Gay Marriage/civil Unions

[Msterbeau]

From Fact Check:

What Is a Civil Union?

August 8, 2007

Politicians often say they support civil unions but not gay marriage. We sort out the difference.

Summary

When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between the two concepts:

* The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.

* Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.

* Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

Analysis

On Aug. 9, the Democratic presidential candidates will debate issues important to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. The forum in Los Angeles is sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the MTV Networks’ Logo Channel. We expect the candidates will be asked about gay marriage and civil unions – a major issue that has sparked political passions on both the right and the left.

In a questionnaire that Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, sent to presidential candidates, all of the Democrats said they were in favor of civil unions for gay couples – a solution that is often touted as being functionally equivalent to marriage. Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Sen. Mike Gravel said they would support gay marriage. But what exactly is the difference? FactCheck.org offers this primer on the subject.

Federal Recognition

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, stipulated that for all federal legal purposes “marriage” is a union between one man and one woman. Because of that legislation, all federal laws pertaining to married couples apply exclusively to opposite-sex couples. States that have made civil unions legal, including Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont, have granted state benefits to same-sex couples. These include state tax benefits, better access to family health plans, co-parenting privileges, automatic preference for guardianship and decision-making authority for a medically incapacitated partner, as well as protection under state divorce and separation laws. While each state law is somewhat different, they are similar in that they convey these state rights to gay couples; they do not and cannot grant federal rights and benefits.

California, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have domestic partnership laws, which are fundamentally similar to civil unions. Massachusetts is the only state in which gays can legally marry, due to the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that said the state constitution didn’t support discriminating against same-sex couples that wanted to wed. Like states that grant civil unions, Massachusetts extends all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples; unlike in other states, gay couples also can be issued a marriage license. However, married gay couples still are not eligible for federal benefits.

The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 federal laws that pertain to married couples. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States:

* Taxes. Couples in a civil union may file a joint state tax return, but they must file federal tax returns as single persons. This may be advantageous to some couples, not so for others. One advantage for married couples is the ability to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to do that, and thus may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.

* Health insurance. The state-federal divide is even more complicated in this arena. In the wake of the Massachusetts high court ruling, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put together a guide to spousal health care benefits. GLAD’s document is Massachusetts-specific but provides insight into how health insurance laws would apply to those in a civil union in other states. In general, GLAD says, it comes down to what’s governed by state law and what’s subject to federal oversight. If a private employer’s health plans are subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws, benefits must be extended to a same-sex spouse. If the health plan is governed by federal law, the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits.

* Social Security survivor benefits. If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits.

Other federal areas in which couples in civil unions don't have the same rights as married couples include immigration (a partner who's a foreign national can't become an American by entering into a civil union with someone) and veterans' and military benefits (only opposite-sex spouses have a right to pensions, compensation for service-related deaths, medical care, housing and the right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries). Gay couples, however, may actually benefit when applying for programs such as Medicaid or government housing that require low-income eligibility. A spouse’s income is included in such applications, but a same-sex partner’s income is not. One change has been made in federal law: A provision in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 allows same-sex couples to transfer 401(k) and IRA earnings to partners without penalty.

Brad Luna, director of communications at Human Rights Campaign, says there have been several unsuccessful lawsuits filed by same-sex couples who wish to receive federal benefits. “It’s going to have to take the repeal of DOMA or a federal civil union law that would grant them that kind of federal recognition,” he says.

Portable Unions

Since civil unions are only legal in certain states, they also can't be taken across state lines. If a couple gets married in Vermont, they can reasonably expect to still be married if they move to California; the same is not true for same-sex unions. While New Jersey law specifies that the state will recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships performed elsewhere, this is not true for all states that allow some form of same-sex partnership. And if civil partners move to a state that disallows all same-sex unions, they may find themselves with no legal standing whatsoever as a couple.

Most states have enacted DOMA legislation or passed constitutional amendments stipulating that marriage is a union exclusively between one man and one woman. In fact, only five states do not have laws on the books that prohibit same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island. The District of Columbia also does not have such a law. Both HRC and DOMAwatch.org, a project of the Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes gay marriage, have U.S. maps showing the breakdown of legislation by state.

The Meaning of "Marriage"

The least concrete difference between civil unions and marriage is also perhaps the most polarizing: the term “marriage” and the social and cultural weight it bears. For many, this is not just a semantic issue. Opponents are concerned that allowing gays to marry will dilute the term “marriage,” threatening the institution it stands for. Supporters, meanwhile, feel that setting up a marriage-like institution for gays (such as civil unions) while defining marriage as fundamentally heterosexual is an example of flawed “separate but equal” legislation.

