After being in a romantic partnership for almost eight years, after living together for four years, after jointly purchasing property, sharing bills and income, after having a ceremony during which we publicly declared our commitment to one another in front of all our friends and family, Terra and I are still denied 1,049 federal rights automatically granted to heterosexual, married couples.
Some of those rights include:
Hospital Visitation Rights
Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.
Terra and I are registered as domestic partners in New York City, which means we could visit one another in a hospital within the five boroughs. However, if we took a car trip across the bridge to New Jersey and got into an accident, we're screwed.
Health insurance
Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the legal spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the same-sex partners of their employees. LGBT employees who do receive health coverage for their same-sex partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance. Same-sex couples cannot even buy a family health insurance policy on the open market.
Terra's employer does not include unmarried partners in their health coverage. As a result, since I'm self-employed, I pay about $350 a month for health insurance. A friend called this the "lesbian tax."
Spousal Privilege
Spousal privilege, granted to married couples, is the right of a person to refuse to testify against their spouse in the court of law.
That means if Terra was sued, I could be called on to testify against her. And every email, phonecall, letter, IM and conversation between us would not be protected by spousal privilege, and could be entered into evidence.
Inheritance rights
When a married person's spouse dies, the survivor can automatically inherit a substantial share from the deceased spouse's estate regardless of whether a will exists. Without marriage, a same-sex partner has no automatic right to inherit.
This means Terra and I have to write wills to guarantee either of us inherits from the other if one of us dies. How many people do you know under thirty who have a will?
Family leave
Married workers in many workplaces are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse but workers with same-sex partners have no right to family leave.
Pensions
After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant - so surviving same-sex partners get no pension support for their surviving partners. Any pension dies with the worker.
Nursing homes
Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. An unmarried and elderly same-sex couple does not have the right to spend their final days together in a nursing home.
Home protection
Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing-home bills; seniors in same-sex relationships have no such protection. A non-married partner can be forced to sell his or her own house to repay a state lien for nursing home care. A non-married partner who lives in the home but does not own it could even be forced from the home to pay nursing home costs.
Retirement savings
While a married person can roll over a deceased spouse's 401(k) or IRA funds into an IRA without paying taxes, surviving partners in same-sex relationships must withdraw the entire amount, pay income taxes on it and also lose the tax deferral benefits of these accounts.
Taxes
Estate taxes. A spouse who dies may leave an unlimited amount of property to the surviving spouse without paying any state or federal estate taxes. Without the benefit of marriage, any amount of property over the federal or state exclusion amounts is taxed.
Income tax. Every year, Terra and I are forced to file our taxes separately, as "single" people, ineligible for the tax benefits afforded to married couples.
Social Security benefits
Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, surviving partners in same-sex relationships receive no Social Security survivor benefits resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
And this is just the start. The US Government's General Accounting Office issued a complete list of the 1,049 laws involving marital status.
Some other relevant bits:
- George W. Bush proposed a Constitutional Amendment which would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman only.
- John Kerry feels that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, but does not support the amendment. Kerry thinks it should be up to the states to decide.
- Tying the Knot is an excellent documentary on marriage and how the inability to marry affects same-sex couples.
- The ever-excellent Wikipedia has a section on Same-sex marriage in the United States.
- Rosie O'Donnell became a proponent of gay marriage after her partner Kelli Carpenter was denied spousal privilege and had to testify against Rosie in court.
i think that we'll see things change in our lifetime... this is truly the civil rights issue of our time.
My military friends and my gay friends. That is it. My answer would be the same if you asked about people under 40
Good call on this article. It really brings home just how important the rights of marriage are
I have a question, though. How would you feel about being granted all those rights if the commitment were called something other than marriage? Is the name as important as the position?
Whenever someone raises this issue, I always think that calling it something else would take away one of the main pillars of argument against it. Not being a believer in the concept of marriage, I don't understand the emphasis people place on it. I can understand the importance of the rights associated with it, but I always wonder if there is more to it than that
What do people think about that?
You know, I understand that my kind of relationship really freaks some people out. I try really hard to understand that. I try really hard to understand that people are scared of difference, and that they just haven't been educated about the issue. (I have to give people the benefit of the doubt, or else I'd jump off a bridge.)
I also understand that politicians have to make people feel comfortable with their stance to get elected.
That being said, I'm still beside myself with the current discussion. Dick Cheney unwilling to stand up for the rights of HIS OWN DAUGHTER. Mr. Bush, when asked if he thinks homosexuality is a choice, to simply say, "I don't know." Even for Kerry, the lesser of two evils here people, don't think I'm walking around campaigning for Kerry (even though I will vote for him - lesser of two evils, repeat), even *Kerry* can't say that he thinks consensual adults can't choose a primary relationship and have it legally recognized.
