Heterosexual seniors lost in the furor over domestic partnership

John Boehrer and Lynn Elmore registered as domestic partners shortly after state law first allowed it two years ago because they wanted to be able to make critical decisions about one another's care, if it ever comes to that.

Together eight years and both in their 60s, they've chosen not to marry in part because Elmore, who is divorced, would lose certain benefits.

But in the loud, escalating debate over the state's domestic-partnership law — a debate that's been framed around gay rights — heterosexual seniors like Boehrer and Elmore have been all but lost.

The law extends marriagelike benefits not only to same-sex couples but also to unmarried heterosexual couples where one partner is at least 62.

The Wallingford couple believe if the law were only about senior benefits, there wouldn't be all this fuss.

"I think people may not be very well-educated about the full scope of the law, that it affects more than just same-sex couples," Elmore said. "They may not consider what it means to people like us."

Referendum 71 will ask voters to approve or reject the latest expansion of the state's domestic-partnership law, approved by the Legislature in the spring. It would give registered partners the right to use sick leave to care for one another and the right to one another's disability and unemployment benefits, and it would impose a divorcelike process for ending their union.

Protect Marriage Washington, a consortium of religious conservative groups and individuals opposed to domestic-partner benefits, campaigned to put the expanded law to a public vote. They zeroed in on the law's gay and lesbian beneficiaries, saying domestic partnership puts them within easy legal reach of actual marriage.

Now, with their referendum almost certain to reach the November ballot, a legal battle has erupted, with lawsuits pending in federal and state courts, and allegations, accusations and name-calling between those who support rights for gays and those who don't.

Lost in all of that are older heterosexuals in domestic partnerships, paired under the law with same-sex couples but part of a generation less likely than younger people to support equal protections for gays.

And their most powerful voice — AARP — has been silent.

Anne Levinson, chair of Washington Families Standing Together, said the group has reached out to a number of organizations representing seniors, recognizing the protections the law provides to many older couples.

Gary Randall, one of the main organizers with Protect Marriage, said he believes seniors' original inclusion in the law was strictly political and that his campaign will counter any efforts by gay advocates to use seniors to advance their cause.

"I don't want to be in a position where I'm suggesting that seniors shouldn't be helped," Randall said.

However, he said, the domestic-partnership law "condones conjugal relationships" outside marriage — something that's condemned in the Bible.

As of last week, the state had 5,854 registered couples. Nearly 7 percent are believed to be heterosexual, based on an analysis by Washington Families. Many of the heterosexual couples live in smaller towns and rural areas, and large numbers are in Eastern Washington.

California model

Washington's domestic-partnership law, introduced in 2007, was patterned after one passed in California.

Its inclusion of seniors was strategic, given the public's general reluctance to oppose benefits for their parents and grandparents. Inclusion also broadened the base of support for the measure.

Seniors sometimes stand to lose certain military and pension benefits if they remarry. And under Social Security laws, a person 62 years of age or older may be eligible to collect retirement benefits on a former spouse's Social Security record, but loses them if he or she remarries.

Some of the law's benefits most useful for seniors — including hospital visitation and inheritance rights — were included in the original version, while the expanded law would largely benefit working people.

One of the most influential advocates for seniors — AARP — has chosen not to touch this issue. "We have no policy on the issue of same-sex or domestic partnerships," AARP spokesman Jason Erskine said.

The Washington Senior Citizen Lobby, representing 26 agencies and organizations that deal mostly with senior issues, said it supported the expansion that passed this year and is working with Washington Families to win voter approval of the law in November.

"Perfect answer"

Veleda Nelson and Jerry Asher, both 70 and previously divorced, registered as domestic partners as soon as they could, after having been together for about five years before that.

The Bothell couple said that because of financial complications they did not marry but wanted a symbol of their strong commitment to one another. "This looked like the perfect answer to us," Nelson said.

Asher said that while he believes gays should be allowed the benefits extended by this law, he's unsure how he feels about anything beyond that — like gay marriage. And he worries that issues important to straight couples like them are being lost in the crossfire.

"The two sides are at the extreme — and they're not moving toward each other at all," he said.

Boehrer, 65, and Elmore, 62, both worked at Harvard University in Massachusetts before moving to Seattle and taking positions at the University of Washington, where they met.

Unlike some of their generation, they fully support gay rights. Boehrer worries the measure could fail if it remains focused on gay marriage. "In my view, they need to get the debate off marriage as much as possible — and get it focused on family," he said.

Elmore said some friends and family members in Eastern Washington, where she grew up, may not support full protections for gays. She plans to e-mail them to let them know that a vote against the law is also a vote against her and Boehrer.

"I need them to understand that this affects me, too."

News researcher Gene Balk contributed to this report. Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com