Professor Brenda Wrigley takes a seat at her dinning room table. Her partner, Cathy Pontante, sits next to her as their dogs race around.

Wrigley places slices of pizza and cans of soda in front of them. A picture of the two taken after their wedding in Toronto sits nearby in a frame.

They chose to marry in Canada after waiting years for the U.S. government to change its policy on gay marriage.

Now, she’d like to see Syracuse University make a change. Because federal law doesn’t recognize gay marriage, Wrigley and other same-sex couples pay taxes on their SU benefits, healthcare and tuition costs, unlike their heterosexual married colleagues.

‘If the university really believes in equal treatment of all employees, then the policies have to reflect that. And they don’t,’ said Wrigley, a public relations professor.

‘At some point you have to say, ‘Put your money where your mouth is,” Wrigley said, raising her voice. ‘If you believe in equal treatment, then, damn it, do it. If you don’t, then stop with the rhetoric that says you’re so inclusive and so against discrimination. Because it is discrimination.’

To combat this inequality, SU may consider providing what’s called ‘grossing up’ to its employees. The university would pay Wrigley and other same-sex couples more to make up for the extra government taxes. This would ensure all employees pay the same amount for the same coverage.

A movement to guarantee equal benefits for all couples at SU began approximately three years ago through the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Committee in the University Senate, SU’s governing body of faculty and staff.

But gay partners still pay more for their benefits today, despite the committee’s lobbying. SU also requires heterosexual couples to be legally married to receive any benefits.

University benefit plans will remain unchanged until after the 2009-2010 fiscal year, said Neil Strodel, SU’s associate vice president of human resources.

He said he plans to review the complaints issued by the committee before he makes the ‘very complicated’ decision. If his department shifts funds toward one benefit, like health care, it will affect other areas, like employee retirement. It will take time to fully understand how to fix the situation, he said.

In the past three years, the LGBT Concerns Committee has issued three reports protesting the benefit inequity, including one released on March 18 at the USen meeting.

Wrigley, a university senator, attended the meeting. She said she looked around the auditorium and saw heads nodding, but she wonders if the senators will be driven to further action beyond moving in their seats.

‘Several people spoke in favor of it,’ Wrigley said. ‘But it’s been three years now since they’ve been talking about this stuff. For three years, everybody’s agreed it’s a great idea, but it still hasn’t been enacted.’

Wrigley finds an envelope from the university waiting in her little gray mailbox each semester.

Sometimes she opens it. Other times, she throws it to the end of her desk, where it sits forgotten. She knows what it says anyway.

The note informs Wrigley she will owe the federal government more money that year. She is taxed for using the benefits that every SU professor has – but she and same sex couples pay extra for taking advantage of the same perks that straight married couples receive for free.

‘If the heterosexual majority had their benefits be unequal just because of who they were, it would have been fixed a long time ago,’ Wrigley said. ‘When it’s a minority group, it’s different.’

Wrigley and Pontante don’t have to deal with the other issue facing same-sex couples at SU – health care costs – because Pontante receives health benefits from her employer.

Pontante, a student in SU’s bachelor’s of professional studies program, said she carefully chooses where she works so she does not have to sign onto Wrigley’s SU plan.

‘It’s more important than what I get paid per hour,’ Pontante said of her health benefits. ‘We’re both going to turn 55 this year, and believe me, it’s a big concern as you get older.’

If an employee at SU puts their same-sex partner on their health insurance, they face taxes on the health care coverage – taxes that heterosexual married couples do not pay.

Same-sex couples who use SU health insurance pay an average $1,500 extra in taxes than their heterosexual colleagues, according to a report by the LGBT Concerns Committee filed March 18.

And while 90 percent of heterosexual married couples enroll in SU health coverage, only 28 percent of same-sex couples enroll, according to university statistics provided by Joe Downing, a professor in the Setnor School of Music.

Downing enrolled his partner on his SU health plan. They can afford to pay the extra portion each year because of Downing’s high salary from SU after 28 years of employment.

‘But it’s not really me we’re talking about here,’ he said. ‘We’re talking about staff people and people for whom benefits are much more important. $1,500 is a lot of money to them.’

While same-sex partners can receive benefits from SU, heterosexual couples must marry to get any benefits, according to the LGBT Concerns Committee report.

The university requires marriage so a couple doesn’t cheat the system and falsely state their relationship. But some get around the rules by staying legally married even when they’re not living together, Downing said.

‘This calls into question the whole idea of an institution such as a university endorsing a religious and social construct like marriage as the foundation for determining who someone’s family is,’ Downing said.

Downing presented the committee’s position at the March 18 USen meeting and detailed the committee’s stance against the taxation of same-sex benefits, saying that all employees should pay the same amount.

He said the committee still wants to extend benefits to heterosexual partners who are not married.

But Downing said he remains unhappy with one section of the document: The committee wrote that ‘immediate action on these proposals may not be feasible’ because of the current financial situation.

‘I think it was a mistake to ask the budget committee for its input,’ Downing said. ‘I think the mandate to the budget committee should have been: find a way to implement this.’

Neil Strodel, chief of human resources, said applying a simple ‘grossing up,’ where SU would pay couples extra who are affected by the taxes and university’s policies, probably won’t be the proposal accepted.

One possible solution is moving toward a ‘cafeteria’ benefits plan, he said. Every employee would be given a set amount of money to use toward benefits. They would be able to distribute money in any way they wanted, applying benefit money to the areas they need it most.

Wrigley has e-mailed, written and called, looking for answers. But even after her questions, she still pays more.

She is tired of hearing one excuse after another: That it will take time because it’s a small percentage of people, That more research will have to be conducted to find out the real effect it would have on the budget, That not everyone is open, so no one knows exactly how many would be affected.

She waits for the day when she makes the trip to her mailbox in 318 Newhouse 3 and opens it without wondering if she’ll find that envelop inside.

It’s about the money, yes. It’s about the benefits, too. But it’s about something else, as well.

‘It just makes me mad, because it’s just a reminder that we’re different,’ Wrigley said.

adbrow03@syr.edu

Published on April 1, 2009 at 12:00 pm