Marriage And Domestic Partnerships Are Not Equal

[dubeskin]

I've been away from DU for a while, so I realize that this issue has somewhat lost its 1st place importance, but my mom just compiled this great list. She's been a prominent outspoken gay Californian who worked against Prop 8. Pass this on, and use it how you will. All I ask is if you like it, Rec it. But perhaps this will show SEPARATE BUT EQUAL is not truly equal.



Rights of Marriage and Not Domestic Partnerships

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

RECOGNITION IN OTHER STATES:

Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

DISSOLVING A CIVIL UNION V. DIVORCE:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

IMMIGRATION:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

TAXES:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

BENEFITS:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

BUT CAN’T A LAWYER SET ALL THIS UP FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

Joint parental rights of children

Joint adoption

Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions

Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains

Immigration and residency for partners from other countries

Crime victims recovery benefits

Domestic violence protection orders

Judicial protections and immunity

Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will

Public safety officers death benefits

Spousal veterans benefits

Social Security

Medicare

Joint filing of tax returns

Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children

Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children

Child support

Joint Insurance Plans

Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits

Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs

Estate and gift tax benefits

Welfare and public assistance

Joint housing for elderly

Credit protection

Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

[yardwork]

1. Plus, civil unions for gay people are also illegal in many states.

The people saying "you can always get a civil union" apparently have no idea that civil unions for gay people are expressly forbidden in many states, including all over the south.

[nichomachus]

2. The tax situation is worse than you stated

I am in a registered domestic partnership in CA -- I'm married too, but wasn't last tax time.

In CA, those in a domestic partnership have to file a return as a married couple. However, the feds don't let you do that, but you need to use your non-existent joint federal return as the basis of your CA return.

So, we had to each file individually with the feds. Then, we had to do another federal tax return -- although not file it -- as a married couple, and then use that as the basis of our joint CA return.

That was a lot of extra work -- and we all know how much fun it is to do one tax return, never mind an extra phony return.

Married couples don't have to do that.

[nichomachus]

3. Oh, and buying a house is another mess

The state and the county registry consider us married. So, all their paperwork has to be filled out as a married couple.

The feds -- HUD, etc. -- don't consider us married. So, all their paperwork has us as "single people who are joint tenants."

The mortgage company doesn't consider us married -- so it brings up title problems because the state is going to title the property as a married couple. The mortgage companies like these things to match.

The insurance company didn't know what to do -- because on half the forms we were married and on half of the forms we weren't. The sweet woman we talked to in East Bumfuck, Iowa -- or wherever -- had never heard of domestic partnership and kept telling us they didn't handle business insurance.

[bluedawg12]

5. This is unreal and now if Prop8 is not repealed

all of the married paper work you did would have to be corrected?

That's exactly why civil marriage is portable for everyone ELSE in society (except gays) and why Ark. recognizes het marriage from say, Maine.

These @ss hats know exactly what they are going in creating mischief and grief in people's personal lives.

[nichomachus]

7. No -- because our domestic partnership would still be in effect

However, if anyone did this stuff after they got married this year, they might be in a mess. The attorney general says he thinks those who were married before Prop 8 will still be married, but you can bet that the Mormon Church, Catholic Church, Evangelical churches and other hate groups that are behind this will try to take it to court to get those marriages overturned.

[bluedawg12]

10. So, even if preHate8 marriages are grandfathered in

they will seek to over turn those marriages, which means living life in terms of legal uncertainty.

Your experience underscores exactly how much "marriage" is a legal term despite the attempt to conflate it with religious ritual.

I am so sorry - the consequences of Hate8 is hideous and inhumane.

[uppityperson]

4. Thank you. k&r

[Maven]

6. T minus 5 posts until we get the "civil unions for everyone" bullshit on this thread

[JackBeck]

8. LOL!

And my other favorite is, "I'm against ALL Hate Crimes legislation, so let's get rid of the exisitng laws, instead of adding the LGBT community to them".

:fistbump:

[nichomachus]

9. I don't think the civil union idea is necessarily bullshit

I've advocated for a long time that marriage should be a two-phase process.