It boggles the mind. It drives me fucking insane. There's nothing I can do about it except live my life honestly as possible. And with compassion, and understanding and patience.
*takes a deep breath*
[Please accept my apology for this post-presidential-debate rant. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.]
There are 1,892 steps in a mile; it's easier to take them one at a time than to try to leap the entire distance at one shot.
I do hold marriage in high regard. I think it is probably the most important event in a person's life. Marriage is an institution to be respected. I think the president put it beautifully last night. He said, "I think we should be encouraging marriage, not discouraging it." Albeit, he was talking about the marriage penalty in taxes, but I think it applies universally.
So, why wouldn't we want to allow our homosexual brothers and sisters to share in the joy and love that is marriage?
However, speaking for my WASPy peers, what put a lot of people off was the circus atmosphere in San Fransisco and Massachusetts. I don't live in either place, so I don't know if that was the true appearance, but that's the view we in the midwest got from the media.
however, i hope i never live in a state where homosexuals are given marriage licenses with all the gripes above resolved.
i don't think the state should foster an environment where the rising generation must be artificially created and not raised by both a mother and father, each with their unique physio-emotional makeup.
does this happen, of course it does, but why take conscious steps away from that ideal?
As one-half of a married couple I was surprised to see this, since only recently was a "marriage tax penalty" eliminated. Before that, married couples with two incomes were actually at a *disadvantage* filing together.
see here for example
Of course, if only one of you is working, then yes, there is a tax benefit to filing jointly of which you currently cannot take advantage. In 2004, however, there are very, very few single-income couples of any gender. Also, you indicated that both you and Terra file taxes, so that scenario doesn't apply to you, either.
Small comfort, with 1048 more to go, but at least you're not being shafted by the IRS when it comes to income taxes.
And, I guess by Troy's reasoning, this means that heterosexual couples that are infertile or who don't want to have children, should not be permitted to marry either.
Now that I look into it a little more, it seems that there are some cases where filing joint income tax returns are advantageous for married couples, but not always.
My only concern is that gay marriage activism actually bolsters the legitimacy of a completely outdated institution.
My cousin went to her first Gay wedding a couple weekends back. You can buy "To The Happy Grooms" cards up here. There is a market for them.
And I would agree with the general sentiment here that this is a civil rights issue. Of course, it is easier to be discriminated against for being Black (or some other visible minority) versus being Gay. I'm not sure if that diminishes this cause however.
I can see the problems with the "separate, but equal" concerns, although they were never issues that affected me much as I'm an Aussie. I think Michelle's point of a stepping-stone is important. That was more what I was driving at. Certainly I know that no one I've ever asked (and that is quite a few) has any problems with gay people making a legal commitment to each other - it is just that most of them don't want it to be called 'marriage'
However, I completely agree with Aimee that this is a civil rights issue. It is obvious discrimination. Anyone who wants to be married (and can find someone willing to marry them) should be allowed to do so
As a side issue, I'm with Leslie that marriage is totally outdated. Why do I need a piece of paper to affirm my commitment for another? But I won't get into that here
(Boy, am I Mr Agreeable today or what?)
It's funny, I don't like to call Terra "my wife" because that feels so heterosexually posessive and sexist. Marriage as an institution has its roots in property exchange, and later, religion. Many of its associated rituals smack of sexism (the woman taking the man's name, the white dress, etc.)
What I like about my relationship is there are no pre-established built-in gender-based roles, no religious history or hangups associated with it.
BUT - gay marriage activism is more about practicality. I don't want to have to pay for health insurance out of my pocket.
The gay/lesbian community gets up in arms about wanting the same treatment as hetrosexual couples, despite the fact that they are very different. Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason why same sex partners can not naturally reproduce? Possibly this is less of a civil rights issue than it is an issue about having reproducing life partners, which I believe is one of the primary purposes of marriage.
As far as marriage being an outdated institution, how do you figure it\'s outdated? Outdated because YOU don\'t believe in committing yourself to one person for the rest of your life?
If you don\'t agree with me that\'s fine (and i\'m sure most of you won\'t), but I feel both sides of the coin should be represented here. It\'s not such a clear cut issue as the gay/lesbian community would like it to be.
And what about adultery? And divorce? And... well... just about any argument you could throw at it can be said about straight couples, too. I mean, half of all marriages end in divorce and somehow that *isn't* breaking the so-called "sanctity" of marriage? Bah, I say. Bah!
