Last fall you effectively blocked a basic human right in California. You invalidated the right of same-sex couples to legitimize their relationship in the form of civil marriage. I'm not going to get into separation of church and state issues or setting aside enforcement of one set of religious beliefs on people who believe differently here. Those are subjects for another blog...or several more blogs.
Instead, let me tell you a little about what can happen to long-term unmarried couples.
My roommates celebrated their seventh anniversary in October. In those seven years, they've each payed taxes at the "single" rate because they weren't and couldn't get married. A similarly married couple would have payed significantly less in taxes because the state gives joint filers a substantial discount.
Until a person is 24 years old, they are required to report their parents income on their federal educational financial aid applications. While there are several exceptions to this rule, the simplest is marriage. When a couple is married, they become exempt from this requirement and automatically become more eligible for federal student aid. Sadly, because my roommates couldn't get married, they ended up postponing their education because of funding difficulties. A similarly married couple would have qualified for grants and subsidized student loans simply because they're married and don't have to report their parents' income.
In the event of an accident, if any of their parents disagreed with their "lifestyle choice", that parent could bar his or her son's partner from his partner's hospital bed. Seven years of commitment, unprotected by government sanction, dissolved by a capricious parent. Marriage would have automatically bestowed hospital visitation rights as well as significant life choices in the event a partner becomes incapacitated.
A close friend of mine just bought a home with her partner of nearly four years. If the home is listed in both of their names and one of them suddenly died, the surviving unmarried partner would have to pay significant taxes on the portion of her home that she inherited from her non-legally-recognized spouse. Frequently this financial burden is extreme enough that the surviving partner loses the home. Yet married couples enjoy the benefit of tax-free inheritance. The estate passes to the surviving spouse, free from tax liability.
If a same sex couple has children, by whatever means, employers in the state of Utah aren't required to provide insurance benefits to the unmarried spouse. And because unmarried couples can't adopt here, yet single individuals can, employers have no legal obligation to insure the children of an unmarried spouse either. So the only option is for both parents to work, leave the children in day care, and pay higher insurance premiums because each spouse has to have his or her own policy.
In many states, joint adoption by same-sex couples isn't legal. (In places like Utah single people can adopt but have a hard time doing so if they're honest about their sexual orientation.) Numerous couples plan their vacations around these states to make sure they retain custody of their legally adopted children. Better to vacation in Oregon than go to Disney World and run the risk of having your children taken away from you.
The state of Utah doesn't protect GLBT people from employment or housing discrimination. This means that if your employer or your landlord finds out you're gay, you may be fired regardless of your job performance or evicted even though you're a model tenant. Ironically, this could go both ways. Personally, I think every gay employer and landlord in the state should fire all their straight employees and evict all their straight tenants, just to show how ridiculous it is.
While many of these issues are directly related to the fact that same-sex marriage isn't sanctioned by the state or federal government, most people agree that gay people do deserve basic human rights. In fact, during the Proposition 8 debate in California, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (one of Prop 8's most vocal proponents) repeatedly made claims that the church is not "anti-gay" and "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights." On November 5th, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose "civil unions or domestic partnerships."
In response, Equality Utah extended the hand of friendship to the Church and penned its Common Ground Initiative. This initiative is being presented to the Utah State Legislature during the 2009 legislative session in hopes of securing some of the basic human rights that the LDS Church "does not object to."
We may not agree about same-sex marriage, but if the Church doesn't oppose hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, probate rights, or (gulp) domestic partnerships, maybe we can settle on that for now. Yet in the 81 days since Equality Utah announced its attempt to reach across the aisle, the church has remained silent. They fervently worked to stop gay marriage, paying lip service to basic human dignities that gay people deserve, then refuse to get involved when BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS are brought up. This isn't marriage. It's fair housing. It's not "undermining the family". It's job security. It's not "open rebellion against God". It's basic human dignity. And yet the church remains silent and its vocal members viciously attack.
