Think tank echoes AtMP’s health reform proposals
This year AtMP really stepped up its efforts to raise awareness about the impact of marital status on access to health care. For example, we submitted comments to the Senate Finance Committee in May, and started distributing fact sheets to a variety of health care reform advocates in July. It’s a daunting task: there are so many complicated aspects of health care, and so many organizations working on it. Just when I started to get discouraged, we achieved a dramatic success!
The Center for America Progress, a progressive think tank, incorporated several of AtMP’s policy recommendations at the end of its analysis about how the House of Representatives’ health reform package will help unmarried women.
While not on the table in the current debate, some additional policy proposals that would address the discrimination in health insurance coverage based on marital status include:
- Plus-one and/or household plans. Encourage or require employers and exchanges to treat two adults the same regardless of relation or marital status, which would allow unmarried women to support their loved ones just as married partners do.
- Domestic partners are provided coverage at many firms, but these should be defined broadly as same-sex or opposite-sex partners. Similarly, the definition of “family” should not be limited to an individual plus his/her spouse and dependents, but should include unmarried interdependent adults, such as domestic partners.
- COBRA. Employers are currently not required to provide COBRA continuing coverage to domestic partners or other adult nonspouses when the primary insured loses his or her job. Rather, all persons who were previously eligible under an employer’s plan should continue to be eligible under COBRA.
- Divorce and separation. Changes in marital status should not result in automatic loss of insurance for anyone covered as a dependent, unless both primary and dependent parties agree.
Letter to the AtMP editor: pregnancy was prerequisite to marriage
Thanks for the latest electronic issue of AtMP Update. I would like to respond to Teri Hu’s article.
While Teri makes some good points, I think it would also have been worth pointing out that there has been, and is, a considerable variation in attitudes towards pre-marital pregnancy. While I agree with her point that in the times she mentions it was largely ignored if the couple got married, it is also worth noting that in many cultures and time periods it was not only condoned but EXPECTED as a pre-condition of marriage, either officially or not. Most “primitive” cultures, and pre-industrial agricultural societies tended to expect that a couple would start “seeing” each other and then make it “official” when she got pregnant. (And that the relationship would break up if she didn’t get pregnant within a reasonable time.) This was largely because children were a valuable resource, and a couple would want to prove that they were mutually fertile before engaging in a long term commitment. This even applied in early “straight-laced” America – analysis of birth and marriage records from the colonial periods seemed to show quite clearly that 70% or more of all marriages happened when she was expecting.
The key thing to those cultures seemed to be however that the marriages were more recognizing an already existing, stable and monogamous relationship, or at least one that was presented as such.
One can question whether there is a difference between a marriage that is a recognition of what already exists, or something that is at least pretended to be a prerequisite to a change in lifestyle.
– Arthur, from MA (My GF and I have been happily unmarried for 15+ years now, though we haven’t yet managed
to pull off the pregnancy outside of marriage trick – not for lack of trying.)
Maine domestic partnerships have an opportunity to shine
On Election Day we learned that the majority of Maine voters don’t want to share the word marriage with same-sex couples. Yet polls show that many are willing to share the rights and responsibilities typically accorded to spouses. Maine is in the unique opportunity to launch the experiment of truly civil partnerships for all.
Unique among all 50 states, Maine registers all non-related couples regardless of gender or age. Since 2004, Maine’s statewide domestic partnership registry has been open to any two competent adults who have been living together in Maine for at least 12 months, are each other’s sole domestic partner and expect to remain so, are not related in a fashion that would prohibit marriage, and are not married or in a registered domestic partnership with another person.
This means that all Mainers (is that the right nickname?) in different-sex couples who are willing to boycott marriage in solidarity with same-sex couples can register and have the exact same status legal status as registered same-sex couples. Imagine a well-publicized wave of DP registrations among a wide diversity of couples!
Then imagine the civil rights movement these couples could foment! I’d bet they could rapidly build a political base of support for expanding DP rights. Currently, Maine’s “domestic partners are accorded a legal status similar to that of a married person with respect to matters of probate, guardianships, conservatorships, inheritance, protection from abuse, and related matters.” How quickly could Maine could pass a law modeled on California’s to give DP’s all of the state-based protections and obligations of marriage?
There are important personal risks involved in this strategy. AtMP’s friend Frederick Hertz (an author of Living Together: A Legal Guide for Unmarried Couples, and an attorney who specializes in helping same-sex & unmarried couples) is highly sensitive to the financial costs and legal burdens that could be encountered by any couple that registers as DP’s with the state of California. For example: they have to file state tax returns as married but federal returns as single; they have to go through a state divorce but have no protection from federal double taxation upon transfer of assets; they faced higher property taxes until CA passed a remedial law. When we were exploring this issue back in 2006, he noted that people might opt out of the marital rules by doing a pre-nup, but that costs typically $5,000 or more and would be of limited value when it comes to spousal support, the costs of a dissolution, and joint liability for debts. He felt strongly that most people really don’t understand the negative consequences of registering, and if they want the benefits of marriage, they should marry.
