New Haven Independent

GOP Chair, Gay Rights Advocates Clash

by Melissa Bailey | October 2, 2008 7:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (26)

“I don’t see the equality,” Tina Pacheco called out to the chairman of the state Republican Party. “I’m yelling as loud as I can.” The chairman stood his ground and drowned her out.

Pacheco was one of over 50 people gathered at a political forum Wednesday night at the New Haven Pride Center at 50 Fitch St. Those who showed up got a rare chance to fire questions for two hours to the leaders of the state’s Republican and Democratic parties, Chris Healy and Nancy DiNardo. The theme was “Election 2008: What’s at stake for Connecticut’s GLBT Community?”

Pacheco said a lot is at stake — health benefits for the woman she loves.

Sitting on a couch in the back of the room with a gay pride necklace on, Pacheco relayed her complaint to the political veterans.

Pacheco, of Stamford, works in the patent office of a chemical manufacturing company. After being hired, she approached the human resources office to try to add her civil union partner, Jess Roberts, to her health care plan. The company denied her request, according to Pacheco. She was told only heterosexual spouses can sign up for company health benefits, not partners by civil union.

“I felt like a brick wall just got slammed in my face,” said Pacheco.

She asked why the legislature won’t require companies to give civil union partners the same benefits that married couples by mandating equal health care benefits.

The truth, according to Anne Stanback, director of the Love Makes a Family marriage rights advocacy group, is that employees who work for the state, or who work for a company with a state-regulated health care plan, are guaranteed that benefit. Some companies, however, have health insurance plans that are governed by federal E.R.I.S.A. laws, she said, in which case no equal benefits clause for marriage and civil unions is mandated.

Connecticut legalized civil unions between homosexual couples in October 2005. Like many other couples, Pacheco and Roberts found that the new bond did not bring the same rights as marriage. She said she’s found discrimination at hospitals, where misinformation may lead to denial of equal rights.

Healy (pictured), who appeared to be the sole Republican in the room, responded that the civil union law had been a compromise.

“When you settle for half a loaf…” Healy started to say.

“We didn’t settle!” cried a voice in the room.

“Straight people settled for us!” cried another.

Mandating that employers extend equal benefits to civil unions as they do to married couples “is just not something that we support,” said Healy. He said he believes in the “free market,” where less regulation is better, and those who treat employees best are able to retain them.

He said he opposes creating a mandate: “There is a cost to that that, as Republicans, we feel is not in the best interest of a society for an economy to grow.”

“I don’t agree that the government is the main arbiter of everything,” he added.

A man stood up and asked if heterosexual couples, who are granted rights by government-sanctioned marriage, should then be stripped of their benefits, by Healy’s logic.

Healy responded by steering the conversation back to gay marriage.

“I believe marriage is a unique cultural institution between a man and a woman,” Healy said. “That’s what I believe.”

He added that Democrats have a significant majority, 107 to 44 in the State House and 23 to 13 in the State Senate. Democrats could pass a gay marriage law if they wanted to, he said: “We’re not stopping anything.”

Back to the question at hand, DiNardo (pictured) stepped in to address Pacheco’s point.

“If it [a health plan] is offered to heterosexual couples, then I think it should be offered to civil union couples,” she said. “That’s discrimination in my mind.”

The room broke out in applause.

Taking the mic again after a not-so-gentle questioner pressed him on civil unions not being equal to marriage, Healy repeated his point.

“I just don’t agree with you. I’m sorry,” Healy said. “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

“That’s not the question, dude!” interjected a woman near the front row.

Healy tried again: “If you think that someone is being discriminating,” he advised, “then file a lawsuit against them and win.” Mandating benefits for civil union couples would be costly, making it “impossible” for small employers to survive, he argued.

Pacheco stood up to object. Healy, who had the mic, stood up too, his voice drowning hers out.

“You chose to work for them,” he told her. “Why is it our right to tell your employer how to treat you?” he asked. “If they’re not covering you, you don’t have to work for them, do you?”

A woman in a purple shirt fired a follow up: You don’t want government to intervene, yet “you tell employers constantly, don’t discriminate” on race and gender, she said. “Why do you draw the line … on same-sex issues?”

Healy took a tone of resignation. “We don’t see this issue in the same comparable terms,” he said. “I’m just talking about the benefit issue. … I don’t see health care benefits as a civil rights issue.”

With that, the sparks faded and the debate turned to a tactical political question, one that wasn’t asking the state party heads to defend the actions of the legislature.

The evening ended on conciliatory terms, both leaders urging the crowd to get more involved in the political process.