There is nothing Christ-like about the efforts of Gayle Ruzicka, Chris Buttars, The Eagle Forum, The Sutherland Institute, or the host of religious "family-oriented" organizations to demonize homosexuals and strip us of rights. And, no offense intended to my family and friends who are active members of the LDS Church, but the Church's silence is tantamount to endorsement.
Apparently it can vocally support measures that strip gays of rights, but when it comes to making good on its positions regarding fair treatment in every-day life, the Church is content to wallow in hypocrisy, letting the rabid zealots do its dirty work.
Well I'm done with it. I've tried to be kind and understanding. I've tried to fairly listen to both sides of the argument. But no more. Frankly, I can't imagine how these people can behave like they do toward their gay "brothers and sisters" and still claim that they love them. When a person actively works to prevent the basic human dignity of another, that's hate, plain and simple. We love all God's children, we just don't agree with what they do...so we'll enforce our own narrow-minded dogma on them till they all commit suicide. (Did you know Utah has one of the highest suicide rates among gay teens in this country?) I've tried to be sensible. I've tried to be respectful of other people's beliefs. I honestly DO understand where they're coming from. And it's all bullshit. They're wearing me down. How am I supposed to be nice when all that comes from the "moral opposition" is bile in the name of God?
So here's my challenge: Put up or shut up. If you truly believe that gay people deserve basic rights, write your senator. Utah has a constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. No law or "judicial activism" is going to change that. So the argument that giving rights to gays is a "slippery slope" toward gay marriage is bullshit. The church and its membership needs to get involved. You worked so hard to get Prop 8 passed on a platform of "we don't object to 'rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights'" so make good on it! Write your senator, write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, talk to your friends and neighbors. Take the zeal you had for passing Prop 8 and work with the same zeal to secure the rights your church "does not object to" for your gay brothers and sisters...or reveal yourselves and your church hypocrites. Put up or shut up. If you can't support fairness for the gay brothers and sisters you claim to love, then at least get out of the political arena. You spit in our faces and then, when we extend the hand of friendship, would you spit on that too?
Again, I don't mean to offend. But I'm offended. And yes, I'm trying to deal productively with it. So maybe I do mean to offend. Now take that offense, study up on the issues, and deal productively with it. Now go write your friggin' letters!
For more info on Equality Utah's Common Ground Initiative, click here. And for a snapshot of the hurdles the initiative faces in the legislature, check out this editorial in the SL Tribune. And for a quick look at the opposition, click here. Here's another great link from Equality Utah.
5 comments:
Your post has sparked a couple of questions, and I ask simply out of curiosity, I'm not trying to start any kind of debate or conflict.
#1. Does the "common law marriage" rule not apply to gay couples? I have always been led to believe that a heterosexual couple that lives together for 7 years or more is considered leagally married. Do I misunderstand this, or does it not apply to gays?
#2. If a gay couple were to legally appoint their partners as their medical power of attorney respectively, could one person's parents or siblings override this? Surely they would have to get a court order first. If one had medical power of attorney, he/she could not be forced to leave the bedside of the mentally incapacitated individual for which they were legally designated to make decisions. Right? And, assuming I am correct here, why not just take that extra step and visit a lawyer to have the papers drawn up in order to hopefully avoid some of the chaos should the circumstances arise?
I realize my questions are slight tagents from the point you were making on your blog. Hope you don't mind my asking anyway. And if I'm out of line, you don't have to answer or you can just delete my comment altogether.
You bring up a couple good points Hey Tami. Thanks for the comment. No, you're not out of line. I'm always grateful for the opportunity to have open, respectful dialogue and I've always found your comments respectful. Even the smartass ones. ;-)
First, unless the state recognizes gay unions, states that have common law marriage laws on the books don't afford gay couples in long-term relationships those legal recognitions.
In answer to question 2, yes gay couples can draw up power of attorney documents which would require court intervention to block them. However, there are a myriad of issues at play here. Probably the most glaring is that in the state of Utah, thanks to Utah's Amendment 3 in 2004, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect." This legal terminology not only bars domestic partnership (or as I like to call it "marriage lite"), it's been used to deny gay couples benefits that are assigned to married couples. Therefore, a court challenge would likely succeed if it's determined that power of attorney documents give the union marriage rights.