What I like about my relationship is there are no pre-established built-in gender-based roles, no religious history or hangups associated with it.
BUT - gay marriage activism is more about practicality. I don\'t want to have to pay for health insurance out of my pocket.\"
You just hit the nail right on the head. This is why people (not me) and society in general (I\'m going on my understanding of polling data) rejects the idea of gay \'marriage\'. The position of these people *seems* to be that in a homosexual relationship, the concept of \'marriage\' is fundamentally different.
I should point out that I don\'t think these people believe that gay couples do not love each other. I think they understand that. I think they believe that the notion of a traditional relationship is probably rejected as sexist or anachronistic.
However, asked another way, \'Should gay couples be afforded the same legal rights as straight couples\', I think the polling data comes back much stronger for the civil union question.
Which is why the right-wing has framed this as a marriage debate.
Frankly, I consider marriage to be a social question. It\'s certainly a social institution. Civil Union, on the other hadn, is to me a legal concept. A marriage license (the piece of paper derided in several comments as unneccesary) is actually the legal component of a marriage ceremony that makes it a \'Civil Union\' and is what *actually* affords the legal rights and priviledges aspired to in this post. Without that, you are not \'married\' (more accurately \'in a civil union\') in the eyes of the law.
I think there should be a Civil Union versus a Marriage concept. I think the government should get the hell out of marriages and stick with the legal terms in Civil Union. Society is not government. Society is groupthink and deeply rooted in psychology. Government should try to avoid being those things.
I think society in this country is, somewhat regrettably to me, quite far from accepting homosexual unions as \'marriage\'. Mostly because of the above points. But that\'s a longer social battle that probably will not be won in large demonstrations, but in a slow acceptance based in proving that homsexuality is not the wild, scary thing that the mainstream seems to think it is, and is in fact a harmless expression of love.
Marriage, when entered into by two people in the right state of mind, is a public expression of committment. That's really all it is. It says, "We love each other, and are committed to remain in a monogomous relationship for the rest of our lives together."
Why is that outdated? Are you suggesting that people should be able to have polygomous relationships? Or are you suggesting that people should not have to commit themselves? Because if that's how *you* feel, then don't get married. But plenty of other people do feel that way and choose to express it publicly through marriage.
Society and the Government has seen fit to encourage that statement with the legal benefits outlined in this post. The reasons have to do with society's general position that committed family relationships are a 'good thing'.
I'm interested in how Leslie would define 'marriage' if she disagrees with its current 'outdated' definition.
And what of people that don't want to get married under the current definition? So don't. But why should those people be given the benefits society has provided if they are unwilling to make the public committment required?
Something for nothing? I don't understand.
Wait you mean they aren't being forced? How does it efect them then? Why should they care?
OK a kinda silly comment but this is something I have wondered myself!
Also this is not just an american issue at the moment, I returned to New Zealand recently for a holiday and on the day I got back there was a big anti civil union protest (read my account here, http://www.worldwithoutshrimp.com/archives/000196.php if you like.) and I just found myself asking why they care so much?
Personally, on the surface, I believe gay marriage should be made legal. They should be given the same rights, privledges, benefits, penalties, and drawbacks as any man/woman marriage. This goes against my underlying philosophy that society has started to outgrow itself, but seeing as I do not believe a redefining of almost every part of our way of life is possible in any amount of time, small changes such as this would be a step in the right direction.
Most people who disagree with gay marriage can't even seem to realize how much the same straight and gay relationships are. The only real difference is the lack of reproductive possibility between the 2 partners. And quite a few straight couples don't do a very good job of raising their children anymore, especially since so many of them don't live together anymore.
Bit more long winded than I intended, but felt I had to take my own stand on this.
The concept of marriage is the same as it always was. It's *people* that can't seem to conform to it very well. That doesn't mean the concept needs fixing. It means people need to think about what they're doing more. I think people jump into it too easily.
I guess I'm not sure how you redefine something that is by its very definintion a 'committment' as something that is not a 'committment'. If that's what you do, you didn't redefine it, you erased it, and do we want a society where no one will commit to each other? *Is* that a society?
I do agree that the taking of the last name is a decision to be made by the couple. I had a long conversation about this with someone who was very adamant about not taking any potential husband's name. I initially thought my position was that that's what you did, so do it, but then I realized my real position was that the *family* should share a name, and it didn't matter if it was the husbands, the wife's, or an all new name.
The reason for that being is, as you can tell in my comments, I feel fairly strongly about the committment and cohesion of a family unit. A name is, I think, an important factor in defining a family as a social unit.