As she got up from the couch, Pacheco said she didn’t feel any better about her health care situation. She said it didn’t feel good to be told that, if she wanted health benefits for her partner, to just get a different job.

“It sounds like he’s saying you’re shit out of luck,” Pacheco said. “Especially in this economy, you can’t just up and change jobs.”

“I just know that Republicans aren’t there for me,” she concluded. Well, she added, she already felt that way — “it’s just nice to see them say it to my face.”

She said Republicans are happy to stay “out of my business” when it suits them, but not when it doesn’t — like creating the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Republicans aren’t laissez faire. “You are in my bed right now, laying between us,” she said.

Reached on his way home to Wethersfield, Healy clarified his position on Pacheco’s concern.

“With all the back and forth, I misunderstood the question,” said Healy.

“If they’re entitled” to the benefits, then employees should get their due, Healy said.
He said he has “no problem,” either, with a state law that requires employers that use state insurance plans to extend equal health benefits to civil unioned and married couples alike. If employees are denied the benefits they’re entitled to, that discrimination should be addressed, he said.

Healy said he does take issue with employees demanding benefits from employers beyond what they’re entitled to: “I do have a problem with, going in, if you know what you’re entitled to, if you just decide, ‘Well I think I should get this.’”

He said the position is his personal one, not that of the party. As head of the party, he articulates the party’s values, he said. “My role is not to get too fine a point.”

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: James | October 2, 2008 8:27 AM

"as Republicans, we feel [it] is not in the best interest of a society for an economy to grow."

Finally, a politician who isn't afraid to tell the truth.

Posted by: Tina | October 2, 2008 8:36 AM

Oh no you could've posted a better picture of me! :)

Great article none-the-less. :)

Posted by: bsdetector | October 2, 2008 8:49 AM

Does Mr. Healy really believe that he is a superior person, with "special rights", or is he embarrassed for the position he's put himself in representing the "god hates fags" party, aka, republicans? On the other hand, I would probably agree with the republicans allegedly "smaller government" philosophy (which is also nothing but lies). If you're gay the government is your enemy, and it's better to have smaller, weaker, preferably dead enemies.

Posted by: anon | October 2, 2008 10:29 AM

Hmm, no wonder McCain is going to lose by a landslide and Republicans are going to lose hundreds of seats across the country. Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Healy!

Posted by: Tori | October 2, 2008 10:42 AM

I wasn't able to make it to the event last night, but thanks those of you who were there pushing these politicians to do what's right. When Republicans are actually face-to-face with gay people, they have no answers. We need to replicate this kind of situation more often. One way of doing that: come out! Have real discussions of how homophobia affects your life. It's hard, but the more straight America is exposed to real, in-person gay people, the harder it's going to be for them to deny us our rights.

Posted by: Streever | October 2, 2008 11:01 AM

I love his assertion that health care for civil union couples isn't a matter of discrimination: what would he say if it was african-americans who weren't allowed to have health care but all the other employees were? Anytime one group is signaled out & negatively impacted it is discrimination.

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 2, 2008 12:25 PM

Honestly, I would like to see the government out of the marriage-promoting business entirely. If it's so 'sacred,' then no public official has any business endorsing it. Let's have 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships' between any two mentally and emotionally competent adults who want them, regardless of sex, and forget all about 'defending' marriage. As Bill Maher put it, it's not as if "anything you can do drunk off your ass in Vegas in front of an Elvis impersonator can be considered 'sacred'."

On another note, kudos to Mr. Healy for appearing at the Pride Center, which he had to know would be full of his ideological opponents. In an era when presidential candidates appear only at "town-hall meetings" filled with hand-picked supporters, it's refreshing to see a politician put himself out there like that. Perhaps he even learned something?

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 2, 2008 12:27 PM

"I love [Healy's] assertion that health care for civil union couples isn't a matter of discrimination"

Yet another example of bigotry guised as moral outrage/religious conviction, David. Over thirty years since the Stonewall riots and still the same rhetoric. It makes me sick with actual moral outrage.

But the gay population has pushed itself ever upward toward acceptance, and this forum is an example of the fight being steadily won.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | October 2, 2008 2:27 PM

"It makes me sick with actual moral outrage."

This is the funniest line I've heard in a long time. It would've been brilliant, if it hadn't been uttered so sanctimoniously.

This is somewhat off topic:

The other ridiculous expression -- and we see it throughout this paper -- is the use of the term "African American." There other races than blacks in Africa -- there are 10s of millions of white Arabs throughout the north: Morocco, Libya, Egypt... I've never met any immigrant from any of those nations who prefer to be called "African American." Why is it that blacks have adopted, unchallenged, the entire continent for themselves?