The first, and necessary, phase for everyone -- gay, straight -- should be a civil union. You go to city hall, the country clerk, whoever, and do what needs to be done. At that point, you are married, you have all the rights and privileges (and drawbacks) of being married. You are considered a "married couple" and your marriage is recognized everywhere.

Then, if you so desire, you can go to a church and make a religious commitment, according to your beliefs. This can be administered by each church according to its own beliefs. Some churches will do same-sex ceremonies and some won't. No problem. The religious ceremony adds nothing in terms of tax status, property rights, inheritance rights, or whatever else falls under civil law. It is strictly a religious ceremony with whatever religious benefits you get out of it.

Priests, ministers, rabbis, bishops should not be the ones to determine my tax status, my property rights, my inheritance rights, none of the above.

This is the way it's done in numerous other countries -- even Mexico, for heaven's sake. You cannot get married in a church in Mexico, until you have entered a civil union. Once you've entered the civil union, it's up to you whether you want to go to a church.

What's bullshit is saying "marriage for straight people and civil unions for gay people." That's crap.

[NMMNG]

11. Yeah

It would be reaching too far to consider us actual humans and give us equal marriage rights. :eyes:

[Fearless]

16. K&R! Let me head them off...

We also have to understand that this issue is not a reason to argue whether or not marriage should exist in government at all. But, on this issue, I'd like to put the whole religion/government argument to rest. It is in some opinion that marriage is a religious institution and because they don't like religious institutions (as I don't) they believe that marriage should not exist in government because it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

The fact of the matter is that marriage existed well before Christianity, which is the religious affiliation with which most people have a problem with. Marriage existed in Ancient Rome and Greece, hundreds of years before the Christian Church's inception. Likewise, marriage existed in places other than the later Christian Europe. It existed in East Asia, a place with no connection to Christianity. It existed in the Americas, a place with no connection to any of the modern big religions. It crosses all religious barriers because it predates all of them. Why? Because people like to feel loved and they like the security of knowing that they will continue to be loved.

So, to say that marriage should be done away with is a capitulation of a natural human desire to the powers that be in the religious communities of the world. Sounds a lot like the idea of getting rid of same-sex marriage rights in the first place. Hmm... How ironic.

http://unwilling-dystopia.blogspot.com/2008/11/my-take-after-prop-8.html

[RetiredTrotskyite]

12. Separate But Unequal Wasn't Right Before...

and it isn't right now. Civil unions are inherently unequal because they do not come with all the protections and rights of so-called "traditional marriage". The only uproar in all this is that the homophobes are uncomfortable with calling our unions "marriage". Too bad. As for our marriages being a danger to straight marriages or that our marriages will somehow demean straight marriage....the straights have already demeaned and devalued their marriages far more than we could ever dream of doing!

[Irishonly]

13. Thank you for posting

I hope you don't mind but I copied your post and emailed it. I was one of the dummies who said civil unions for all until I learned more. This board is a great teacher and because of the patience of so many posters I have grown and learned. I know more than I ever did and as a straight person, although I still can't walk in your shoes I have grown to realize equal rights mean all things equal. It's unrealistic to say civil unions for everyone. It should be marriage and everything else equal for all.

As a liberal Christian I have been embarrassed for the last time by the evangelical wing nuts. They are hateful, small people. My little liberal church supports equal rights and acceptance of all. We have all kinds of people in our family. Churches are supposed to be inclusive of all and this Christian is doing what I can to learn how to get tax exempt status stripped from those monsters who want a theocracy. We do a lot of good with the money donated to us but if losing tax exempt means keeping religion out of politics-so be it.

[hulklogan]

14. Are you sure about all of these things? Because a straight person told me I should be happy with

a civil union because it had all the same rights as a marriage.

Aren't we supposed to believe a straight person when she or he tells us what to think about our civil rights?:shrug:

[FreeState]

15. In addition even if a Civil Union gave all the rights of marriage it still would be discriminatory

because the government would then have set up two separate systems to grant marriage rights. This is America we all should have the exact same rights given through the same laws. When the government segregates one group of people away from the majority its always wrong.