I think the real issue, though, is simple fairness. A straight couple can get married on a whim and automatically receives about 1100 federal benefits and 300 state benefits (give or take) simply because they're married. To secure even the tiny fraction of these that are available via legal contract, same-sex partners must spend enormous amounts of money for relatively few legal protections...and many of those are shaky at best.
When every major psychological association in the world has made statements stressing the need for legalizing same-sex unions, the only argument against same sex marriage is a religious one. Ultimately, it boils down to one set of religious beliefs being valued over others. My feeling is that if the government is involved in marriage, then the rights bestowed upon one couple need to be available to all. As for religious marriages, every religion needs to be free to act "according to the dictates of their own conscience". That means Mormons don't have to marry gays and Unitarians, who believe in marriage equality, can. (And the Quakers can leave it up to individual clergy. And the Presbyterians can bless same-sex unions with terminology restrictions.)
It's just a matter of fairness. Should a same sex couple who has been together 50 years have to file separate income taxes? Is it fair that they pay more taxes than a couple who's been married 15 minutes?
Yes there are loopholes and with a little footwork and a lot of money, gay couples can secure a small measure of protection. But why should they have to?
A friend of mine lived in London for a year, and she had great insight on the problem. I guess in the UK anyone can enter into a civil union. The classification of marriage is reserved for those joined under the sanction of the church. I realize the US is not in a position to alter its partnership culturalization, but wouldn't this solve the issue for everybody? The LGBT community could establish unions without "insulting" the religious organizations that seem so against issuing them their basic human rights.
What I think the straight sector needs to understand is that this affects us directly too. In 1994 I harbored a gay friend overnight at my apartment. My landlord dropped in unexpectedly the next morning and began asking questions. To allay his fears that anything immoral might be taking place I explained my friend's sexual orientation. My landlord left immediately, and by that afternoon I received an eviction notice. Now my roommates had brought over straight male friends for the evening before without ramification, but just by association I lost my home. Following legal investigation it just so happens that this can happen to anyone who rents and entertains LGBT friends. So the problem really extends far beyond the marriage issue. It's flat out biggotted discrimination. Anything I can do to help out, Brandon, you just let me know.
Thanks for your comments Bonnie. A couple things come to mind:
First, if "civil unions" become widely accepted, it makes absolute sense to make them available to everyone. It would be hugely hypocritical on the part of the gay community to demand that the institution be limited to same-sex couples. Sadly, opponents of same-sex unions will argue that this "marriage lite" waters down and devalues the institution of marriage. But yes, I agree that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage. If it's gonna have its thumb in anything it should be a civil institution. This would leave marriage up to the individual religious organizations, and the government could simultaneously recognize the religious unions civilly as well. Then, when a couple gets married in the temple, they get the state and federal rights...or when a Unitarian minister marries a gay couple, they get them. So "Marriage" becomes an entirely religious institution, subject by the rules of each religion, and the civil aspect is bestowed fairly upon everybody. This is the kind of arrangement that I wouldn't have a problem with. But I suspect that the opponents of same-sex marriage would.
Second, I'm constantly astounded at how easily people jump on the bandwagon without understanding all the facts. The "Gay? Ewwww!" knee-jerk reaction is so much a part of the legislative process that it's nearly impossible to secure simple legal protections and basic human rights here. And generally rational people vote based on what they think God wants, yet completely disregarding the repercussions of their vote. Seriously, same-sex relationships already face enough difficulty (given the fact gays can't marry). Isn't it in society's best interest to lend some stability to these relationships? Never mind the question of fairness. By denying gay couples the stability of marriage and "marriage-like" rights and responsibilities, society encourages the very stereotypes it uses to deny gays rights. (i.e. Gays are typically promiscuous and unable to have long-term relationships, so let's deny them the legal recognition and tax and social benefits that help to stabilize married straight relationships, thereby ensuring continued instability so we can keep denying them rights based on their instability! Yay!)
Post a Comment