Government Awakens to Cost of Marital-Status Discrimination
A consumer task force--the brainchild of Los Angeles City Atty. James K. Hahn--was convened for the purpose of determining if, and in what ways, single people suffer discrimination as compared to married people.
How ingenious.
But the study was bound to happen, given the fact that unmarried people compose 55% of the population in Los Angeles.
A 126-page report was released last month by Thomas F. Coleman, chairman of the Consumer Task Force on Marital Status Discrimination.
It revealed what I had long known: Singles’ are indeed penalized for not committing matrimony.
Coleman said, the “report represents the emergence of a new dimension of the consumer protection movement. Call it singles’ rights.”
I wonder how many committee members, ancillary staff and taxpayer dollars it took to screw in this light bulb. They could have saved time and money by simply phoning me. For the price of a lunch at the Ritz I could have told them a thing or two.
Marriage is still considered an achievement in our society, especially for women. A woman’s social status is elevated by virtue of taking on a man’s last name. And a man, if he really expects to hit corporate heights, must have the obligatory family portrait atop his mahogany desk or be prepared to have his masculinity quotient questioned behind his back.
Try calling the Auto Club for a membership. If you and your significant other are living together it will cost each of you $51 a year. If you are married, it will cost $51 for the “primary” member and $14 for the “secondary” member.
Insurance companies discriminate against singles. Many of them refuse to write home renters’ insurance for a single person. Two insurance company representatives told me that they no longer insure single people. “Single people have a tendency to have a lot of people running in and out of their homes,” the insurance agent said.
“Well, I don’t,” I protested.
“Yes, I am sure you’re responsible, but we see so much theft from boyfriends and girlfriends coming and going, it just doesn’t make sense for us to write these policies.”
I was finally permitted the luxury of purchasing such a protective policy but was forced to sign an affidavit assuring them I lived alone. Adding insult to injury, I was actually required to furnish a list of names of anyone who might visit me for 24 hours or longer.
Auto insurance wasn’t any easier: Two prior moving violations--five years ago--and one accident in 1984--that was not my fault--made it difficult to find an insurance company that would accept me. The reason given? I am a single self-employed person who works at home. They politely suggested that I put myself in someone else’s good hands.
Taxes? Don’t get me started. A married couple are allowed a renters’ tax break of $131 contrasted with $61 for a single person. As a single person the equitable break should be $65.50.
Single people without kids pay more than their fair share. Parents with children receive a tax break and their kids use the school system and government sponsored day care (where available).
Airlines restrict frequent-flier awards to married partners or blood relatives. TWA recently dropped the spouse-only policy, but most airlines are single-minded on this issue.
Join a health club as a single person. If you and your fiance live together and work out together, or if you are single and work out alone, it will cost you about twice as much for a membership in most health clubs as it would if you were married.
Travel clubs all over Southern California assist singles’ in locating other single people with whom to travel to save members money on mandatory double-occupancy fees. An estimated 300,000 members of such travel clubs abound in the United States today as contrasted with only 10,000 in 1980.
People may exclaim: “But it’s against the law to discriminate.”
It is. But those who choose to discriminate will always find a way.
Commenting that Los Angeles “has taken a very positive first step,” Virginia M. Apuzzo, deputy executive director of New York state’s consumer protection agency, vowed to mount a strong campaign against marital-status discrimination.
“People are not being treated fairly in the marketplace,” she noted.
The Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn. has responded to the marital-status issue. Long-held membership policies dictated that admission was only for the member and “spouse.” Bowing to public pressure, the association recently relaxed the policy, allowing members and any adult guest to be admitted.
Dr. Doolittle would be proud.
