Archive for the ‘beyond same-sex marriage’ Category

Dangers of marriage as policy ideal

AtMP has seen important progress on unmarried people’s rights since its founding in 1998. But now I worry that the trend might be starting to slip into reverse. Two recent court decisions – both hailed as gay rights victories – actually highlight the dangers of using marriage as an exclusive public policy ideal, instead of valuing all individuals, caring relationships and families.

While celebrating that California’s Prop 8 was overturned and same-sex couples may regain the right to marry there, our friends Rachel and Bella DePaulo point out that the judge and the winning lawyers elevated marriage and disparaged alternatives to marriage, to an extraordinary and unnecessary extent.

With far less fanfare, Arizona ruled that same-sex domestic partners of state employees could have their health benefits back, after taking them away last year. However, local news reports that

The ruling does not affect unmarried heterosexual couples who also gained coverage as part of a change in state policy pushed through by the administration of former Gov. Janet Napolitano. Absent some change in policy — or a different lawsuit — they will lose their domestic partner benefits at the end of this year. Attorney Dan Barr said the lawsuit did not cover these “straight’’ unmarried workers because they are in a different legal situation: Unlike gays, they can get married to obtain benefits.

In essence, both court cases say “if you can get married, you should, and the burden’s on you if you don’t.” We see parallels in the private sector: both Google and Syracuse University are reimbursing income taxes their employees pay on health benefits for same-sex but not different-sex partners.

Today I had a very pleasant and helpful conversation with an attorney at Lambda Legal. I learned that lawyers have a hard time making an equal protection claim for different-sex couples. To paraphrase, at least two courts have ruled that ‘choosing not to drive a Cadillac does not give someone the right to drive a Pinto.’

I’m not a lawyer, but my instinct says that a winning case would have to demonstrate that being domestic partners or staying single are better options than marriage for a significant group of people. We’d have to prove that marriage is the Pinto, not the Cadillac. Obviously, many AtMP members believe this is true for themselves. Can we build a legal argument to that effect? Can we build one that overcomes the lens of traditionalism through which judges and business leaders see the world?

Introducing a blogroll

Well it’s about time! The Unmarried Blog has finally started a blogroll (at right). The handful of blogs listed today are those that I have personally followed for quite a while. Please suggest others via comments.

You’ll also notice a list of editors. We’ll soon be introducing several new editors who have joined our team in order to bring you more and better posts about alternatives to marriage. And, we’ll soon post guidelines for writing guest posts.

Guilt by association?

What does the Alternatives to Marriage Project have to do with Prop 8? Very little! But we were mentioned during cross-examination anyway, so let’s clear up some misunderstandings and provide some context here.

One live-blogger described it like this:

Thompson begins making the case that because Cott supported an organization called Alternatives to Marriage, started by a heterosexual couple to validate cohabitation as a valid choice, that this implies she is also a proponent of poly-amorous relationships.

Cott –“I don’t support poly-amorous marriages.”

The tension is thick. Cott is clearly annoyed by Thompson who is firing off question after question with smug intent to make her look stupid.

The San Francisco Chronicle heard it a little differently:

In cross-examination, David Thompson, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign committee, sought to portray Cott as a biased advocate who had once endorsed a statement by a group advocating “alternatives to marriage,” which he said included multiple partners.

Cott said she had only been endorsing the right not to marry.

Thompson’s attempt to make something good sound bad revives the attacks that Professor Cott and other withstood many years ago, for signing AtMP’s 2000 Affirmation of Family Diversity. It is similar to the attacks withstood by Professor Chai Feldblum for signing the 2006 Beyond Marriage statement, before her Senate confirmation to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in late 2009.

Many AtMP members are uncomfortable with the idea of polyamory, while some see it as not only a valid but their own alternative to marriage. Similarly, many AtMP members are uncomfortable with the idea that couples are treated differently than individuals, while some would never question that.

Our official practice, like that of many of our members, is to use the term different-sex instead of heterosexual (or straight), recognizing that one can’t tell a couple’s sexuality by their sex (picture a lesbian legally married to a gay man).

Finally, AtMP does not advocate any particular lifestyle or relationship structure. We advocate fairness and equality for all, whether or not people are married or in romantic relationships.

Anyway, we’re delighted to be connected (if only very minimally very long ago) to Professor Cott and highly recommend her book Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation.

Marriage vote in NY… what more can we say?

The topic of same-sex marriage has been covered so many times, there’s not much more to say. But I do like the way AtMP supporter and Columbia Law professor Katherine Franke puts it.

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.

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?

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)

Toward a New Queer Politic

And thanks to Jon, who reminded me that not every blog post has to be an original essay.

Bad news on hospital rights

Today we got terribly disappointing news from Lambda Legal: a FL court has dismissed the potentially ground-breaking case which we hoped would have created a legal basis for the widespread assumption that hospital patients have a right to visitation.

The court ruled that the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients’ visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients’ families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit.

This is not a gay issue, nor a same-sex marriage issue, nor even an unmarried issue. Everyone who is concerned about patients’ rights should be outraged, and this court ruling should spark a statewide movement in FL at the very least, if not an addendum to national health reform legislation. We’ll be strategizing about what AtMP can or should do… suggestions welcome!

Arizona takes back gifts it gave unmarried couples

Among the news reports filtering in during Unmarried and Single Americans Week, it is upsetting to find that the state of Arizona has rescinded the domestic partnership benefits it had just recently extended to state employees.

Although DP benefits are often wrongly described as a “gay rights” issue, the article points out that more than 3/4 of the employees receiving benefits were in different-sex couples. That fits what we hear all over. In 2006 the NYC media reported that different-sex couples made up 3/4 of NYC registered domestic partners.

In fact, Pablo, the AtMP intern working on plus-one benefits for federal employees, discovered these facts about state employees:

Washington State – The Human Resources Department reported a positive boost in recruitment and retention since instituting benefits for both same- and different-sex partners.
Vermont – the earliest state to champion equal benefits for both same-sex and different-sex partners, it found initial, marginal increases in premium costs but ultimately saw no effect on state costs.
New York State – covers over 4,880 employees’ domestic partners, and the majority of these are different-sex partners. New York reports that the plan has been easy to implement.

« Older Entries

Main Menu

Ways to be Unmarried

Meta