Archive for October, 2009
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.
