Registered Domestic Geese

A friend presents the following for comment:  In the State of Oregon, a company that offers medical insurance to the spouse and family of employees must also offer coverage to cohabiting same-sex couples when one is employed by the company.  The firm is not, however, required to offer that same coverage to an opposite-sex couple.  In olden days, what was good for the goose was good for the gander, in Oregon regarding medical coverage, it's better to be two gooses or two ganders.  Doesn't seem right, does it?

And I responded: 

OK. You caught me in fit of boredom, so to your question "Does it seem right?" I'll have to say "It depends."  In Oregon, to quote one source, "Since 2008, same-sex couples who register as domestic partners in Oregon  have had the same rights as married couples when it comes to paying state income taxes, making end-of-life decisions for a critically ill partner or passing assets to heirs." See, http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/07dec/newlaws.html ; And Oregon has relaxed marijuana laws though I am not sure of the relevance.

The definition for "domestic partner" excludes male/female relationships.  http://www.co.marion.or.us/CO/records/ddp.htm. ; Registration must be at a local county "marriage office" and the two are then subject to judgments of dissolution, annulment or legal separation.  In other words, it appears that a long term commitment as "domestic partner" is envisioned by the parties and the state.  And the company that you refer to, I expect, uses the "registered domestic partner" requirement and not simply "co-habitation" twosomes.  If they allow benefits only to same sex roommates it would, first of all, be dumb and ... well, just dumb.  However, given Oregon law and citizen attitude equating "registered domestic partners" with married couples, allowing the benefits for "registered domestic partners" does have a righteousness about it.

Now, assuming that life has continued generally the same between males and females as in our youth, most (many?) who cohabit do so knowing that they do not HAVE to nor WANT to make a "ball and chain" commitment to the cohabiting partner.  "Friends With Privileges" is not the same as long term commitment.  How do you distinguish the two?  Changing the law to allow for a sort of modified male/female civil commitment equal in rights as in marriage but calling it something else might work. But that sounds dumb as well.

 In sum, as to the goose/gander issue, geese are monogamous but one might expect either the goose or the gander to wander amidst the gaggle while leaving it to Snowball and Napoleon to work out the legal structure.