When we first heard that ASU is offering benefits to domestic partners, we assumed what we have been led to assume for a while — this was not much more than a positive strike for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and their supporters. After all, heavy political discussion on the matter has indelibly linked the term “domestic partnership” to sexual orientation-related issues.

That’s why we figured the GLBT team was the real winner when, in April, the state approved an expansion of the benefits allowed to be given to domestic partners of state employees.

Naturally, we assumed, this merited a huge celebration for the pro-gay movement and a huge failure for their opposition.

But not so fast.

While this policy will certainly be a welcome addition to the GLBT team, the real victor here is a less controversial sector of the population: unmarried domestic partners — of opposite sexes.

The statistics on domestic partners surprised us. This issue, as much as it is defined as a gay-rights issue, affects even more opposite-sex couples.

According to the 2000 Census, there were 9.7 million unmarried Americans living with an opposite-sex partner and only 1.2 million unmarried Americans living with same-sex partners.

Same-sex couples represent only a measly 11 percent of domestic partnerships.

It is time we stopped seeing domestic partnership as strictly an GLBT issue. Sure, it affects them, but it goes far beyond their reaches.

Instead of looking at domestic partnerships as merely a politically divisive issue, it’s time to look at it from a basic level: Is it befitting our society to allow two adults in a committed, non married relationship to reap the same benefits as married couples? Does the willingness to enter into the institution of marriage bestow upon its endeavourers certain rights over those who are not suited by it?

We say, generally speaking, no. There are sticky issues, mainly regarding taxes, but on the whole, the guidelines that bind these partnerships are essentially the same as those that bind marriages.

In a contract on the ASU Human Resources Web site called the “Declaration of Domestic Partnership,” the signers must make their partnership official. This allows benefits such as tuition reduction and retention subsidies — a supplement to an employee’s salary for the purchase of health insurance — to be conferred to the employee’s partner. In this contract, there are strict criteria set forth, including: shared residence, joint responsibility over “the necessities of life” including bank accounts and mortgages and the willingness to “remain together indefinitely.”

To us, these guidelines sound an awful lot like the ones of marriage, only without the fanfare of “I do.”

In an open society, it is imperative to keep up with the changing times. Considering that we live in a nation where the number of unmarried couples living together has, according to Census numbers, increased tenfold in the past 40 years, it was long overdue for the state — and, as a result, ASU — to adopt a policy that gives domestic partners a chance to receive benefits comparable to those a married couple receives.