It is as foolish as "Asian-American" -- no self-respecting Japanese wants to be misidentified as Chinese, or vice-versa. Nor Thai as Vietnamese, Indian as Pakistani, etc.

How about adopting the entire planet as your identity? Earth-American... That beats all the continents, hands down...

Posted by: Jhnahan | October 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Civil unions seem awfully similiar to separtate-but-equal segregtion.

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 2, 2008 4:53 PM

I love being described as sanctimonious, Alphonse, especially by you.

So which am I, a hypocrite or merely disingenuous?

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 2, 2008 5:10 PM

They're exactly similar to separate-but-equal segregation, JH, except when they're 'separate but inequal'--as Ms. Pacheco is discovering.

Posted by: kris | October 2, 2008 6:23 PM

It would be cheaper for the company to insure her one partner rather than someone with a spouse and acouple of kids so why not just let them insure their partners?Forget the first african american president,forget voting for the oldest man ever running.We need a GAY president!!!

Posted by: Josh Smith | October 2, 2008 10:07 PM

BSDetector (and anyone else who cares):

If you're for same-sex marriage and all the rights that go with marriage, and at the same time, you want stripped-down, limited government, you should be voting Libertarian. The Libertarian Party offers both social freedom and economic freedom, whereas the Republicans and Democrats offer only one of each of those freedoms. How long is it going to take before people start looking beyond the two choices that are handed to them by the media? I already know... far too long. And for those who say a Libertarian government "wouldn't work"... when was the last time we tried it? :P

I say we go for it -- I'm writing in Bob Barr for president this year. I voted Libertarian last time around, and even though I really don't want McCain to win, I refuse to betray my beliefs and vote for Obama. Please write in Bob Barr next month, if you care at all for your liberties, or otherwise it'll be the same old song-and-dance, no matter who wins.

Posted by: Jon Searles | October 3, 2008 9:02 AM

I sure wish Healy didn't use the term "we". I'm a party republican and he certainly wasn't representing my view.

Neither the state, nor the federal government should be defining marriage and related benefits at all. Marriage is defined by those who commit to it, regardless of what their neighbors may think.

This is a clear issue of discrimination made legal by government interference where it doesn't belong, consentual relationships between adults.

Healy has every right to discriminate in favor of or against GBLT couples as an individual based on his biases. The state, being a representative of all citizens, does not.

Posted by: True New Havener | October 3, 2008 9:38 AM

Thanks Alphonse --

Your expertise on whether I have self-respect in the name I choose to call my ethnic group is astounding.

How come so many Asian-Americans call themselves Asian-American? How come so many African-Americans call themselves African-American? How about because it's a matter of self-respect. These terms replaced inaccurate descriptors put on people of color like "Oriental" or "Negro".

And your point about "no self-respecting Japanese wants to be misidentified as Chinese, or vice-versa" is exactly the point. Since Asians were always getting misidentified as Chinese or Japanese, it's generally accepted that it is better to be called Asian or a person of Asian descent which you factually are, than from a country which you are not.

That there is a desire to identify beyond the borders of countries to a whole continent is a good thing since it's possible then to depart from old rivalries. This is especially true in the case of Japan and China.

And as for the term "African-American", here's the problem. It is still virtually impossible for most African-Americans to identify where in Africa a family may have even partially originated from. This is because . . . pay attention now . . . the ancestors of people of African descent were primarily brought here as slaves stripped of history as well as family ties.

So when you are of Palestinian or Italian or Japanese descent, it is possible to say that your family came from those countries or even from a particular place like Amalfi. And it is possible to say this with pride.

But if you don't have any possible way of knowing where in Africa you came from, why should you then have to ignore your African heritage? Why should you be denied that same pride?

Like Japanese-Americans, or German-Americans there is little doubt that African-Americans would like to identify with (and even visit in a lifetime) a country of origin. It is not however possible.

So in exchange, people get to call themselves what they want.

Posted by: Streever | October 3, 2008 11:23 AM

Well-said, True.

Alphonze,
I use African-American because it is commonly considered to be an acceptable term.

I don't do so lightly: I deliberated over that before I wrote it, but as we are speaking about discrimination it seemed a valid choice. I don't like using racial identifiers to refer to people. I feel like people are people, typically, except when you are speaking on issues likes discrimination. At that point, I have to drop my hippy nonsense, and admit that one group has faced a history of discrimination & prejudice & acknowledge that I may need to refer to them not by their nation of origin, but by the shared history they all have.