In an interview with FactCheck.org, Paul Cates of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union stressed the cultural significance of marriage: “You’re not a little kid dreaming about your civil union day. It’s your wedding day.” When you want to commit to a partner, “you’re not really thinking about the [legal] protections,” he says. “It’s the significance and what it means to be married and hold yourself out as married.”

Opponents of gay marriage also recognize the social importance of the word. Jenny Tyree, associate analyst for marriage at Focus on the Family, a Christian organization headed by James C. Dobson, says her group "does not believe that marriage has to be redefined to care for all the people in society. We understand that every person has needs and people they want to care for. But these are pretty bold attempts to undermine the marriage institution.”

Focus on the Family and other groups that oppose same-sex marriage are not just concerned with terminology. “Marriage is important because it’s a time-honored enduring social institution that serves women, men and children,” Tyree says. “And civil unions undermine marriage by reducing it to a bundle of rights and benefits.” Despite difficulties like divorce, marriage “is still an institution that does what we need it to do for children,” she adds, citing studies that show children do better when raised by a married mom and dad.

Such views seem to be in the majority. A 2003 Pew Research Center survey showed that 56 percent of respondents agreed that gay marriage would undermine the traditional family.

As previously noted, even states that allow for same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships – including California, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Washington – have passed laws defining marriage as something that occurs between a man and a woman. Liberal-leaning politicians have made that distinction as well: Most of the Democratic candidates set to debate these issues support extending all the federal legal rights of married couples to same-sex couples – but they don’t want to call that “marriage.”

– by Jess Henig and Lori Robertson

Sources

Connecticut General Assembly. Substitute Senate Bill No. 963. 14 Apr. 2005.

DOMAwatch.org, Alliance Defense Fund. Issues by State. 8 Aug. 2007.

Government Accountability Office. Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report. GAO.gov. 23 Jan. 2004.

Human Rights Campaign. State-by-State Information, national maps of marriage-related laws. HRC.org. 8 Aug. 2007.

New Hampshire General Court. House Bill 437-FN-LOCAL. 4 Apr. 2007.

New Jersey Legislature. Bill A3787. 21 Dec. 2006.

Vermont General Assembly. Act No. 91: An Act Relating to Civil Unions. 26 Apr. 2000 .

Copyright © 2003 - 2007, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think opposition to this is bullshit homophobia in disguise. Many of the justifications cited are about the welfare of children. If that were so, why aren't they fighting for tougher laws protecting children... or pressuring law enforcement to uphold the laws that exist? I think there'd be a lot more people in jail for the things they do to their kids if these so-called moral people truly cared.

Anyway... For those that care. enjoy the debates. I don't watch tv.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Its nice to see it all written out like that in detail.

[Fierce Critter]

I think opposition to this is bullshit homophobia in disguise. Many of the justifications cited are about the welfare of children. If that were so, why aren't they fighting for tougher laws protecting children... or pressuring law enforcement to uphold the laws that exist? I think there'd be a lot more people in jail for the things they do to their kids if these so-called moral people truly cared.

Anyway... For those that care. enjoy the debates. I don't watch tv.

Wow. I actually took the time and made the effort to read all of that. VERRY interesting.

And I am in complete and total agreement with the above. Especially what I have underlined.

[Kit Kat P]

I know the debate hasn't started buy even seeing just this makes my heart swell w/ the pride of even knowing you guys.

[Fierce Critter]

I know the debate hasn't started buy even seeing just this makes my heart swell w/ the pride of even knowing you guys.

Once the debate really gets going, you might change your favorable opinion about at least some of us.

[Kit Kat P]

Once the debate really gets going, you might change your favorable opinion about at least some of us.

Not the ones that count, very few DGNer's have gotten me to change my mind about them. There are many on here I respect and admire

Now I'll end the

[BrassFusion]

eek, barack is FLOUNDERING. i can't wait to see kucinich, but i know the poor guy will never win an election anyway =(

edit: and melissa etheridge stuck her tongue up his ass... all this time i was thinking she was a lesbian

edit again: and he's still ten times the speaker/thinker our current president is

[Homicidalheathen]

...watch what you wish for......you just might get it.

I am all for it.

But......my cousin is gay.....had a 'common law' wife who 'sued' her for a 'divorce' even though she never worked and was a bitch the whole time.....my cousin almost lost her house. She did have to pay her off a few grand to get rid of her.

[BrassFusion]

i love kucinich and how he gets all excited =)

[BrassFusion]

wow i love mike gravel too... but he's even less electable than kucinich =(

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

So, what do you think of gays that oppose gay marrige?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

and if this issue isn't really just about money... why is a large percentage of your post about money?

[Msterbeau]

So, what do you think of gays that oppose gay marrige?

