Archive for the ‘get gov’t out of marriage’ Category

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.

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?

Blogger agrees: no special status for marriage

How nice to see this comment from Amanda Marcotte on Alternet:

We could start by untying all the benefits that lure people into marriage and expanding them to all people — health insurance, hospital visitation rights, tax breaks — so that married people don’t get special status over the unmarried.

AtMP has been working towards these very goals since 1998. Check out our policy statements and suggestions for how to take action on health insurance, hospital visitation rights, and tax breaks.

Activists, lawyers propose moving focus off same-sex marriage

Happy day after Pride! Not too sunburned or hungover, I hope. How many marriage posters and floats did you see?

As an antitdote, try these three fascinating articles:

in The Nation, Lisa Duggan describes the expansive, progressive strategy that is winning real improvements for everyone in Utah (many thanks to Heather W. for finding this first)
in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Tommi Avicolli Mecca describes the kinds of assistance that could have benefited impoverished LBGTQ people for the price of the marriage equality battle (many thanks to Rene A. for finding it!)
and thanks to Stephen G. for finding the news in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press that

Married and unmarried couples should be treated equally under Minnesota law, the Minnesota State Bar Association said in a unanimous policy vote by its general assembly Friday morning.

More big names want government out of the marriage business

Many thanks to AtMP’s co-founders for sending these clips:
About Ted Haggard

Prior to my crisis, I was for equality under the law no matter how people grouped. Whether it was two old spinsters living together or a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple, I think it ought to be the same under the law. But prior to my crisis, I thought the word ‘marriage,’ I thought it was worth defending the definition of it — the traditional definition of it, and I no longer believe that. … I think the government should recognize the union between people whether they’re gay or not in whatever the language they choose, whether they call it a marriage or a civil union, it’s up to them. If the government is going to be in the business of recognizing people grouped together as couples, then they need to that across the board. It’s a big change for me.

About Douglas Kmiec

Con Law Prof Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine can be viewed on the popular comedy show “The Colbert Report” in the April 16, 2009 episode here. Kmiec appeared on the show to promote his book, Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama, released last September. But the main topic of discussion was same-sex marriage. Kmiec appears at the conclusion of the show – after Colbert’s parody of the National Organization for Marriage advertisement, which Frank Rich discussed in his NYT column today here. Kmiec’s argument on the Colbert show is that the state should not be in the business of marriage, but should protect and support certain relationships, including it seems same-sex couples, and excluding, it seems, polygamous ones. Marriage, Kmiec seems to say, is a religious affair which should be separate from the state. Kmiec thus comes very close on the show to arguing for a marriage abolitionist position.

Getting Government out of the Marriage Promotion Business

The arrival of the new administration in Washington presents opportunities to get government out of a particularly offensive branch of the marriage business: using welfare programs to promote marriage.

In December, AtMP co-authored a letter to HHS Secretary-designate Tom Daschle, urging him to appointment appropriate new leaders for the Administration of Children and Family Services. We continuing to work with an ad hoc coalition of academics and advocates to send detailed policy recommendations. Our bottom line: government funds that are intended to lift people out of poverty should go towards proven education and economic relief programs, not bridal billboards or religious dating classes.

The marriage movement is worried about losing its cash cow.

Since this is also the start of a new semester, here’s a special request to students and teachers. Help us find out what kind of marriage programs our tax dollars are paying for. AtMP’s Let Them Eat Wedding Rings has suggestions for how to contact and question a government funded marriage program in your neighborhood.

New Year, new realism

Perhaps the winter winds are blowing aside some blindfolds, making it easier for opinion leaders to see that bad laws hurt real families.

Senator Bob Barr, in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, has noticed that “the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws — including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran’s benefits — has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.” He should also have noted that this club prevents federal agencies from recognizing unmarried different-sex partnerships. I would love to take a small slice of credit for Barr’s conversion, hoping that my pitch to ditch DOMA on Reason TV helped persuade some of the libertarian voters he was trying to court.

The New York Times editorial page has noticed that “Under Arkansas law, people convicted of major crimes, including contributing to the delinquency of a minor, remain eligible to adopt children or become foster parents. Single people who have no partner — or who have a large number of casual sex partners — are also eligible. Anyone who is in a committed relationship, gay or straight, but is not married is automatically barred.”

Bloggingheads: Ban Marriage?

The two law professors in this video are not suggesting to end the legal status of marriage, just to call it by a new name and make it available to both same-sex and different-sex couples. Granted, this would achieve one important step forward by recognizing more couples’ relationships. But nothing the professors said suggests that they have any problem with privileging some licensed couples over all other relationships. So they really are not suggesting to get government out of the marriage business, merely to rebrand the business with a new, modern name. An interesting moment that shows real bias: they talk unselfconsciously about “downgrading” existing marriages to civil unions or domestic partnerships. If they are proposing to give CU/DP the exact same legal status as marriage with a different name, why would they call it a downgrade?

Get government out of the marriage business

To mark the one-month anniversary of the election, here’s an unscientific assessment of the impact of Prop 8 and discriminatory ballot measures:

In the past month, at least 18 blogs have discussed getting government out of the marriage business. In the month before the election, only 6 bloggers were thinking along those lines.

Of course, the public’s attention span is short, and fame is fleeting even for an issue that affects 93 million people. As AtMP plans its objectives and activities for 2009, we invite your proposals:

What is the one thing you think AtMP could best do within the next 12 months to get government out of the marriage business?

Guest Post: withhold marriage from everyone

Nicky asked me if I’d be willing to give an update on my “nuclear option” efforts, and I’m grateful to be able to share them with you here.

I’ve been following the same-sex marriage story here in California for the past four years, ever since San Francisco’s “Valentine’s Day Revolution”, and have over those years read the various lawsuits and decisions that led earlier this year to the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision [PDF] to require same-sex marriage within the state of California. In reading that decision, I was struck by a passage late in the majority decision.

When a statute’s differential treatment of separate categories of individuals is found to violate equal protection principles, a court must determine whether the constitutional violation should be eliminated or cured by extending to the previously excluded class the treatment or benefit that the statute affords to the included class, or alternatively should be remedied by withholding the benefit equally from both the previously included class and the excluded class. –In Re Marriage Cases, p. 119.

Read the rest of this entry »

« Older Entries

Main Menu

Ways to be Unmarried

Meta