And just so no one is confused about my position, I'm *for* gay marriage, *for* civil unions, and *for* straight marriage and straight civil unions. I really don't understand all the defense of marriage people that say gay marriage will destroy the institution.
I am, however, unmoved by arguements that gay marriage will lead to legal poloygamy and weddings between Festus and his Mule. I assume if anyone made a serious move to give multi-unions that same rights as currently held by couples, the over-worked staff of family courts nation-wide would up and quit and no one could wed ever again.
Marriage - STRICTLY a religious thing, regardless of who the two people are.
Civil Union - government's thing, regardless of who the two people are.
That way, every couple, be it two men, two women, or a man and a woman, have a civil union in the eyes of the government. If they want the word "marriage," they go to a church. There are churches who will gladly marry same sex couples, just as there are some who never will.
When I hear someone say that same-sex marriage degrades THEIR heterosexual marriage, I want to say, "If that does, then there's something wrong in your marriage."
Look, there is basically no good reason to not allow gay marriage:
1) it's always been between a man and a woman: again, it also used to permit a man to rape his wife because she was his property, also slavery was traditional in this country--should we go back to owning Blacks too? Of course, tradition is not a good enough reason--otherwise, we would never progress as a country;
2) marriage is about procreation: Ok, then infertile heterosexuals or those that don't intend or decide to have children should not be allowed to marry either;
3) gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage: a-Britney Spears and similar stories, b-Rush Limbaugh and his 3 divorces, c-over 50% divorce rate in general, d-high rate of adultery within heterosexual marriages as well.
4) marriage is a religious institution. no, the state creates marriage rights and licenses. If a church is required for a marriage, then my parents should not have been married because they merely went to city hall. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, permitting gay couples to marry would not force the churches to perform same-sex marriages...like the Catholic Churches refusal to marry divorced people, it may also refuse to marry same-sex couples. no problem--they can go to city hall. but if there will be a religious distinction made against gay couples, the same should be true of straight couples. And FYI--many churches routinely perform "marriage" ceremonies (although without the legal state sanctioned benefits) between gay couples.
Don't kid yourself--gay couples will do no more harm to the institution as heterosexuals. *Also, I'd point out that there are reasons why marriage is encouraged: stability of families and society. Marriage promotes raising families (which gay couples can also quite easily do and as equally as well) and they promote families to stay togther: if one is married, he or she is less likely to go gallivanting around town and instead, is more likely to return home to the family after work. the same logic holds true for gay couples. committment means as much to gay couples as it does to heterosexuals. Also, there are several benefits--monetary and otherwise--that help children of families--why hurt the children of gay parents by discriminating against the parents by now allowing them to marry?
So, don't kid yourself, if you're against gay marriage, it is only because you are ignorant and/or a bigot. It really is that simple. People like having another group they can look down upon as less worthy--the whole "otherness" really comforts some people. So, if you're against gay marriage, look within and ask yourself why. Make yourself answer the questions, "What is the larger purpose of marriage within society?" and "Doesn't that same logic apply equally to gay couples?" Then see if your answer passes the BS smell test.
a man will never be an effective mother, nor a woman an effective father. both are needed. while both are not always present, laws should be at least pointed towards that ideal.
the economic benefit of marriage is because of the children. if that bleeds into other benefits the aim is still there, to secure the future.
i have thought that through, and i completely respect a person's sexuality, cultural practices, and behaviors.
in this case, to my mind, and the above gripes only solidifies the thought, it comes down to money. subcultures don't gripe unless they feel they might win some advantage or remove disadvantage by doing so.
And study after study reveals that children of gay couples fare equally well as children of heterosexual couples in every area. In fact, the only downside is that kids of gay folks sometimes get teased by their friends for having gay parents. This of course, is not very relevant because as we all know, all kids get teased about something.
Anyway, your ideas about gender roles are not only archaic, but counter-productive to the well-being of children in general, and especially hurtful to the children of gay couples.
If you're so concerned about there being laws that promote the two-parent mother-father ideals, then perhaps we should enact a constitutional amendment that no state allow a divorce if the couple has kids.
Finally, referring the legitimate, well-thought out, logical comments expressing disagreement to the current practice of discriminating against gay couples by not allowing gay marriage as mere "gripes," not only greatly mischaracterizes the weight of those arguments, but also shows your inherent bigotry toward gay couples.
I respect everyone's opinions, even the ones that don't match my own. The points made about civil unions and the separation of church and state especially made me rethink things a bit.
Sincere thanks to everyone who has participated.
This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who participated. See Scribbling.net's comment policy for more information.