Kurt Rowen is one of roughly 800 state and university employees who has applied to register a domestic partner for benefits now available from the Department of Administration.
The Department of Corrections information technology specialist has lived with his partner, Ross Halverson, for more than five years. He said he is glad to have the benefits, but still feels DOA’s application process to cover domestic partners is more difficult than it is for married couples.
“It’s separate but not equal,” Rowen said. “I had to jump through a lot of hoops.”
The “hoops” include filling out forms available only on paper – most state employee benefits can be signed up for online – providing notarized affidavits and disclosing financial information on his partner. The state determines whether to deduct the cost of partner benefits pre-tax or post-tax based on the partners’ relative incomes, he said.
Department spokesman Alan Ecker said there are a number of checks and balances to ensure that the state is covering “legitimate couples.” This includes applicants proving financial interdependency on matters such mortgages, credit and bank accounts and joint ownership of significant property such as cars, boats and real estate.
Applicants, who will learn if their partners qualify by early October, must prove they have shared a residency for at least a year, they aren’t married or separated from somebody else, they aren’t blood relatives and are at least 18 years old, Ecker said.
Rowen said he would marry his partner if given the opportunity, and he does not believe the state’s budget crisis should have any effect on the state’s obligation to its employees.
It’s a sentiment not shared by everyone. Opponents have said it’s a mistake for the state to offer medical-, vision-, dental- and life-insurance benefits to the gay and straight partners of state workers.
Gov. Janet Napolitano described the offering as “the right thing to do,” but some lawmakers and Capitol insiders have expressed dismay that the department started offering the benefits during a budget crisis and that the policy was initiated without the Legislature’s approval.
The Senate’s Appropriation Committee chairman, Sen. Robert Burns, R-9, said in December he is not sure if the department or its director, William Bell, was empowered by statute to issue the proposal on behalf of all state employees.
“If they do, I think it was a mistake of us at the Legislature to give them that much authority,” he said. “This is obviously a very large policy shift, which is not supposed to be the function of the executive branch and especially not the function of an agency director.”
Criticism of the department’s rule change also sprang from the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative lobbying organization that had supported efforts during this year’s legislative session to negate the rule change.
In December, Peter Gentala, the center’s attorney, said the rule “undercuts” the sanctity of marriage, and promised that “all options are on the table” to thwart its implementation.
But despite concerns of fiscal and social conservatives, Ecker said he was not aware of any pending lawsuits aimed at the department rule.
Rowen said he thinks it is worth the trouble and he is glad to have the benefits, despite the difficulties.
“In the long run, our benefits are better and we’re paying less for them out of pocket when it comes to co-pays and so on,” he said.