Archive for November, 2009
Two steps forward, one back for domestic partners
If you live in Washington DC you probably know this already, but it’s worth celebrating the fact that the DC Council decided not to shut down its domestic partnership registry. Congratulations and thank you to all the AtMP members who emailed the Council, and especially to Board Chair Meaghan Lamarre for testifying at the Council hearing.
If you follow health care reform, you might have heard that the House bill would end taxation of DP benefits (making them the cost equivalent of spousal benefits). Several news reports made it sound like this would apply only to same-sex domestic partners. This is a BIG peeve of mine. Why does the media (and the LBGT rights movement) consistently ignore people in different-sex partnerships (many of whom identify as B and T!)? Rest assured, the law applies equally to all partners. Many thanks to Pablo the intern for fact checking!
And thanks to Bruce and Marshall for bringing to my attention that domestic partners lost a legislative battle in Rhode Island. They sought the right to make funeral arrangements without being designated in writing in advance.
[Jan. 12, 2010 - a quick update: the RI legislature overrode the governor's veto on funeral arrangements.]
Totally aside, I’m fascinated that the phrase for ‘two steps forward, one step back’ in Afganistan is “Ten times we fought, two times we laughed.” Seems to me, 2-1 = 1, but 2-10= (-8). Another reason I’m grateful not to be in Afganistan.
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 Update 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!