I think they're idiots.

Who said anything about money? I didn't use the term welfare in the getting money from the government sense, I meant it in the health sense.

[BrassFusion]

So, what do you think of gays that oppose gay marrige?

I feel the same way about gays who oppose the legality of gay marriage as I feel about straights who oppose the legality of straight marriage.

In not so many words: I agree with Marc. =)

and if this issue isn't really just about money... why is a large percentage of your post about money?

Straight marriage is often about money. Gay marriage is often about money.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Marc,

No, you didn't use the word money. You used these words... Taxes, Federal Benefits, Retirement, 401k, Social Security, Earnings and a few others... Insurance being one of them, and insurance coverage is just as much about money as it is health.

[Msterbeau]

Marc,

No, you didn't use the word money. You used these words... Taxes, Federal Benefits, Retirement, 401k, Social Security, Earnings and a few others... Insurance being one of them, and insurance coverage is just as much about money as it is health.

Agreed. But I didn't say they weren't important. My bitch is with the people who cover up their true feelings with crap about child welfare. Like Brass said, the legal and monetary implications of getting married are significant, at least when it comes to government involvement. People should get married/joined/ whatever you want to call it, because they love one another. But... all the crap that gay couples have to go through because their union is not legally recognized by most government agencies sucks. How would you like to have to fight for your partners property and money if they died? That's not only a monetary matter but quite likely a severe emotional one. One they shouldn't have to endure just because people are homophobic.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Very often, you do have to fight for those things even in a straight marriage.

And, how do you know that the child welfare stuff is crap? Because you don't feel that way?

I don't "support" gay marriage, but I don't oppose it either. I have said before that I think everyone should have a civil union in the eyes of the government and let marriage go back to the people. Government and the Church did not invent, nor have they always been involved, in the concept of marriage. It's a mammal thing. Even animals who many say are "all gay" will mate, have a litter and stay together long enough for those cubs to go off on their own.

There have been cultures where it was very common for gays to marry someone of the opposite sex but keep a lover of the same sex. The marriage was for the purpose of having and raising children. The tribes of Afghanistan still do this along with a few other Arab and steppe cultures.

[BrassFusion]

Very often, you do have to fight for those things even in a straight marriage.

And, how do you know that the child welfare stuff is crap? Because you don't feel that way?

I don't "support" gay marriage, but I don't oppose it either. I have said before that I think everyone should have a civil union in the eyes of the government and let marriage go back to the people. Government and the Church did not invent, nor have they always been involved, in the concept of marriage. It's a mammal thing. Even animals who many say are "all gay" will mate, have a litter and stay together long enough for those cubs to go off on their own.

There have been cultures where it was very common for gays to marry someone of the opposite sex but keep a lover of the same sex. The marriage was for the purpose of having and raising children. The tribes of Afghanistan still do this along with a few other Arab and steppe cultures.

Either you didn't read a good part of the original post or you're missing something severe. No one cares if gays have civil unions or marriages or whatever just as long as it's the same thing straights have. If a clearly-worded amendment is passed giving gay unions THE EXACT benefits of straight ones (i.e., "a union between any two people of consenting age not closely related by blood," or whatever the wording is for marriage right now, but eliminating the "man and woman" part), then they'll be equal. The first amendment is the one that gives them the right to call it a marriage. Hell, you can call yours a civil union if you want and have another marriage ceremony or pagan ritual or whatever, it's a (mostly) free country.

It's not about the word "marriage" vs. the word "civil unions." It's about equality in any form... and I really doubt you care about terminology that much. It's unlike you.

[phee]

You know.... as soon as I saw the title of this thread... I could almost predict how it would pan out (lol)

[Msterbeau]

You know.... as soon as I saw the title of this thread... I could almost predict how it would pan out (lol)

Yeah. But there's always new members to help us rehash old topics. :-)

[BrassFusion]

since this thread is maybe possibly supposed to have something to do with the forum last night, thoughts on that from anyone who's seen it?

personally:

obama- seemed VERY nervous. can't decide if it was the format or the topic, because he delivers an excellent speech and performs well in debates where he can give rehearsed answers on more general subjects. i'm happy with what he had to say unscripted, though. he's REALLY smart and he'd make an awesome diplomat and we really fucking need one of those again as president.

edwards- spunky. i kinda dig the "good ol' boy gone democrat" vibe. i do not, however, dig the time spent complaining about coulter. that's totally sinking to her level. as for his stance, it seems like he's affecting it to fit the party platform and that just sucks.

