A Primer For Straights On Gay Marriage

[ruggerson]

Hard to believe after all this time that so many need it, but here goes:

Civil unions are not marriage, because the only bodies that have passed civil union bills are a handful of STATES. In other words, the few civil union laws on the books, only confer rights that a STATE is authorized to confer: state taxation, hospital visitation, etc.

Even Massachussetts, which has legalized gay MARRIAGE, only can confer STATE rights and privileges on gay couples.

There are over 400 FEDERAL rights and privileges associated with marriage. Amongst the biggest of these are federal taxation priveleges (filing jointly), federal inheritance rights (the right to leave your spouse your estate tax free) and social security survivorship rights.

Currently, not one gay couple in the entire country, civil unionized or married, has access to ANY of these federal rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.

The only thing that would correct that situation would be a repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which specifically denies federal benefits to gay couples DESPITE what any individual state may do) or the overturning of said Act by a federal court.

So, you can shout all you want that you support state authored civil unions, but know that in so doing, you are dooming gay couples to a second class status which grants them some limited state's rights, but still denies them ALL rights and privileges on the federal level.

[marmar]

1. Well said....

3/4 citizenship is not full citizenship....You'd think that we would have learned that in this country after 100 years of suffrage and the civil rights movement.

[LeftCoast]

2. I'm dealing with this right now

Just got a new job. They pay 100% of spousal health benefits - even civil union! The problem is that the Fed taxes my partners benefits because they don't recognize our union. It's total BS.

[Nikki Stone1]

3. K & R

...

[Kerrytravelers]

4. K&R

Well said.

[NMMNG]

5. There are actually more than 1,000 federal rights granted to married couples

http://www.nclrights.org/publications/1500reasons-0304.htm

Allowing anything less than MARRIAGE for gays is relegating them to second class status.

[NMMNG]

6. There are actually more than 1,000 federal rights granted to married couples

http://www.nclrights.org/publications/1500reasons-0304.htm

Allowing anything less than MARRIAGE for gays is relegating them to second class status.

[ruggerson]

10. thanks n/t

[NMMNG]

11. You're welcome

:hi:

[dickthegrouch]

7. I can't even get California's DP benefits

Because if I did the Federal Government would discriminate against me as a non-citizen.

I am perfecly legal a Green-card alien, but no Domestic partner benefits according to both my tax advisor and my attorney.

Besides why would I want to become a 1/1431th of a citizen in the US when I'm a full citizen of a different country (which has Marriage)?

It's amusing sometimes, my partner of 10 years is of asian descent and I'm white. He's the citizen and I'm not. We do a fair amount of international travel and INS always looks at us strangely when we return to the US.

Thanks for explaining it, Ruggerson.

[pnwmom]

8. That's why I think the push should be on overturning the federal law.

As long as the DOMA is in place, a marriage in Massachusetts means no more than a civil union in Vermont or New Jersey. Both confer all of the state rights and none of the federal.

In the meantime, however, it is better to have civil unions than nothing. And they pave the way for marriage once the DOMA is repealed.

[Jim Lane]

15. I agree. Isn't the dissatisfaction with "civil unions" misplaced?

Whether a state recognizes civil unions or full marriage equality, the same-sex partners can't get the federal benefits mentioned in the OP.

In some states, the political climate may make civil unions attainable but marriage equality unattainable -- at least for now! -- because of some straights' possessiveness over the word "marriage". In those circumstances, the effect of DOMA is that these two alternatives are identical in terms of their effects on rights under federal law.

[ruggerson]

17. If DOMA is repealed

only Massachusetts marriages would get federal rights and privileges. All the "civil unions," in states that have legislated them, would still not be recognized on the federal level.

[Jim Lane]

21. That would depend on what replaced DOMA

Federal legislation could, as you suggest, make federal benefits available only to people who were "married". Alternatively, however, the hypothetical new federal statute could recognize civil unions. The latter course would be more in keeping with the tradition of federalism, which includes deferring to the states on matters like domestic relations.

[DKRC]

9. I learn something new on DU everyday

Actually, more than one or two things.
Thanks for posting this.

:thumbsup:

[Morgana LaFey]

12. I'd like to add this

Why gay equality means equality and not special rights (by foreigncorrespondent)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=345128&mesg_id=345128

I told her at the time it was worth bookmarking, and pulling out now and then. This seems a good time. NOT that there's anything wrong with your OP which is also worth bookmarking.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Shorter primer for straight folks: It doesn't affect you.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. What Bloo Said

I don't see how anyone thinks it would affect their marriage, unless the marriage is crap already. Mine isn't.
The Professor

[frogcycle]

14. As opposed to supporting "civil unions" for some

I say do away with government - sponsored "marriage" for all.

"marriage" is a religious institution inappropriately adopted by governments.

two people who want a contract granting ALL the rights currently granted under what is improperly called "marriage" by government should be free to execute such a contract, regardless of how many penises and/or vaginas they collectively possess. Such a partnership can and should be as lasting and binding as desired. The "civil unions" you describe as inadequate would damned well be made adequate if EVERYONE had only them to rely on. And that is as it should be.

the concept of "marriage," which various groups wish to reserve for opposite-sex pairs, can be governed in religious groups however in the hell they want to - bigoted, open, whatever. They can defend the hell out of it all they want. People who execute the state "union" contract can be free also to participate in a religious "marriage ceremony" - and vice versa. But neither should require the other. If people opted to have only a church "wedding" but not to form a civil union, then they would have no more legal rights than any two strangers.

the state does not stick its nose into church rules regarding baptism and such - so be it.

The very idea that any governmental body passes laws insisting on the proper set of body parts is appalling. It is Jim Crow. Neither the "defense of marriage act", nor ANY state-sponsored "marriage" by ANYBODY should be allowed.

I've been married 39 years. Executed the contract in one state, have lived in three others since, each recognizes the contract on our say-so, as does the federal govt. it happens the partner I chose is of the opposite sex, but dammit, if that had not been the case, I'd be pissed as hell. If somebody were to want to check our "dirty bits" to make sure they were different before letting us visit each other in the hospital I'd go berserk. There is just no logic, no justification whatsoever to such a requirement.


just my $.02

[marshall]

18. I totally agree

I can't understand why we should be interested in having government be involved in a religious ceremony. It should be about the rights, not the ceremony. And I don't think those rights should only be available to couples who are in a sexual relationship. What about close family members such as a mother/son or grandfather/granddaughter or two brothers who set up housekeeping together and would benefit from the tax breaks, insurance, and myriad of other benefits. I don't understand why we can't fight for these rights for EVERYBODY, not just one particular group.

[tavalon]

23. I wholly concur

but with one minor correction- change the wording "two" to "two or more".

[xchrom]

16. k&r

[Laughing Mirror]

20. Yes it is hard to believe after all this time

A much needed post. Thanks, ruggerson, for encapsulating it so well.

[VelmaD]

22. what I want someone to explain to me...

is why any couple, gay or straight, should get any of the federal or state rights they get? What makes y'all better than people that aren't in couples?

[stonebone]

24. kick

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. I don't follow this.

It appears to be based on the assumption that marriage is a federal thing and civil unions are a state thing. But surely either the nation or states could choose to recognise either marriage or civil unions for homosexuals?