I agree that contradictory layers of legal status are a nightmare. People need to be educated about the legal and financial obligations they are taking on when then enter in to DP (or marriage, for that matter). On the other hand, the reality is that people are seeking out alternatives to marriage. Access to a registered status might be an attractive option not only for boycotters but also for people who feel forced to marry even though they don’t believe marriage is the right status for them, because they need specific protections and benefits. I know several different-sex couples who are remaining unmarried even though it costs them a lot of money in local and federal taxes. The taboo against “marrying for the money” actually bolsters their resolve not to participate in the institution. Some of them might also refuse to register, but others might register despite the costs.
People have already ‘voted with their feet’ by not marrying. Philosophically speaking, non-discriminatory DP registries could be a step toward (a) non-discriminatory marriage and (b) recognition that too many legal and economic factors are being attached to coupledom. Isn’t “we’re all in this together” a better way to create change?
Passage of an unmarried pathbreaker
Thanks to Kevin for the sad news that Michelle Triola Marvin passed away.
Ms. Marvin was one party in the law suit that established in California law the right of unmarried partners to sue for joint property on grounds that their partners had violated a relationship contract. Thirty years later, many courts recognize property rights for unmarried partners, but there is no consistent law on this. In 2000, the American Law Institute recommended that all de facto domestic partners should have property rights.
On the less wonky, more human side: It is really neat to learn that, although she became famous as a result of her six-year unmarried relationship with Lee Marvin, Michelle’s ultimate life partner was Dick Van Dyke. They were unmarried to eachother for 30 years! Our condolences to Mr. Van Dyke and their family.
You need a health care proxy, New York needs a law
A New York Times article about medical patients who need advocates reminds me again how much each of us needs to designate a health care proxy. Unlike a writing living will, designating a proxy means thinking about life not death! And it’s easy! Just pick your state, print your forms, get it done!
Too bad the Times didn’t mention that patient advocates in New York state don’t have the right to challenge doctors’ decisions unless they are properly designated proxies, and that only about 20% of patients name proxies. New York is still the only state besides Missouri that lacks a medical decision making law. If you live in New York state, click here to tell the Assembly to pass that law!
If you live in another state, check out our map showing how your marital status can affect your hospital righs. Then write your advance directives!
D.C. Council Hearing on Same-Sex Marriage: Round One
Wearing my Alternatives to Marriage button and carrying a sign saying “Don’t throw domestic partners under the marriage equality bus”, I headed into the offices of the District Council yesterday afternoon to attend the hearing on gay marriage. The hearing proved so popular that I was only able to join other visitors in an overflow room, but I watched several rounds of testimony there on closed-circuit TV. The opinions proved to be diverse and passionate.
Nearly 300 individuals have signed up to testify before the Council on this bill that would allow same-sex marriages in the District of Columbia — including AtMP! I’m slated to testify at the second round of the hearing, to take place next Monday, Nov. 2, at 9:30am. Officials report that this is the largest number of requests to testify at a hearing that it has seen in decades.
Most of the testimony centered on the pros and cons of allowing same-sex marriage licenses to be offered by the District government, and, while AtMP supports the rights of same-sex couples to marry, we will testify that this bill unnecessarily harms other couples by ending the District’s domestic partnership registry program. The current program requires that partners be over 18, competent, living together and neither married nor already registered as domestic partners. That means that domestic partnerships are open to same- and different-sex couples as well as other types of partners including those related by blood (such as siblings). Domestic partners are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as spouses. The District’s program is so well-written and comprehensive that it has served as a model for other programs across the country.
But while endeavoring to expand rights for some same-sex couples who would choose to marry, this bill, if passed as written, would deny rights to other couples who would not, or could not, marry under the new law. At the continuation of the hearing next Monday, I will argue that this is an unwarranted and unfair step backward and this language should be removed from the bill.
So, join us in spirit by emailing the Council and tell them not to discontinue the domestic partnership registry. And, if you’re in DC, join me in person at the hearing on Monday, November 2, at 9:30 a.m. in the 5th Floor Council Chambers, John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004.
To learn more about D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, and the reasons we don’t want it to end, read AtMP’s official testimony.
And if you wish to watch any or all of the 7 hours of the first part of the hearing, you can download the video.
MVP and MIP on DP benefits for federal employees.
Last week the Senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held its hearing on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. In comparison to the House hearing held this summer, the Q & A took wonderfully positive steps in the direction AtMP advocates: let every federal employee share employment benefits with one non-dependent adult, regardless of gender or sexual relationship.