kucinich- i love this man. i want him as governor of michigan, or maybe a cabinet official, anything that lets him make decisions that affect me... but he will never EVER win a presidential election. it's truly sad that he won't. and i can only hope he doesn't go third party because then me and a jillion other like-minded people will be forced to waste our votes on him instead of whatever democrat got the nomination. i can't decide if he's before his time or ahead of it.

gravel- would make the best grandpa in the world. he's kinda scary in his passion, though, like he could maybe convince me to make war on the infidels if he tried. where kucinich is, "hey, world! let's work together to build more love!" he's more like "hey, world! we'll crush you if you don't love each other!" kinda. he's probably the candidate I most resemble.

richardson- dumb. dumb. dumb. dumb. dumb. martyr. dumb. you do NOT sit in front of five hundred gay people and tell them their sexual orientation is a choice, i don't care WHAT you believe. you dress it up or say you aren't sure but god DAMN did he make a major-league gaffe last night. i hate to say it, but maybe he's been hitting the bong a little too hard lately?

clinton- that woman sure can talk. by far the most polished, and i doubt it's a mistake she went last. part of me hopes she wins the nomination, because she will CRUSH giuliani and I trust her slightly more than I trust him, but that's really not saying much. i can't see myself voting for her in the primaries, for sure.

[Msterbeau]

I think whether you choose to be gay or it's genetic is of absolutely no importance. You should be able to choose your partner(s) without the world looking down on you and without the government granting you less benefits and rights for doing so.

Thank you Erin for that fine, slightly biased review. :-)

[BrassFusion]

I think whether you choose to be gay or it's genetic is of absolutely no importance. You should be able to choose your partner(s) without the world looking down on you and without the government granting you less benefits and rights for doing so.

Thank you Erin for that fine, slightly biased review. :-)

i agree 100% with that sentiment- and that's what richardson would've said if he wasn't dumb.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Either you didn't read a good part of the original post or you're missing something severe. No one cares if gays have civil unions or marriages or whatever just as long as it's the same thing straights have. If a clearly-worded amendment is passed giving gay unions THE EXACT benefits of straight ones (i.e., "a union between any two people of consenting age not closely related by blood," or whatever the wording is for marriage right now, but eliminating the "man and woman" part), then they'll be equal. The first amendment is the one that gives them the right to call it a marriage. Hell, you can call yours a civil union if you want and have another marriage ceremony or pagan ritual or whatever, it's a (mostly) free country.

It's not about the word "marriage" vs. the word "civil unions." It's about equality in any form... and I really doubt you care about terminology that much. It's unlike you.

umm...

"In an interview with FactCheck.org, Paul Cates of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union stressed the cultural significance of marriage: “You’re not a little kid dreaming about your civil union day. It’s your wedding day.” When you want to commit to a partner, “you’re not really thinking about the [legal] protections,” he says. “It’s the significance and what it means to be married and hold yourself out as married.”"

"As previously noted, even states that allow for same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships – including California, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Washington – have passed laws defining marriage as something that occurs between a man and a woman. Liberal-leaning politicians have made that distinction as well: Most of the Democratic candidates set to debate these issues support extending all the federal legal rights of married couples to same-sex couples – but they don’t want to call that “marriage.”"

Yes, it is. Either you didn't read a good part of the original post or you're missing something severe.

[Destroit]

Personally I think you guys are correct and wrong at the same time. I'm of the type where I think, yes gays should be allowed to marry, but shouldn't be able to get any benefits like straight couples. "Why?" you ask? Because I don't think that straight couples should even get those benefits (not all of the benefits, just most of them). There are many single parents out there that are truely fucking struggling while couples have a much easier time raising children, having the ability to have two working adults in the house and also the ability to trade off watching the child(ren) and taking physical care of them. It's much harder if you're one woman living in a house with yourself, no one to watch the kids while you're at work (day care is a BITCH to your pocketbook) and then you don't have an extra income like married couples. So tell me....WHY do married couples get health insurance from the government whereas a single mother cannot? (my roommates get free health, dental, and vision just because they got hitched and had a kid. If they were still unmarried they would get none of this) So it seems to me that benefits for married couples aren't just unnecessary, such as higher tax deductions and rebates, it's pretty prejudice against people who choose to raise children unmarried, just like alot of men/women. I think single parents should be getting benefits from the goverment like SS and more aide because they don't, but for some reason married couples who already have a much higher advantage are handed even MORE. Just does not make sence to me in IMO

But as for it being "moral" or "unmoral" and all that, I mean I'm a Christian Republican (of the sort where I think if God hated gays then that's between him and homosexual people, not us, that and I also have to figure God doesn't "hate" anyone. That would just be silly.) and I gotta figure that gay people have the right to get married and be just as miserable as the rest of us. It's no fair they should be allowed to escape from the same misery as straight people.