For The Community, A Victory. For You And Your Partner, Maybe Not So Much.

As I have said in earlier posts, even though I support marriage equality, I would much prefer that the government got out of the marriage business altogether, save to set a minimum age at which people can enter into a union.  And it would be exactly that—a union.  It would allow couples visitation and inheritance rights and specify custody and other responsibilities. It would also allow one member of the couple to add the other to her or his health care policy and apartment lease agreement or title to the house. However, there would be no tax benefit for getting married. 

One reason why I believe in such an arrangement even more firmly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling became apparent to me today.  Now same-sex marriage is legal throughout the US, employers will be required to allow workers to add their same-sex spouses to their health insurance policies.  This begs the question:  Will employers stop offering domestic-partner benefits?  Will they require couples, whether hetero- or homo-sexual, to be married in order to share in the benefits the company offers?

One of the great ironies of my life is that I was once included in a partner’s health-care benefits—when I was still living as a man with a female partner.  We had a domestic partnership agreement, which New York City was offering to all couples at that time (late 1990’s and early 2000’s).  If I were still with her—whether in my former or current identity—would she be allowed to include me on her health insurance? 

I’m guessing that the answer would be “yes” just because this is New York City and her company had a surprisingly (to me at the time, anyway) enlightened view of such things.  But what if we’d been in one of those states where same-sex marriage—and even domestic partnerships—weren’t legal before last week’s ruling?  It’s hard for me to imagine that a company based in a state that didn’t have domestic partnerships would allow partners’ benefits, especially if it was compelled by court order to offer insurance to same-sex couples.

Somehow I think the battles not only aren’t over; they haven’t even begun yet.

Workers' Rights=LGBT Rights

Some would argue--and I would be inclined to agree--that the most important speech Martin Luther King Jr. gave was "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam".  Delivered one year, to the day, before he was murdered, it expresses something that had become more apparent to him throughout his life:  All struggles for justice are related. As he said, you can't oppose racial prejudice in the United States (or anywhere else) and support killing people of a different race in another country.  Likewise, if you believe people deserve to be treated fairly and equally, whatever their race or gender or religion or sexual orientation, you also must believe  that people deserve to be paid a fair living wage for doing a day's work.

That is why something I came across would have made perfect sense to him:  Workers' rights are tied to LGBT rights, and vice-versa.  I am not simply repeating a nice ideal:  There are statistics to prove it.  Those numbers indicate that union workers are three times as likely as non-union workers to have domestic partner health care coverage and twice as likely to have survivor benefits for their domestic partners.

From National LGBT Taskforce blog

Let's Forget Romney's Past

If I only I'd known then what I know now...

When I've applied for jobs, I mentioned my previous experience, to the degree that it was relevant.  I discussed my accomplishments and the skills I acquired on those jobs, and what I learned from my mistakes as well as what I did right.

Turns out, that was the wrong way to apply for a job.  That's not what Mitt Romney is doing.  And, because he's made so much money, he must be doing something right.  Right?

You see, when he was running for the Governorship of Massachusetts, he opposed an amendment to that state's constitution which would have banned, not only same-sex marriages, but same-sex civil unions.  Although he said he opposed same-sex marriages and civil unions, he wanted domestic partners to have the same benefits, in the state of Massachusetts, married couples enjoy.  And he also supported hate-crime legislation.

After he became governor, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution requires same-sex marriage to be allowed under law.  In response, Romney supported a state constitutional amendment to forbid such marriages.  

By the time he ran for President in 2008, Romney said he had done everything he could to block gay marriage in his state and in this country.  Now he states his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but soft-pedals his previously-stated belief that same-sex couples should enjoy the same benefits that married couples have.

As long as we forget all of that, I guess we shouldn't feel too betrayed if Romney is elected to the White Hose!