Senator Sue Collins has been our Most Valuable Player on this bill for years; she consistently and sincerely raises the example of Maine’s inclusive domestic partnership registry and benefits for state employees (as opposed to the specious questions raised by Representative Chafetz in the House hearing). We are delighted to also give a Most Improved Player award to John Berry, the director of the federal Office of Personnel Management for responding to Sen. Collins that “You clearly have identified a fairness issue” and for promising that the federal government will look into the costs of extending more inclusive benefits. This is extraordinary progress over a just few months. For a good time, listen to their exchange at appx. 70:20 in this video clip.
Congratulations and a big thank you to all the AtMP members who have been working on this project, especially the fantastic team in Madison, Wisconsin who are committed to the crucial task of educating Representative Tammy Baldwin. Pablo the intern is trying to build a similar team of Connecticut residents to educate Senator Lieberman – can you help?
D.C. Council wrong on domestic partnership
Washington D.C.’s governing Council is planning to recognize same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, they also plan to stop registering domestic partnerships – that’s a terrible idea! If you live in D.C., please help:
First, email the Council and tell them not to discontinue the domestic partnership registry.
Second, go to the one of the hearings to share this message with the public and the media. Over 100 people will testify at each hearing, and most will be speaking for or against same-sex marrage. We encourage you to make a sign, tell your story, and remind the Council that domestic partnerships are important whether or not same-sex couples can marry.
The public hearings are on Monday, October 26, at 3:30 p.m., and Monday, November 2, at 9:30 a.m. Both hearings will be in the 5th Floor Council Chambers, John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004
To learn more about D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, and the reasons we don’t want it to end, read AtMP’s official testimony.
Things you should read while I’m out fundraising
Many thanks to Dorian, Rachel, Craig and Ashton for sending these great articles that everyone should read:
Queer Kids of Queer Parents Against Gay Marriage!
What if Marriage Is Bad for Us? (requires subscription – email copies are available)
And thanks to Jon, who reminded me that not every blog post has to be an original essay.
Response to proponent of government-funded marriage promotion
Recently we were tickled to discover that the Fatherhood and Marriage Leadership Institute is using the existence of our new Get Marriage Out of TANF Coalition as a threat to mobilize pro-marriage-promotion forces to defend their federal funding.
On seeing FAMLI’s dire warning, the director of a marriage counseling program sent AtMP this friendly inquiry:
Wow! You must really believe that you are promoting a good cause.[1] One of my areas of disagreement would be that funding TANF efforts takes away from poverty projects.[2]
Married couples often have a higher family income. Isn’t that in itself proof that poverty is diminished through promotion of healthy marriage?[3]
Why do the two programs have to be mutually exclusive? Your choices are your choices. My choices are mine. If you want to promote your cause, why down play mine?[4]
Here’s a fleshed-out version of the brief response I sent him:
1. Yes, we really do believe our cause is a good one. AtMP’s cause is fairness and equality for all unmarried people, societal support for all healthy relationships, and the end of marital status discrimination, singlism and couplism. Admittedly, a very big vision! There are an infinite number of ways we could work towards our vision; we pick just a handful to work on at a time, and protesting welfare-funded marriage promotion is just one of many issues we have tackled over the years. One reason this issue captures our attention is that many of AtMP’s staff and board members over the years have personal histories and values that center on social justice and anti-poverty work. So it is particularly galling to see anti-poverty funds redirected to marriage promotion.
2. In fact, the federal TANF budget (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) was not increased to fund marriage programs; rather, marriage programs took a slice out of the pie that would otherwise fund more directly targeted anti-poverty programs. Similarly, the FAMLI-led campaign to get each state to allocate 1% of state-controlled TANF funds to marriage programs does not increase the state’s TANF budget to 101% of its former size; rather, it decreases state-funded anti-poverty programs to 99% of their former size. Furthermore, federally funded marriage programs are explicitly not anti-poverty programs: they need not serve low-income people, and their effect on participants’ economic well-being barely made it into the evaluation criteria. (For detail on that, see Let Them Eat Wedding Rings pages 4 and 14.)
[3] The correlation of marriage with family income does not prove that marriage diminishes poverty! If that’s not obvious, read this. In fact, researchers recognize the importance of the selection effect: people with higher incomes, more education and maybe even more ambition are more likely to choose marriage and to choose to marry similarly situated people. The academic debate is about whether marrying has any significant impact on income beyond the selection effect. Even a glowingly pro-marriage-promotion literature review found that marriage increased men’s incomes by well under 10%.
[4] “Your choices are your choices. My choices are mine.” This could not be better said! That’s why so many Americans are dismayed that their tax dollars are being spent to tell people that one choice (marriage) is better than another.
