has enough problems with expensive insurance, as seen in the ongoing battle over workers' compensation coverage. The Legislature should not be restricting what insurance companies offer, but liberalizing the law so policies can be made to fit what people need.

Instead, on March 30 the Assembly Health Committee passed AB 2208, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego. In the bill's language, it would "require a health care service plan and a health insurer to provide coverage to the domestic partner of an employee, subscriber, insured or policy-holder that is equal to the coverage it provides to the spouse of those persons."

This involves state insurance law in the contentious area of domestic partners, such as the city of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The issue currently is working its way through the court system. State law already gives same-sex couples some benefits traditionally given to those in marriages.

Private companies and insurance companies already have the freedom to expand coverage to same- sex couples. What's wrong with AB 2208 is that it would mandate that coverage.

The bill was sponsored by Equality California and Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi. Equality California calls itself a "state- wide advocacy organization whose mission is to ensure the dignity, safety, equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians."

The group's executive director, Geoffrey Kors, explained in an official announcement, "This legislation is essential to lesbian and gay couples so they can insure themselves and their children without the financial penalty they are forced to pay because they are prohibited from marrying."

But the bill would increase costs to some employers. It also would discriminate against employers whose religious beliefs do not accept the validity of same-sex couples.

We believe that, in a free society, such controversies should be settled in the private sector, not by government fiat.

AB 2208 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 20. We recommend that the committee, and legislators in general, reject the bill.