At this point in time, I know no better term than Africa American--but unlike you, I remain open to learning more, & am willing to use another term if it's widely accepted by the group of people referred to: I think it's the least we can do, considering that we, as a nation, have been failing their population for longer than we have supported them.

Alphonze, I only reply to you because a. I wanted to make clear why I'd refer to a group of people by their race and b. some misguided part of me thinks there is hope even for people like you, so convinced of their own intellect & brains that they spend hours anonymously whining on the internet & trying to be smarter than others. I think this is probably the last time I'm going to reply to you though.

Posted by: Edward_H | October 3, 2008 11:49 AM

Alphones

Why is it that blacks have adopted, unchallenged, the entire continent for themselves?

Don't blame us all for the use of the term African-American. I did not find out I was an "African-American" until sometime in the eighties. Previous to that decade I thought I was Black and before that I thought I was Afro-American, even though the Afro had fallen out of style in my childhood and I never wore an Afro myself. It was not until adulthood someone clued me in. We keep changing what we call ourselves just to keep The Man on his confused. A small consolation for 400 years of oppression.

All kidding aside, not every Black person subscribes to the notion of being called "african-american" for various reasons. Personally for myself I prefer the term "American who happens to be of African, Carribean and South American descent" but I find that term kind of hard to fit on a job application.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | October 3, 2008 11:56 AM

If we have such a majority in the House, why haven't we passed some equal protection laws for the GLBT community? It's a great article, but if I attended the meeting, I would have posed that question to DiNardo since Healy's personal views don't really matter as the Republicans can't pass any laws on their own.

Posted by: MORRIS COVE MF | October 3, 2008 12:30 PM

Wow, Healy sounds a lot like Wallace in the 1960s... we should be afraid of thinking like that, it's what keeps a lot of people in this country from having proper, fair health coverage. Without coverage, bills can be unpaid, thus draining financial resources, causing bailouts, and in the end, costing more than it would have to provide the coverage. If he's anti-GLBT rights, then how about being for the civil union coverage, just for the financial benefit?

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | October 3, 2008 1:20 PM

Pure New Havener wrote: "And your point about "no self-respecting Japanese wants to be misidentified as Chinese, or vice-versa" is exactly the point. Since Asians were always getting misidentified as Chinese or Japanese, it's generally accepted that it is better to be called Asian or a person of Asian descent which you factually are, than from a country which you are not."

Accepted by second generation descendants and thereafter, who don't speak the language of their ancestors, know little about life in those places and maintain few present ties to ancestral lands, other than a body shape and skin color. The insistence upon linking to some other place puzzles me. I consider myself American. Without any other descriptive term, even though my grandparents all were immigrants from a wide variety of nations, language and colors.

It would be thrilling to know more people, regardless of their "origin" generations ago, insist on being known as American, simply American. We of this mindset -- regardless of color, race, national origin, language -- are very much in the minority.

David wrote: "I think this is probably the last time I'm going to reply to you though."

This isn't the first time you've said something like this.

Posted by: Chris Gray | October 3, 2008 4:14 PM

Not having followed these threads very thoroughly, I am not familiar with some of these debaters. Still, I found Alphonse Credenza's comment interesting.

The responses all have merit, still, while of immigrant ancestry, I have never once doubted that I am native American. I once asked Russell Means, in earshot of Chief Aurelius Piper, whether it was true that a tribe would accept anyone who accepted their own position as determined by the tribe.

"All Men's blood is red," he replied.

Posted by: Edward_H | October 3, 2008 5:17 PM

Kris

Forget the first african american president,forget voting for the oldest man ever running.We need a GAY president!!!

Maybe we already have had one. Remember Senator Larry "Crazylegs" Craig. There may have been past or Presidents or even current front runners who have a "wide stance".

Posted by: Straight Guy | October 4, 2008 12:35 PM

Come on,all of this talk about gays. What is this world coming to? Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman! Look at our world now because of us getting further and further away from the truth. I pray for all of you that co-sign to this, God is not pleased!

Posted by: Another East Rocker | October 5, 2008 7:48 AM

Wow, Straight Guy, good to know you have a direct line to the Supreme Being. Also good to know that you have a SUCH a keen interest on what happens between two men in the privacy of their home.

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 6, 2008 9:07 AM

"What is this world coming to?"

Cultural evolution. Biological evolution. Take your pick. Homosexuality is not uncommon among species, especially primates.

GOP Chair, Gay Rights Advocates Clash

Comments

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed