Well, it turned out the brief FLGBTQC signed on to in the US Supreme Court case(s) was not yet the last as we had all hoped: we've also signed onto multi-faith briefs in four cases before the US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, because filing deadlines in those cases were scheduled before oral arguments in the Supreme Court.
So it is my privilege to announce that
Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns
(FLGBTQC) (http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/) joined many other faith groups on friend of the court briefs
filed on 26 March by Kramer Levin in four cases coming before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals this spring.
The cases are Lawson v Kelly (Missouri), Rosenbrahn v Daugaard (South Dakota), Jernigan v McDaniel (Arkansas), and Waters v Ricketts (Nebraska).
As ever, the briefs are easy-to-read, enlightening, and encouraging.
More information about the cases is available from Freedom to Marry at:
You can read the briefs here:
And also here:
Congratulations to all the signatories, and gratitude to everyone who has worked so hard on these briefs!
Showing posts with label marriage equality (my experience). Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage equality (my experience). Show all posts
Monday, March 30, 2015
Friday, March 6, 2015
Friend of the Court Brief Before the US Supreme Court
It is my joy and privilege to announce that
Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns
(FLGBTQC) (http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/) joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief
filed on 5 March by Kramer Levin in four Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals cases coming before the US Supreme Court this spring.
The cases are Obergefell v Hodges (Ohio), Tanco v Haslam (Tennessee), DeBoer v Snyder (Michigan), and Bourke v Beshear (Kentucky).
More info is available here:
Again I encourage you to read the brief. There are some changes from the first one two years ago, based on changes in statistics and in case law since then. The brief is tremendously encouraging to read. Also, it seems longer than it really is because the list of signatories is so long.
You can read the brief here:
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
And -- NEW! -- also at:
http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/resources.html#courtBriefs
Congratulations to all the signatories! And deep gratitude to everyone who worked on this brief, and all the briefs.
We hope this will be the last friend of the court brief we sign on to on the issue of same-sex marriage.
It is widely held that, should the Court decide in favor of same-sex marriage, this case will be definitive.
As Friends in Britain say, HOPE SO!
The cases are Obergefell v Hodges (Ohio), Tanco v Haslam (Tennessee), DeBoer v Snyder (Michigan), and Bourke v Beshear (Kentucky).
More info is available here:
Again I encourage you to read the brief. There are some changes from the first one two years ago, based on changes in statistics and in case law since then. The brief is tremendously encouraging to read. Also, it seems longer than it really is because the list of signatories is so long.
You can read the brief here:
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
And -- NEW! -- also at:
http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/resources.html#courtBriefs
Congratulations to all the signatories! And deep gratitude to everyone who worked on this brief, and all the briefs.
We hope this will be the last friend of the court brief we sign on to on the issue of same-sex marriage.
It is widely held that, should the Court decide in favor of same-sex marriage, this case will be definitive.
As Friends in Britain say, HOPE SO!
Monday, February 9, 2015
Friend of the Court Brief in Lopez-Aviles v. Rius-Armendariz
It is my joy and privilege to announce that
Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns
(FLGBTQC) (http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/) joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief
filed on 2 February by Kramer Levin in Lopez-Aviles v. Rius-Armendariz, a Puerto Rico
marriage
equality case before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
More info is available here:
Yet again I will tell you that, as with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples -- and also who are working to prevent some faiths from being legally privileged over others.
You can read the brief here:
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
And -- NEW! -- also at:
http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/resources.html#courtBriefs
Congratulations to all the signatories! And deep gratitude to everyone who worked on this brief.
More info is available here:
Yet again I will tell you that, as with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples -- and also who are working to prevent some faiths from being legally privileged over others.
You can read the brief here:
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
And -- NEW! -- also at:
http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/resources.html#courtBriefs
Congratulations to all the signatories! And deep gratitude to everyone who worked on this brief.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Friend of the Court Brief in Brenner v Armstrong and Grimsley v Armstrong
It is my joy and privilege to announce that at the end of December, Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC) (http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/) joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief
filed on 19 December by Kramer Levin in Brenner v Armstrong and Grimsley v Armstrong, Florida
marriage
equality cases before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
More info is available here:
Yet again I will tell you that, as with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples -- and also who are working to prevent some faiths from being legally privileged over others.
You can read the brief here:
http://bit.ly/BrennerGrimsleyBrief
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
Congratulations to all the signatories! And deep gratitude to everyone who worked on this brief.
More info is available here:
- http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/11thCircuit
- http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/florida
Yet again I will tell you that, as with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples -- and also who are working to prevent some faiths from being legally privileged over others.
You can read the brief here:
http://bit.ly/BrennerGrimsleyBrief
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
Congratulations to all the signatories! And deep gratitude to everyone who worked on this brief.
Friday, December 5, 2014
The queer surcharge
Let's talk about the queer surcharge for a moment.
Here's just one example:
People in mixed-gender legal marriages, how much did it cost you to get married? I don't mean the ceremony, the reception, and all that stuff -- I mean the marriage license, the legal part, where you went down to city hall or the registry office or wherever and filled out paperwork and got a piece of paper (or several) back. How much did your marriage license cost? If a ceremony was a legal requirement for your marriage license to be valid -- it is in some jurisdictions -- then go ahead and add in the cost of a registry office, or justice of the peace, or similar, ceremony.
Now, how many marriage licenses, or equivalent, have you had to obtain for your current marriage? For that one marriage, for you to be married to the same person?
Most of your friends in same-gender marriages, when we've had access to legal recognition of our relationships at all -- through domestic partnerships, civil unions, civil partnerships, or even civil marriage -- have had to do this many times. Each time we move, each time the law where we live changes, we have to get re-married.
And it almost always costs money EACH TIME.
That adds up.
And we're not even talking about the costs in time, energy, and resources other than money.
We're also not even talking about other ways which being someone who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer costs more money than being someone who is straight does.
So, allies: something to think about. Ignorance -- "Gosh, I had no idea!"-- is not an excuse.
----------
For more information on having to get married over and over and on the queer surcharge, see:
Here's just one example:
People in mixed-gender legal marriages, how much did it cost you to get married? I don't mean the ceremony, the reception, and all that stuff -- I mean the marriage license, the legal part, where you went down to city hall or the registry office or wherever and filled out paperwork and got a piece of paper (or several) back. How much did your marriage license cost? If a ceremony was a legal requirement for your marriage license to be valid -- it is in some jurisdictions -- then go ahead and add in the cost of a registry office, or justice of the peace, or similar, ceremony.
Now, how many marriage licenses, or equivalent, have you had to obtain for your current marriage? For that one marriage, for you to be married to the same person?
Most of your friends in same-gender marriages, when we've had access to legal recognition of our relationships at all -- through domestic partnerships, civil unions, civil partnerships, or even civil marriage -- have had to do this many times. Each time we move, each time the law where we live changes, we have to get re-married.
And it almost always costs money EACH TIME.
That adds up.
And we're not even talking about the costs in time, energy, and resources other than money.
We're also not even talking about other ways which being someone who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer costs more money than being someone who is straight does.
So, allies: something to think about. Ignorance -- "Gosh, I had no idea!"-- is not an excuse.
----------
For more information on having to get married over and over and on the queer surcharge, see:
- Do you have to get divorced every time you move?, http://aquakerwitch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/do-you-have-to-get-divorced-every-time.html
- At tax time, my second-class citizenship rears up and smacks me in the face, http://aquakerwitch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/at-tax-time-my-second-class-citizenship.html
- Not the National Coming Out Day conversation I expected, http://aquakerwitch.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/not-national-coming-out-day.html
Monday, October 6, 2014
Friend of the court brief in Smith v Wright
It is my joy and privilege to announce that Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC) (http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/)
has joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief filedon October 4 by Kramer Levin in Smith v Wright, the Arkansas marriage
equality case before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. (More info here:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/arkansas.)
Yet again I will tell you that, as with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples -- and also who are working to prevent some faiths from being legally privileged over others.
You can read the brief here:
http://bit.ly/SmithBrief
Or here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/241838146/CV-14-427-Faith-Leaders-Amicus-Brief
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
Congratulations to all the signatories! And deep gratitude to everyone who worked on this brief.
Yet again I will tell you that, as with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples -- and also who are working to prevent some faiths from being legally privileged over others.
You can read the brief here:
http://bit.ly/SmithBrief
Or here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/241838146/CV-14-427-Faith-Leaders-Amicus-Brief
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
Congratulations to all the signatories! And deep gratitude to everyone who worked on this brief.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Friend of the Court Brief in DeLeon v Perry
It is my joy and privilege to announce that Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC) (http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/) has joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief filed yesterday by Kramer Levin in DeLeon v Perry, the Texas marriage equality case before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. (More info here: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/texas.)
As with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples -- and also who are working to prevent some faiths from being legally privileged over other.
You can read the brief here:
http://bit.ly/DeLeonBrief
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
Congratulations to all the signatories!
As with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples -- and also who are working to prevent some faiths from being legally privileged over other.
You can read the brief here:
http://bit.ly/DeLeonBrief
More information, and a list of briefs, at:
http://stasa.net/resources/quaker-friends-resources/court-briefs
Congratulations to all the signatories!
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Friend of the Court Brief in Baskin v Zoeller
[UPDATE: Briefs are available to read here.]
I am pleased and happy to announce that Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC) (http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/) has joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief filed yesterday by Kramer Levin in Baskin v Zoeller, the Indiana marriage equality case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. (More info here: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/indiana.)
As with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Here's a link to the brief:
http://bit.ly/BaskinBrief
Yay! And congratulations to all the signatories!
Blessed be.
I am pleased and happy to announce that Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC) (http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/) has joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief filed yesterday by Kramer Levin in Baskin v Zoeller, the Indiana marriage equality case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. (More info here: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/indiana.)
As with the other Kramer-Levin briefs we've signed on to, I highly recommend reading this. It's easy to read, and brilliant. And super-encouraging for people of faith, and people in faith communities, who support marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Here's a link to the brief:
http://bit.ly/BaskinBrief
Yay! And congratulations to all the signatories!
Blessed be.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Friend of the Court Brief in Kitchen v. Herbert
[UPDATE: Briefs are available to read here.]
I am very pleased and happy to share that Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns has joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief filed today by Kramer Levin in Kitchen v. Herbert, the Utah marriage equality case before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I'll write a more detailed blog post about it tomorrow, with a link to the brief and all.
The Utah court cited the prior briefs from Kramer Levin in the Windsor and Perry cases, to which we were also signatories, which was hugely significant.
Yay! And congratulations to all the signatories!
And thank you all, everyone who helped me with marriage minute information and contacts for faith communities in the area of the 10th Circuit who support same-sex marriage. It helped.
Blessed be!
UPDATED: Here is a link to the brief: http://bit.ly/KitchenBrief
I am very pleased and happy to share that Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns has joined many other faith groups on a friend of the court brief filed today by Kramer Levin in Kitchen v. Herbert, the Utah marriage equality case before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I'll write a more detailed blog post about it tomorrow, with a link to the brief and all.
The Utah court cited the prior briefs from Kramer Levin in the Windsor and Perry cases, to which we were also signatories, which was hugely significant.
Yay! And congratulations to all the signatories!
And thank you all, everyone who helped me with marriage minute information and contacts for faith communities in the area of the 10th Circuit who support same-sex marriage. It helped.
Blessed be!
UPDATED: Here is a link to the brief: http://bit.ly/KitchenBrief
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Urgent: final vote for the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill (Scotland)
The final vote for the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill (Scotland) is on 4 February.
If you live in Scotland, please (please, please) contact MSPs and ask them:
1) to vote for Scotland's Equal Marriage bill and
2) to reject any negative amendments.
You can do so through this link:
http://www.equalmarriage.org.uk/itstime
As you may know, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, and many Jewish groups in Scotland have supported this campaign for equal marriage as a matter of religious liberty.
This bill will also make a tremendous difference in the lives of people you know -- including me and Beloved Wife.
So as a personal favor, I ask you to contact MSPs. Thank you.
If you live in Scotland, please (please, please) contact MSPs and ask them:
1) to vote for Scotland's Equal Marriage bill and
2) to reject any negative amendments.
You can do so through this link:
http://www.equalmarriage.org.uk/itstime
As you may know, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, and many Jewish groups in Scotland have supported this campaign for equal marriage as a matter of religious liberty.
This bill will also make a tremendous difference in the lives of people you know -- including me and Beloved Wife.
So as a personal favor, I ask you to contact MSPs. Thank you.
Monday, April 15, 2013
An open letter to Gavin Brown, MSP
Dear Gavin Brown,
Over the weekend, "Scotland for Marriage" put a horrible pamphlet through our letter slot urging residents in our area (Newington/Grange) to contact you about proposed equal marriage.
The pamphlet is full of fear-mongering and threats. A more accurate name for this group would be "Scotland for Marriage Discrimination."
I am writing to tell you that our family support equal marriage. We find this to be a matter of civil liberty and religious liberty.
People's rights should never be subject to popular vote. Homophobia should not be protected legally.
I direct your attention to several responses to both consultations by religious groups who wish to perform same-sex marriages as a matter of religious liberty.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best wishes,
Stasa Morgan-Appel
------------------------
UPDATE: I received the following email from the Equality Network, whom I had notified about the flier campaign. - sm
Over the weekend, "Scotland for Marriage" put a horrible pamphlet through our letter slot urging residents in our area (Newington/Grange) to contact you about proposed equal marriage.
The pamphlet is full of fear-mongering and threats. A more accurate name for this group would be "Scotland for Marriage Discrimination."
I am writing to tell you that our family support equal marriage. We find this to be a matter of civil liberty and religious liberty.
People's rights should never be subject to popular vote. Homophobia should not be protected legally.
I direct your attention to several responses to both consultations by religious groups who wish to perform same-sex marriages as a matter of religious liberty.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best wishes,
Stasa Morgan-Appel
------------------------
UPDATE: I received the following email from the Equality Network, whom I had notified about the flier campaign. - sm
Hi Stasa,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We have been made aware of similar leaflet campaigns in other areas across Scotland.
The Equality Network is encouraging supporters of equal marriage to contact their MSPs using our online email tool: http://www.equalmarriage.org.uk/takeaction
In the coming months, as the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) bill is introduced to the Scottish Parliament, we will be launching a new campaign drive to ensure that the voice of those supporting equal marriage is not lost.
Unfortunately we do not have the level of funding that Scotland for Marriage are able to utilise to produce and distribute their mass leaflet campaign. We know that Scotland for Marriage have, by their own admission, spent at least £60,000 and possibly a lot more on their campaign against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality.
In contrast, the Equality Network has only been able to spend a fraction of this amount as we rely on individual donations to fund the Equal Marriage campaign.
Please encourage your friends to contact their MSPs, and if you are interested in fundraising for the campaign do let us know and we'll do what we can to support your efforts!
Thanks for your help!
Best wishes,
Tom
Tom FrenchPolicy Coordinator,EQUALITY NETWORK
The Equality Network is a company limited by guarantee (SC220213) and a registered Scottish charity (SC037852) both at 30 Bernard Street, Edinburgh, EH6 6PR.Take action for Equal Marriage:
You can now donate directly to the Equality Network's Equal Marriage campaign:
Mobile: Text 'LGBT77 £10' to 70070
Monday, March 4, 2013
Friends (Quakers) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns Endorses Friend of the Court Briefs in Two Supreme Court Cases -- Announcement
[UPDATE: Briefs are available to read here.]
Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC) has signed friend of the court briefs filed filed by law firm Kramer Levin on behalf of a range of religious organizations in two cases before the US Supreme Court this term.
From the announcement by Kramer Levin:
The entire announcement is well worth reading.
From the briefs:
Links:
Please see related post "Friends (Quakers) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns Endorses Friend of the Court Briefs in Two Supreme Court Cases -- Details" at http://aquakerwitch.blogspot.com/2013/03/friends-quakers-for-lesbian-gay.html
Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC) has signed friend of the court briefs filed filed by law firm Kramer Levin on behalf of a range of religious organizations in two cases before the US Supreme Court this term.
From the announcement by Kramer Levin:
Kramer Levin has filed a pair of amicus briefs on behalf of a broad-based coalition of religious organizations in the historic LGBT rights cases now pending in the U.S Supreme Court...
Confronting and rebutting arguments by religious supporters of DOMA and Proposition 8 purporting to state a uniform religious position on marriage, the briefs document the growing range of religious traditions that respect the dignity of lesbian and gay people and their families; solemnize or otherwise honor their relationships; and support civil marriage equality. And stressing the distinction between religious and civil marriage, the briefs make clear that respecting the marriage rights of same-sex couples will not impinge upon religious beliefs, practices, or operations, but rather will prevent one set of religious beliefs from being imposed through civil law.
http://www.kramerlevin.com/Kramer-Levin-Files-Briefs-in-Historic-Supreme-Court-LGBT-Rights-Cases-02-27-2013/
The entire announcement is well worth reading.
From the briefs:
Amicus curiae
Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (“FLGBTQC”) is a faith community within the Religious Society of Friends. FLGBTQC deeply honors, affirms, and upholds that of God in all people.
Links:
- Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns: http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/
- FLGBTQC Collection of Marriage Minutes: http://flgbtqc.quaker.org/marriageminutes.html
- Info at the Supreme Court website: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx
- The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), at question in US v Windsor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
- California's Proposition 8, at question in Hollingsworth et al v Perry et al: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8
- Kramer Levin announcement: http://www.kramerlevin.com/Kramer-Levin-Files-Briefs-in-Historic-Supreme-Court-LGBT-Rights-Cases-02-27-2013/
- Kramer Levin brief for Windsor case: http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/Publication/909bbf32-d359-4545-8429-062418acf8ac/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e9b8e654-0b45-474c-bc64-079710fa0583/Windsor%20Religion%20Brief.pdf
- Kramer Levin brief for Perry case: http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/Publication/909bbf32-d359-4545-8429-062418acf8ac/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5ba021d4-1733-417e-acc3-077dd49888e3/Perry%20Religion%20Brief.pdf
- Tracking the Windsor case at SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2/
- Tracking the Perry case at SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hollingsworth-v-perry/
- Tracking the Windsor case at GLAD: http://www.glad.org/doma/documents/
Please see related post "Friends (Quakers) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns Endorses Friend of the Court Briefs in Two Supreme Court Cases -- Details" at http://aquakerwitch.blogspot.com/2013/03/friends-quakers-for-lesbian-gay.html
Friends (Quakers) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns Endorses Friend of the Court Briefs in Two US Supreme Court Cases -- Details
[UPDATE: Briefs are available to read here.]
I recently attended the Mid-Winter Gathering of Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC).
During our first Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business, one of our co-clerks brought a two-fold request to us from the law firm Kramer Levin, regarding friend of the court (amicus) briefs they were preparing to file in two civil same-sex marriage cases:
I agreed to serve on the committee looking at both these issues and bringing a recommendation back to Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business.
Co-Clerk had, I believe, already explained about Quakers' lack of dioceses, and so we set about finding information on the Yearly Meeting level -- much of which FLGBTQC already has compiled in our Collection of Marriage Minutes. Without disclosing why, I also posted electronic requests for information from other Yearly Meetings, to which a number of Friends who were not at Mid-Winter Gathering responded with resources.
When our committee met, several of us sat down to work our way through the draft brief to make sure we understood it before making a recommendation. Thankfully, it was very readable.
It was also, simply, a pleasure to read. The authors went through through many of the arguments set forth in briefs already filed in the cases in opposition to same-sex civil marriage, and just demolished them, simply and clearly, without ever being insulting; I was impressed.
You can read an outline of these arguments in this announcement, and you can read the originals of the briefs here and here. I highly recommend doing both -- as I said, the briefs are very readable -- but do read at least the announcement.
(It turns out I kept sending many people at the committee table into gales of laughter by blurting out, "Oh my gosh! This is brilliant!" over and over while I was reading.)
The law firm had also clearly done some good background research on Friends; we had a few factual corrections we asked them to make, but by and large they "got it right."
We took a summary and a recommendation for endorsement to Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business, where it was approved.
However, no matter how excited or happy I was, or how brilliant the draft brief, I couldn't talk about it, because until the brief was filed, it was client confidential.
Kramer Levin filed the briefs Thursday, 28 February, 2013 (yesterday)!
Here's Kramer Levin's announcement:
I highly recommend reading the announcement itself for a nice summary of the briefs' arguments.
I was also struck very much at the time by the parallels to the arguments of Friends in Britain regarding same-sex marriage, particularly General Meeting for Scotland's response in November of 2011 to the Scottish Government's Consultation on same-sex marriage. General Meeting for Scotland's statement is here; Britain Yearly Meeting's statements on same-sex marriage in general are here.
There are so many reasons I'm excited about these two briefs, but here are a few:
More briefs
If you'd like an amazing experience, grab a hankie and do a news search in your favorite search engine for "marriage briefs" or "DOMA briefs."
You will find reports of briefs supporting same-sex marriage from a huge array of groups and individuals -- religious groups, employers, unions, NFL players, advocacy groups, US states, doctors and psychologists, the Department of Justice, Democrats, Republicans, and more.
That's just not something I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime.
Following the cases
Here are a couple of places to follow the cases:
Related announcement
Please see related post "Friends (Quakers) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns Endorses Friend of the Court Briefs in Two Supreme Court Cases -- Announcement" at http://aquakerwitch.blogspot.com/2013/03/friends-quakers-for-lesbian-gay_4.html.
I recently attended the Mid-Winter Gathering of Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC).
During our first Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business, one of our co-clerks brought a two-fold request to us from the law firm Kramer Levin, regarding friend of the court (amicus) briefs they were preparing to file in two civil same-sex marriage cases:
- One, could we provide them with information on any policies from the Quaker equivalents of, for example, dioceses, supporting equal marriage for same-sex couples?
- Two, would we endorse the briefs (become a signatory to the friend of the court briefs), with the understanding that they were not sure that, if we said yes, they would be able to use our name, that our name might not appear after all?
I agreed to serve on the committee looking at both these issues and bringing a recommendation back to Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business.
Co-Clerk had, I believe, already explained about Quakers' lack of dioceses, and so we set about finding information on the Yearly Meeting level -- much of which FLGBTQC already has compiled in our Collection of Marriage Minutes. Without disclosing why, I also posted electronic requests for information from other Yearly Meetings, to which a number of Friends who were not at Mid-Winter Gathering responded with resources.
When our committee met, several of us sat down to work our way through the draft brief to make sure we understood it before making a recommendation. Thankfully, it was very readable.
It was also, simply, a pleasure to read. The authors went through through many of the arguments set forth in briefs already filed in the cases in opposition to same-sex civil marriage, and just demolished them, simply and clearly, without ever being insulting; I was impressed.
You can read an outline of these arguments in this announcement, and you can read the originals of the briefs here and here. I highly recommend doing both -- as I said, the briefs are very readable -- but do read at least the announcement.
(It turns out I kept sending many people at the committee table into gales of laughter by blurting out, "Oh my gosh! This is brilliant!" over and over while I was reading.)
The law firm had also clearly done some good background research on Friends; we had a few factual corrections we asked them to make, but by and large they "got it right."
We took a summary and a recommendation for endorsement to Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business, where it was approved.
However, no matter how excited or happy I was, or how brilliant the draft brief, I couldn't talk about it, because until the brief was filed, it was client confidential.
Kramer Levin filed the briefs Thursday, 28 February, 2013 (yesterday)!
Here's Kramer Levin's announcement:
- Kramer Levin Files Briefs in Historic Supreme Court LGBT Rights Cases
http://www.kramerlevin.com/Kramer-Levin-Files-Briefs-in-Historic-Supreme-Court-LGBT-Rights-Cases-02-27-2013/
I highly recommend reading the announcement itself for a nice summary of the briefs' arguments.
I was also struck very much at the time by the parallels to the arguments of Friends in Britain regarding same-sex marriage, particularly General Meeting for Scotland's response in November of 2011 to the Scottish Government's Consultation on same-sex marriage. General Meeting for Scotland's statement is here; Britain Yearly Meeting's statements on same-sex marriage in general are here.
- The brief for Hollingsworth v Perry (the CA Prop 8 case)
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/Publication/909bbf32-d359-4545-8429-062418acf8ac/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5ba021d4-1733-417e-acc3-077dd49888e3/Perry%20Religion%20Brief.pdf
- The brief for US v Windsor (the DOMA case from NY State)
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/Publication/909bbf32-d359-4545-8429-062418acf8ac/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e9b8e654-0b45-474c-bc64-079710fa0583/Windsor%20Religion%20Brief.pdf
There are so many reasons I'm excited about these two briefs, but here are a few:
- I had a very small but direct impact on some of the content of the brief. (I mean, holy shit.)
- It's a bunch of religious groups saying not only do DOMA and Prop 8 infringe on our religious freedom, but marriage equality does not infringe on any other religious groups' religious freedom, in spite of all their arguments.
- It demolishes all those arguments just brilliantly.
- A religious group I'm part of is a signatory / amicus curiae.
More briefs
If you'd like an amazing experience, grab a hankie and do a news search in your favorite search engine for "marriage briefs" or "DOMA briefs."
You will find reports of briefs supporting same-sex marriage from a huge array of groups and individuals -- religious groups, employers, unions, NFL players, advocacy groups, US states, doctors and psychologists, the Department of Justice, Democrats, Republicans, and more.
That's just not something I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime.
Following the cases
Here are a couple of places to follow the cases:
- SCOTUSblog on US v Windsor (DOMA): http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2/
- SCOTUSblog on Hollingsworth et al v Perry et al: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hollingsworth-v-perry/
- GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders): http://www.glad.org/doma/documents
Related announcement
Please see related post "Friends (Quakers) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns Endorses Friend of the Court Briefs in Two Supreme Court Cases -- Announcement" at http://aquakerwitch.blogspot.com/2013/03/friends-quakers-for-lesbian-gay_4.html.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
A new National Coming Out Day conversation?
Two years ago, I posted this article about the National Coming Out Day conversation I'd had:
"Not the National Coming Out Day conversation I expected"
What really blew my mind, in that on-line conversation two years ago, was how the person involved just plain didn't believe me, and kept insisting I was wrong about my experience -- the taxes I pay that they don't, my legal situation, etc.
How do you think the conversation might be different today, in 2011, instead of 2009?
What's changed over the last two years in allies' consciousness about the reality of daily life as a lesbian, bi woman, gay man, bi man, transgender woman, transgender man, genderqueer person, queer woman, queer man, queer person?
Allies, what's changed for you over the last two years?
LGBTQ folks, what changes have you noticed in allies' support?
"Not the National Coming Out Day conversation I expected"
What really blew my mind, in that on-line conversation two years ago, was how the person involved just plain didn't believe me, and kept insisting I was wrong about my experience -- the taxes I pay that they don't, my legal situation, etc.
How do you think the conversation might be different today, in 2011, instead of 2009?
What's changed over the last two years in allies' consciousness about the reality of daily life as a lesbian, bi woman, gay man, bi man, transgender woman, transgender man, genderqueer person, queer woman, queer man, queer person?
Allies, what's changed for you over the last two years?
LGBTQ folks, what changes have you noticed in allies' support?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Do you have to get divorced every time you move?
Are you married?
If so, when's the last time you had to get divorced and remarried just because you moved within the United States?
If you're in an opposite-sex couple and you're married, chances are you got married, and no matter where in the US you've moved, you've stayed married. It's probably never occurred to you to get divorced and remarried just because you were moving to another city or county in your state, or to another state.
Sounds pretty silly, actually, right?
But if you're in a same-sex couple, though, this might sound all too familiar to you:
In essence, same-sex couples have to get divorced and remarried every time we move.
(It's possible there are exceptions to this. I don't know of any. Some states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but none I know of recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions from other jurisdictions; and many domestic partnership laws and civil union laws are written to be invalid in any other state.)
Let me repeat that:
In essence, same-sex couples have to get divorced and remarried every time we move.
If you're a straight ally to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, does this idea come as a complete surprise to you? A lot of people I've been talking to lately have been truly shocked to hear this.
And that has surprised me.
Jane and Amy meet, fall in love, the whole nine yards. They move in together. They are led to marry. They have a wonderful wedding in their Quaker meeting / Coven / Grove / backyard / church / synagogue / religious community, with lots of friends and family present.
As part of their discernment process around marriage, they research how best to protect themselves, each other, and their family legally.
Their city has a domestic partnership law. But it turns out it doesn't offer them any protection at all -- since neither of them is a City employee, it's just a piece of paper with the mayor's signature, saying they're domestic partners. It won't let them visit each other in the hospital or make medical decisions for each other, for example, or give each other rights of survivorship if one should die. Jane and Amy also realize that they feel a strong religious leading not to register a domestic partnership or civil union, because it's unequal treatment under the law; they feel led to wait for civil marriage. So they don't register.
With an elder from their religious community, they do go to City Hall to apply for a marriage license, knowing they'll be turned down, to make a point. City Hall clerks refuse to issue them even an application, on the grounds that they're a same-sex couple and therefore can't receive a marriage license.
Jane and Amy do the next-best things to protect themselves and their family legally. They make their wills, their advance directives (living wills), and their health care and financial powers of attorney. They have them witnessed and notarized. They make sure there are copies with their doctors, their multiple cascading attorneys-in-fact, a number of friends and family members, and the office of their Quaker Meeting / church / synagogue / Coven / religious community.
Potential divorce #1
A couple of years go by. Jane changes careers. Jane and Amy move to City B, State B so that Jane can go to graduate school in her field in another state. Amy no longer has insurance through her job, but she can get on Jane's insurance -- if they're registered as domestic partners in their new city. Potential divorce #1. In order to register as domestic partners in City B, they have to dissolve any pre-existing domestic partnerships -- even between the two of them -- in any other jurisdictions. If they had registered as domestic partners in City A, they would now have to dissolve that domestic partnership in order to become domestic partners in City B.
Oh, and while they're at it, they should see a lawyer about the different laws in State B, and re-do their wills, their advance directives, and their health care and financial powers of attorney, then re-distribute the copies of the new ones.
Potential divorce #2; actual divorce #1
Amy and Jane register as domestic partners in City B. While they're living there, a statewide ballot initiative comes before the voters in State B to amend the state constitution to make all domestic partnership laws and domestic partner benefits illegal. Potential divorce #2.
It passes. Actual divorce #1.
Thanks to the work of Jane's employer, and that of many other employers across the state, Amy and many other same-sex partners still have health insurance -- and so do many of those couples' kids, since the ballot initiative also threatened to nullify many second-parent adoptions.
Jane finishes graduate school, and, like many early-career academics, lands a series of post-doctoral teaching and research jobs -- in different states.
Potential divorce #3
Jane and Amy move to City C, State C together. State C has a reasonably strong domestic partnership law. They don't need to register for Amy to have access to Jane's benefits as Jane's partner, they're going to be there a short time, and State C has a good history of hospitals, for example, honoring powers of attorney. They don't have a leading to register or any practical reasons to do so. They don't register.
However, if they had registered, and if the voters of State B hadn't dissolved it for them already, they would have had to dissolve their domestic partnership from City B first. Potential divorce #3.
They should also re-do their wills, their advance directives, and their health care and financial powers of attorney for State C, then re-distribute the copies of the new ones again.
Potential divorces #4 and #5
Jane's job ends, and Jane and Amy move to City D, State D for her next job.
They should re-do their wills, their advance directives, and their health care and financial powers of attorney for State D, then re-distribute the copies of the new ones again.
State D has a civil union law that is court-mandated to offer all the benefits and obligations of marriage ("everything but marriage"). Amy and Jane are dubious. It's still not marriage. They've also heard stories of hospitals and employers refusing to recognize civil unions because they're not marriages.
They check out the law. It's pretty robust; in fact, it's identical to opposite-gender marriage in their state, with two exceptions -- it's called "civil union" instead of "marriage," and it's not recognized federally or by other states. They look at the application and application process. It's identical for all couples, regardless of the genders of the people involved.
In spite of the limitations, they have some good practical reasons to do it. They also begin to get the inkling of a leading to do it. Hmmmm.
In order to register a civil union in State D (have you guessed it yet?), neither of them can be in a domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage with anyone (including each other) in any other jurisdiction. Had the voters of State B not dissolved Amy and Jane's City B domestic partnership for them, Amy and Jane would have to do that now. Potential divorce #4.
If Amy and Jane had registered a legal/civil domestic partnership in State C, they would have to dissolve that now. Potential divorce #5.
But wait, there's more!
In order for their civil union to be legally binding, Jane and Amy have to have another ceremony. They literally have to have another wedding.
Because one wasn't enough.
They complain, but they do it.
Potential divorce #6
Jane and Amy are about to celebrate their seventh wedding anniversary. (Of their first, religious wedding, the one with lots of people and joy and love and community.)
Jane also has a permanent job! There is much rejoicing.
However, for Jane's new job, Amy and Jane have to move again.
Jane and Amy are in a civil union in the state they're living in now...
What do you think, dear readers? Will they need to get divorced and remarried; will this be actual divorce number two? Or by some chance and intersection of laws, since their civil union is nearly identical to marriage, will their civil union transfer?
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode.
Keeping track of it all
I know people who keep a spreadsheet of their various domestic partnerships, civil unions, civil marriages, religious marriage if applicable, and the associated dates.
And what about benefits that are dependent on the date a couple gets married?
No, this isn't equality. No, this isn't justice. No, this isn't full faith and credit, either.
What would solve this
Marriage equality would solve this.
Legal, civil marriage for couples regardless of gender, recognized on the federal level, recognized in all states.
-------------------------------------
Resources:
If so, when's the last time you had to get divorced and remarried just because you moved within the United States?
If you're in an opposite-sex couple and you're married, chances are you got married, and no matter where in the US you've moved, you've stayed married. It's probably never occurred to you to get divorced and remarried just because you were moving to another city or county in your state, or to another state.
Sounds pretty silly, actually, right?
But if you're in a same-sex couple, though, this might sound all too familiar to you:
- If you live in a city or state that offers a legal domestic partnership or civil union, and you move, your current domestic partnership / civil union / etc. is not valid in the city or state where you're moving.
- If by some chance the place where you're moving offers domestic partnership, civil union, or civil marriage, in order to register a new one there, you have to dissolve your current domestic partnership or civil union first.
- In certain jurisdictions, it won't be enough to file the new paperwork; you will have to have another wedding ceremony in order for your domestic partnership / civil union / civil marriage to be legally binding. Going to City Hall and/or appearing before a judge, justice of the peace, the mayor, and signing paperwork will not be enough; you will have to make a separate trip where you have another wedding.
In essence, same-sex couples have to get divorced and remarried every time we move.
(It's possible there are exceptions to this. I don't know of any. Some states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but none I know of recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions from other jurisdictions; and many domestic partnership laws and civil union laws are written to be invalid in any other state.)
Let me repeat that:
In essence, same-sex couples have to get divorced and remarried every time we move.
If you're a straight ally to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, does this idea come as a complete surprise to you? A lot of people I've been talking to lately have been truly shocked to hear this.
And that has surprised me.
A true story of a real couple
Jane and Amy meet, fall in love, the whole nine yards. They move in together. They are led to marry. They have a wonderful wedding in their Quaker meeting / Coven / Grove / backyard / church / synagogue / religious community, with lots of friends and family present.
As part of their discernment process around marriage, they research how best to protect themselves, each other, and their family legally.
Their city has a domestic partnership law. But it turns out it doesn't offer them any protection at all -- since neither of them is a City employee, it's just a piece of paper with the mayor's signature, saying they're domestic partners. It won't let them visit each other in the hospital or make medical decisions for each other, for example, or give each other rights of survivorship if one should die. Jane and Amy also realize that they feel a strong religious leading not to register a domestic partnership or civil union, because it's unequal treatment under the law; they feel led to wait for civil marriage. So they don't register.
With an elder from their religious community, they do go to City Hall to apply for a marriage license, knowing they'll be turned down, to make a point. City Hall clerks refuse to issue them even an application, on the grounds that they're a same-sex couple and therefore can't receive a marriage license.
Jane and Amy do the next-best things to protect themselves and their family legally. They make their wills, their advance directives (living wills), and their health care and financial powers of attorney. They have them witnessed and notarized. They make sure there are copies with their doctors, their multiple cascading attorneys-in-fact, a number of friends and family members, and the office of their Quaker Meeting / church / synagogue / Coven / religious community.
Potential divorce #1
A couple of years go by. Jane changes careers. Jane and Amy move to City B, State B so that Jane can go to graduate school in her field in another state. Amy no longer has insurance through her job, but she can get on Jane's insurance -- if they're registered as domestic partners in their new city. Potential divorce #1. In order to register as domestic partners in City B, they have to dissolve any pre-existing domestic partnerships -- even between the two of them -- in any other jurisdictions. If they had registered as domestic partners in City A, they would now have to dissolve that domestic partnership in order to become domestic partners in City B.
Oh, and while they're at it, they should see a lawyer about the different laws in State B, and re-do their wills, their advance directives, and their health care and financial powers of attorney, then re-distribute the copies of the new ones.
Potential divorce #2; actual divorce #1
Amy and Jane register as domestic partners in City B. While they're living there, a statewide ballot initiative comes before the voters in State B to amend the state constitution to make all domestic partnership laws and domestic partner benefits illegal. Potential divorce #2.
It passes. Actual divorce #1.
Thanks to the work of Jane's employer, and that of many other employers across the state, Amy and many other same-sex partners still have health insurance -- and so do many of those couples' kids, since the ballot initiative also threatened to nullify many second-parent adoptions.
Jane finishes graduate school, and, like many early-career academics, lands a series of post-doctoral teaching and research jobs -- in different states.
Potential divorce #3
Jane and Amy move to City C, State C together. State C has a reasonably strong domestic partnership law. They don't need to register for Amy to have access to Jane's benefits as Jane's partner, they're going to be there a short time, and State C has a good history of hospitals, for example, honoring powers of attorney. They don't have a leading to register or any practical reasons to do so. They don't register.
However, if they had registered, and if the voters of State B hadn't dissolved it for them already, they would have had to dissolve their domestic partnership from City B first. Potential divorce #3.
They should also re-do their wills, their advance directives, and their health care and financial powers of attorney for State C, then re-distribute the copies of the new ones again.
Potential divorces #4 and #5
Jane's job ends, and Jane and Amy move to City D, State D for her next job.
They should re-do their wills, their advance directives, and their health care and financial powers of attorney for State D, then re-distribute the copies of the new ones again.
State D has a civil union law that is court-mandated to offer all the benefits and obligations of marriage ("everything but marriage"). Amy and Jane are dubious. It's still not marriage. They've also heard stories of hospitals and employers refusing to recognize civil unions because they're not marriages.
They check out the law. It's pretty robust; in fact, it's identical to opposite-gender marriage in their state, with two exceptions -- it's called "civil union" instead of "marriage," and it's not recognized federally or by other states. They look at the application and application process. It's identical for all couples, regardless of the genders of the people involved.
In spite of the limitations, they have some good practical reasons to do it. They also begin to get the inkling of a leading to do it. Hmmmm.
In order to register a civil union in State D (have you guessed it yet?), neither of them can be in a domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage with anyone (including each other) in any other jurisdiction. Had the voters of State B not dissolved Amy and Jane's City B domestic partnership for them, Amy and Jane would have to do that now. Potential divorce #4.
If Amy and Jane had registered a legal/civil domestic partnership in State C, they would have to dissolve that now. Potential divorce #5.
But wait, there's more!
In order for their civil union to be legally binding, Jane and Amy have to have another ceremony. They literally have to have another wedding.
Because one wasn't enough.
They complain, but they do it.
Potential divorce #6
Jane and Amy are about to celebrate their seventh wedding anniversary. (Of their first, religious wedding, the one with lots of people and joy and love and community.)
Jane also has a permanent job! There is much rejoicing.
However, for Jane's new job, Amy and Jane have to move again.
Jane and Amy are in a civil union in the state they're living in now...
What do you think, dear readers? Will they need to get divorced and remarried; will this be actual divorce number two? Or by some chance and intersection of laws, since their civil union is nearly identical to marriage, will their civil union transfer?
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode.
Keeping track of it all
I know people who keep a spreadsheet of their various domestic partnerships, civil unions, civil marriages, religious marriage if applicable, and the associated dates.
And what about benefits that are dependent on the date a couple gets married?
No, this isn't equality. No, this isn't justice. No, this isn't full faith and credit, either.
What would solve this
Marriage equality would solve this.
Legal, civil marriage for couples regardless of gender, recognized on the federal level, recognized in all states.
-------------------------------------
Resources:
- Download and customize your state-specific advance directive (living will): http://www.caringinfo.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3289
- American Academy of Pediatrics, Coparent or Second Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339
- Freedom to Marry: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/
- Marriage Equality USA: http://www.marriageequality.org/
- Cornell's Legal Information Institute, US Constitution, Article IV text: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv
- National Constitution Center, US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, text and introduction: http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=099&const=04_art_04
- List of marriage, domestic partnership, and civil union laws in different states: http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/marriage_laws.asp
Monday, April 25, 2011
At tax time, my second-class citizenship rears up and smacks me in the face
Tax time is interesting in our household.
My wife and I are not married as far as the federal government is concerned. Because we're a same-sex couple.
We're married as far as our religion is concerned.
We're everything-but-married as far as the state we live in is concerned -- our state has a civil union law, court-mandated to be everything but marriage in name.
This has some fascinating tax implications.
And they rear up and smack us in the face at tax-time.
If you have health insurance through your employer, and it includes coverage for family members, I urge you to take a quick look at your final paystub for 2010. (Your most recent paystub will do, too.)
On Beloved Wife's paystub, along the bottom, there's a nice little grid that lists current and year-to-date total gross income, federal taxable gross income, total taxes, total deductions, and net pay.
I'd like to draw your attention to total gross income and federal taxable gross income. (Bear with me!)
For us, there's a sizable difference between "total gross income" and "federal taxable gross income" -- for 2010, about $4000. $4000 we never see in her paycheck.
Why?
Because we are not legally married in the eyes of the federal government.
Therefore, the part of my health insurance premium covered by my wife's employer is considered federally taxable income.
We have to pay additional taxes on my health insurance.
Taxes that opposite-sex married couples don't pay. If we were an opposite-gender couple who'd done the exact same things we've done -- just like our next-door neighbors did, in fact -- had a religious wedding in another state with our friends, families, and religious/spiritual communities, and then had a civil wedding at the Boro Hall -- we would not pay taxes on that $4000 for health insurance.
It's right there in black and white, every paycheck.
And it's really obvious at tax-time.
As I mentioned, Beloved Wife and I currently live in a state with an everything-but-marriage civil union law. (And every time we move, we have to dissolve whatever we had where we were living before in order to have whatever the state we're moving to has -- but that's another blog post.)
So we get to file a joint state tax form -- something we've never gotten to do before.
Civil unions in this state confer all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but they are most definitely not marriage, they are not recognized as marriages by some hospitals, some employers, or any courts.
But we do get to file jointly. And we do get the same tax rate as civilly married couples. That's nice. And there's one box, marked "Married/civil union," which I also appreciate.
And unlike on the federal level, Beloved Wife's employer's contributions to my health insurance are not taxable income in NJ. That's also nice.
Back to our collective paystubs and W-2s. If you look at your own paystubs or W-2s, you'll find separate boxes for state wages and federal wages.
I'm used to mine being somewhat different, but not dramatically different.
Is this what you, personally, usually think about when you think about marriage equality? Doing your taxes??
How your taxes might be very different but for an accident of whom you can marry under civil law?
Why does this matter? When there are LGBTQ people who lack access to decent health care, who are homeless, who go hungry, who are unemployed, etc? Why do I care about marriage equality, and why am I worried about my tax burden?
Let me ask you this: When was the last time you were homeless or in danger of becoming homeless -- and why?
Would $1200 have made a difference, even in the short term?
This is an area where I have personal and professional experience.
My professional experience is with homeless families as well as with local and regional agencies.
We know the causes of homelessness, folks. They're not a big mystery. And number one is poverty.
An extra $1200 in taxes (or $200, or $500) is, in fact, enough to put someone who's living paycheck to paycheck -- or who is unemployed, as a lot of us are right now -- or who has a chronic illness, or who is uninsured, or who is a single parent, out of their housing.
$1200 can buy medication for someone with a chronic illness or acute medical need. It can also be a major car repair, a week or more of child care, a lot of groceries.
But that's actually the wrong question.
The point is that paying more in taxes because of the gender of my partner is unequal treatment under the law.
It's discrimination, plain and simple.
The point is that justice and equality are not limited -- as if there were a finite amount to be shared, like too little butter scraped over too much bread.
As if equality were a limited resource which we had to fight each other for, to make sure we each got some sliver of.
Oppressions are connected. So are justice and equality connected. And justice and equality feed on justice and equality. We all win when we all win.
The fight for equal treatment under the law encompasses access to basic services, food, shelter, health care, human dignity -- and, yes, marriage equality.
There are people who think that when we've achieved marriage equality, we'll have achieved full civil and social equality. I disagree.
Marriage equality will not make lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, and transgender people fully equal under the law, or in the eyes of society.
Marriage equality is one very important stepping stone along the way. It's not the be-all and end-all -- it's not full equality -- but nonetheless, it's important.
No longer paying taxes on my wife's employer's contribution to my health insurance premiums? That's one place to start.
---------------------
Sources:
My wife and I are not married as far as the federal government is concerned. Because we're a same-sex couple.
We're married as far as our religion is concerned.
We're everything-but-married as far as the state we live in is concerned -- our state has a civil union law, court-mandated to be everything but marriage in name.
This has some fascinating tax implications.
And they rear up and smack us in the face at tax-time.
Additional federal tax burden
If you have health insurance through your employer, and it includes coverage for family members, I urge you to take a quick look at your final paystub for 2010. (Your most recent paystub will do, too.)
On Beloved Wife's paystub, along the bottom, there's a nice little grid that lists current and year-to-date total gross income, federal taxable gross income, total taxes, total deductions, and net pay.
I'd like to draw your attention to total gross income and federal taxable gross income. (Bear with me!)
- On the paystub you're holding, are there separate columns for "total gross income" and "federal taxable gross income"?
- If so, are your "total gross income" and your "federal taxable gross income" different numbers?
- If they are different, do you know why?
- If they are different, by how much? Is it a big difference?
For us, there's a sizable difference between "total gross income" and "federal taxable gross income" -- for 2010, about $4000. $4000 we never see in her paycheck.
Why?
Because we are not legally married in the eyes of the federal government.
Therefore, the part of my health insurance premium covered by my wife's employer is considered federally taxable income.
We have to pay additional taxes on my health insurance.
Taxes that opposite-sex married couples don't pay. If we were an opposite-gender couple who'd done the exact same things we've done -- just like our next-door neighbors did, in fact -- had a religious wedding in another state with our friends, families, and religious/spiritual communities, and then had a civil wedding at the Boro Hall -- we would not pay taxes on that $4000 for health insurance.
It's right there in black and white, every paycheck.
And it's really obvious at tax-time.
Very different federal and state tax returns
As I mentioned, Beloved Wife and I currently live in a state with an everything-but-marriage civil union law. (And every time we move, we have to dissolve whatever we had where we were living before in order to have whatever the state we're moving to has -- but that's another blog post.)
So we get to file a joint state tax form -- something we've never gotten to do before.
Civil unions in this state confer all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but they are most definitely not marriage, they are not recognized as marriages by some hospitals, some employers, or any courts.
But we do get to file jointly. And we do get the same tax rate as civilly married couples. That's nice. And there's one box, marked "Married/civil union," which I also appreciate.
And unlike on the federal level, Beloved Wife's employer's contributions to my health insurance are not taxable income in NJ. That's also nice.
Back to our collective paystubs and W-2s. If you look at your own paystubs or W-2s, you'll find separate boxes for state wages and federal wages.
- On your paystubs or W-2s, are your state wages and federal wages different numbers?
- If they are different numbers, how big is the difference? Hundreds of dollars? Thousands of dollars?
I'm used to mine being somewhat different, but not dramatically different.
Is this what you, personally, usually think about when you think about marriage equality? Doing your taxes??
How your taxes might be very different but for an accident of whom you can marry under civil law?
Why does this matter?
Why does this matter? When there are LGBTQ people who lack access to decent health care, who are homeless, who go hungry, who are unemployed, etc? Why do I care about marriage equality, and why am I worried about my tax burden?
Let me ask you this: When was the last time you were homeless or in danger of becoming homeless -- and why?
Would $1200 have made a difference, even in the short term?
This is an area where I have personal and professional experience.
My professional experience is with homeless families as well as with local and regional agencies.
We know the causes of homelessness, folks. They're not a big mystery. And number one is poverty.
An extra $1200 in taxes (or $200, or $500) is, in fact, enough to put someone who's living paycheck to paycheck -- or who is unemployed, as a lot of us are right now -- or who has a chronic illness, or who is uninsured, or who is a single parent, out of their housing.
$1200 can buy medication for someone with a chronic illness or acute medical need. It can also be a major car repair, a week or more of child care, a lot of groceries.
But that's actually the wrong question.
The point is that paying more in taxes because of the gender of my partner is unequal treatment under the law.
It's discrimination, plain and simple.
The point is that justice and equality are not limited -- as if there were a finite amount to be shared, like too little butter scraped over too much bread.
As if equality were a limited resource which we had to fight each other for, to make sure we each got some sliver of.
Oppressions are connected. So are justice and equality connected. And justice and equality feed on justice and equality. We all win when we all win.
The fight for equal treatment under the law encompasses access to basic services, food, shelter, health care, human dignity -- and, yes, marriage equality.
There are people who think that when we've achieved marriage equality, we'll have achieved full civil and social equality. I disagree.
Marriage equality will not make lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, and transgender people fully equal under the law, or in the eyes of society.
Marriage equality is one very important stepping stone along the way. It's not the be-all and end-all -- it's not full equality -- but nonetheless, it's important.
No longer paying taxes on my wife's employer's contribution to my health insurance premiums? That's one place to start.
---------------------
Sources:
- IRS Publication 15-B (2011), Employer's Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html#en_US_2011_publink1000193623
- New Jersey Civil Union Act, New Jersey Department of Taxation, http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/civilunionact.shtml
- New Jersey Civil Unions, Garden State Equality, http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civil.html
- New Jersey Marriage Equality, Garden State Equality, http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/marriage.html
- Why Are People Homeless?, National Coalition for the Homeless: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html
- Federal Definition of Homeless, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/homelessness/definition
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Recommended article: "Commitment, the Best a Lesbian Couple Could Do"
A friend of mine passed this article on to me:
City Critic - Commitment, the Best a Lesbian Couple Could Do - NYTimes.com
It hit home, kind of hard.
Six months after Beloved Wife and I started dating, we got hit with heavy-duty medical shit. We waited four years to get married (religiously, not civilly). Then last fall, when one of us was getting ready for major surgery, we did the civil union thing in NJ. We feel like the mayor and everyone involved at City Hall is invested in our marriage now. But we knew that NJ hospitals don't always respect civil unions "because they're not marriages," even though the NJ Supreme Court says they're supposed to.
This story brought tears to my eyes...
City Critic - Commitment, the Best a Lesbian Couple Could Do - NYTimes.com
It hit home, kind of hard.
Six months after Beloved Wife and I started dating, we got hit with heavy-duty medical shit. We waited four years to get married (religiously, not civilly). Then last fall, when one of us was getting ready for major surgery, we did the civil union thing in NJ. We feel like the mayor and everyone involved at City Hall is invested in our marriage now. But we knew that NJ hospitals don't always respect civil unions "because they're not marriages," even though the NJ Supreme Court says they're supposed to.
This story brought tears to my eyes...
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Nearly-equal rights. Still second-class citizenship.
This is the story (so far) of our civil union in New Jersey, and why I am not, in fact, excited about it.
My wife and I recently moved to New Jersey for her work. After we arrived, I started researching NJ's domestic partnership and civil union laws.
For same-gender couples, NJ offers everything but marriage: the law is exactly the same as for opposite-gender couples, with one major exception: "civil union" rather than "marriage." There is one application, whether you're applying for a civil union license or a marriage license; it has spaces for "Applicant A" and "Applicant B." The federal government won't recognize a NJ civil union, and other states might or might not, but the state of NJ can't control that. NJ is fairly unusual in that, if you've had a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or anything similar in another jurisdiction, you can transfer it to NJ, as long as it offers the same benefits and responsibilities as a NJ civil union, instead of having to dissolve it and re-register; although, if it didn't offer the same state-level legal protection, you do have to dissolve it and re-register. But to transfer it, you still have to fill out the paperwork ("Re-Affirmation of Civil Union"), unlike a straight married couple who moves to NJ.
It seems like the NJ civil union is as close as you can come without it being marriage.
Interesting, I thought. I wonder if we want to do this?
When we were first married, five-plus years ago, we asked ourselves if we should take advantage of our city's relatively new domestic partnership law -- especially since I'd been peripherally involved with the campaign, and since the former head of City Council, who'd opposed it vehemently, was now the mayor, and would have to sign it. Heh. Reading the law and the application left a bad taste in our mouths: it had second-class citizenship written all over it. We recycled the paperwork.
When we embarked on this itinerant phase of our lives for Beloved Wife's job, we moved to another city that turned out to have a domestic partnership law. What's more, we were required to register as domestic partners if I was going to be on her insurance -- the same way opposite-gender couples were required to marry if an opposite-gender spouse was going to be on the employee's insurance. Reading the law and the application, we found, to our surprise, no bad taste in our mouths: the city ordinance spoke of the diversity in our community, and of the need to protect all families.
We did have to giggle, though. The 2-foot by 3-foot, hand-calligraphed and hand-illustrated certificate, with our wedding promises, our signatures, and the signatures of more than 200 witnesses, never got us a legal thing. The 8 1/2-by-11 computer-generated certificate (not even the signatures were "live") with the shiny gold seal on it got me legal access to my wife's health insurance. We put the city certificate in our file cabinet for future reference; our Quaker wedding certificate hangs on our living room wall.
The following year, the voters of that state passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman, and making domestic partner benefits illegal (including my insurance coverage). My wife's employer, along with the city we lived in and many other employers in the state, found ways to insure "other adults" while being in full compliance with the law. I retained my health insurance, so did many other adults, and most importantly, so did many children: the new amendment put second-parent adoptions in jeopardy, and a lot of kids were in danger of losing coverage if they were on a non-birth parent's insurance.
We moved again; last year, we lived in a state with a very, very good domestic partnership law. Still not marriage, but nearly everything-but-marriage. We did not feel any leading or need to register: my wife's employer did not require us to; that state doesn't have income tax; we were going to be there for a year; this was an area with a very good record of honoring powers of attorney and other legal paperwork for same-gender couples.
But now we've moved to a state with a good civil union law, in an area with a mixed record of honoring powers of attorney and other legal paperwork. We're going to be here longer; we both have medical issues; we're thinking about kids.
All good reasons, but I was still doubtful. In my head, anyway. Someplace else, deep down, I had a very strong feeling about registering a civil union.
We've talked about getting legally married in Massachusetts or Canada. We've talked about domestic partnership and civil union and everything-but-marriage laws in other states. And I have felt very clearly that I am not willing to settle for second-best, for nearly-but-not-quite equal.
So, one, it has to be marriage. Not domestic partnership, not civil union. It has to be the same thing regardless of the gender of my partner, the same thing as it is for opposite-gender couples. And two, it has to be recognized by the federal government. Even if we were married legally in MA or Canada, our marriage would not be honored fully in the United States. Some states would recognize it; some wouldn't; they'd pretty much get to choose. We'd still pay federal income tax on my health insurance as "taxable income." We'd still have to carry powers of attorney -- and add our everything-but-marriage license -- when we traveled.
But...
I went back and looked at the law here in NJ again. It's still everything-but-marriage. It's still not federally recognized, like opposite-gender marriages are.
But, I had a strong feeling that we need to register our civil union.
I'm not sure if it's an actual leading or not. Would it feel this uncomfortable if it wasn't? Perhaps it's just a good idea, and perhaps not-quite-equality is not a good reason not to take advantage of the legal protections we do have.
I brought it up to Beloved Wife, and she agreed. Here's what she says:
"One of the things that is infuriating about marriage law in the U.S. is the blurring between religious and civil marriage. True separation of church and state would mean that the state recognized civil partnerships between same or opposite-gender couples, and if a couple wanted then they could also have a religious ceremony. Really, I think that if the New Jersey situation for same-sex couples were as good in real life as it is on paper, it should be the nationwide situation for all couples. It leaves a sour taste first because it's separate and almost-but-not-quite-equal (not all employers provide equal benefits, and some civil partners have had difficulties with health providers), within NJ vis-a-vis marriage, and because of all of the ways that our partnership won't be recognized outside of NJ or by the feds."
So, we printed out the application. I filled out the parts for Applicant A while she was cooking dinner. She filled out the parts for Applicant B while I cleaned up after dinner. We called the parents of some dear friends, who live nearby, and asked if they would be our witnesses. They would be honored, they said, and in fact, they sounded excited. We figured out a date when one of them could go with us to Boro Hall to apply for the license; I called the Boro Hall and made an appointment with the Registrar's/Health Department to fill out our application and pay our $28. ($3 stays with the Boro; $25 goes to the local domestic violence shelter.)
I had a question about something, though: on the application, you have to provide information about when the ceremony will take place. We already had a ceremony, it just wasn't legally binding. The clerk and I talked it through, and the conclusion she came to was: Yes, in order for this to be legally binding, you have to have another ceremony. She gave me the phone numbers of a judge and of the mayor for us to call.
For another ceremony.
Reading the applicable material carefully, it does look like the ceremony is necessary to make this legally binding. We can't just get someone official to sign our license, even with us present and in front of witnesses. There has to be a freaking ceremony. "Do you, Stasa..."
We had our appointment at the Registrar's/Health Department Office to fill out the application. (Both our friends came, and tossed a coin to decide who would sign the application as witness.) Then we trudged down to the Mayor's Office to find out if she could perform our civil union ceremony.
No, we didn't have a date picked out. What would be convenient for her? No, we don't have a time picked out. When would be convenient for her? Our flexibility both puzzled and inconvenienced the poor aide to the mayor. The four of us -- Beloved Wife and our two witnesses -- picked out a proposed date. The aide continued down the form to questions about the ceremony: Anyone giving either party away? Single ring, double ring, no ring? How many people present? How large a wedding party?
We've already had a religious ceremony, we explained. We just want something nice and simple.
Well, I'll fill this out and give it to the bailiff, and we'll call you and let you know if the mayor agrees to do your ceremony and if she's available on this date at this time.
We could do another day or time if it doesn't, I offered.
If this doesn't work, you can talk about it when we call, she said. I have to put down a date and time.
Ah, bureaucracy.
As we were leaving, our friends offered, If she can't do it, we know one of our ministers would. (They're members of the Unitarian Universalist Church in our town.)
Well, for that, we could probably get someone from the Meeting here, I said. But I don't think it would feel right to have anyone religious do it. We already had our religious wedding, in our former Meeting (the same year as their son and daughter-in-law; in fact, we were in each other's weddings). To have a religious officiant feels like invalidating our wedding, or acting like it never happened. It would feel like a violation of the Testimony of Integrity. I think we just want it to be civil. Beloved Wife nodded.
To their credit, that made sense to our friends, and we could tell they were a little troubled by it.
A few days later, the mayor's aide called, sounding perky and excited. Genuinely so. "Hi, it's So-and-So from the Mayor's Office, calling about your wedding. Mayor So-and-So has agreed to perform your civil union ceremony on thus-and-such date and time. Now, I'll mail you a copy of the ceremony she uses, and you can edit it and mail it back to me."
(Here's a cool thing: the mayor does not accept honoraria for weddings or civil unions. She asks for a donation to the domestic violence shelter instead, and provides their information and an envelope addressed to them.)
We called our friends: Does this date and time work for you? Yes, we'll be there. And we'd like to take you out to lunch afterwards, if we may.
Sigh. Is everyone involved more excited about this than I am?
It's a small town; the envelope arrived the next day. The ceremony was a variation on the standard Do you, lawfully-joined, in sickness and in health, hard times and easy, til death do you part.
We thought about it. We talked about it. We sat down together and worked it out. We went through every part of it, asking, Can we say this? We tried them out on each other. Does this work?
Does this feel honest and true?
And in the end, we couldn't repeat any part of our Quaker wedding promises. In part, because someone will be pronouncing us, and that is just not compatible with Quaker marriage. It would be lying to repeat that in front of the mayor and have her pronounce us. Part of it is also because we've already said those promises, and while we may (and do!) repeat them to each other, it can't ever be on command. Part of it is that it feels like lying to repeat them as part of another ceremony after which we somehow have a different status.
And some of it is about separation of church and state. We've had our religious wedding. This is purely and completely about civil law.
We found we couldn't repeat any part of the mayor's proposed ceremony that duplicated the wedding we'd already had.
I, in particular, found I didn't want any part of the ceremony to have any significance that wasn't purely legal. So what we said had to be in the service of the civil union contract, with the mayor pronouncing the contract as now in effect, as now legally-binding and legally-recognized.
We felt good about the edits we came up with. They felt right.
We weren't sure what the Mayor's Office would think.
I dropped the edits by the Mayor's Office, and it turns out in-person was a good thing. The clerk was definitely taken aback. I don't know if she'll be willing to do something so short; I mean, this will take five minutes...
Yes, I said. We want something very simple. She blinked. We've already had a religious ceremony, I added. She blinked again.
I understand, she said, I just don't know if the mayor will be personally comfortable... she trailed off.
I decided to try to explain, a little. I explained that we're Quakers, that we had a Quaker wedding, that to repeat those vows could be a violation of the Testimony of Integrity, that...
I could tell she didn't get the "Quaker" or "Testimony of Integrity" part; but she got the "religious reasons" and "violation" part. Her expression changed, became a little less strained, a little less puzzled. She pulled out a Post-It, put it on the sheet, and started a note to the mayor.
I'll tell her it's for religious reasons. I think she'll be fine with it, but I'll call you tomorrow and let you know.
I thanked her and left.
I felt torn.
I called her later and said, We can bring information about our Quaker wedding with us if that will help the mayor feel more comfortable. No, no, you don't need to do that, she said, I'll talk to her and I'll call you back tomorrow.
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. Our friends, and these strangers in the Boro Hall, from the registrar and the registrar's clerk to the mayor's aide to the mayor, are clearly and genuinely happy for a same-gender couple to be getting the closest thing currently possible to equal rights. They don't get many same-gender couples -- when I went back and said I was there to proof my civil union license, I didn't even have to give my name; we're the only same-gender couple in process right now. But not one person has stuttered, looked flustered at the two-women-thing or the civil union thing, not one person has even asked me about my future husband. So on some level, they get it; I can tell.
I don't want to come across as disrespectful of the mayor, of our friends, of anyone involved. And I'm glad that I'm about to get a level of legal protection I've never had.
But this thing by which we're getting nearly-equal rights?
It's discriminatory.
And that makes this whole situation infuriating.
It's discriminatory because it doesn't grant us equal rights. We won't be legally married. Even in this state, there are employers and hospitals which grant certain benefits and privileges to married couples but which don't recognize civil unions, because they're not marriages. There are no federal benefits or responsibilities: my taxes will still be whacked, and if Beloved Wife dies next week, I still won't be able to collect her social security.
It's discriminatory because we are required to have another ceremony. And if we move to another place where this civil union isn't recognized, we will have to dissolve this civil union and, if we have to have a ceremony to make whatever they offer (if anything) legally-binding, we will have to have another ceremony. And the same thing again if we move again, which we might well have to for my wife's work. How many times will we have to do this? I have F/friends who keep a spreadsheet of their legal unions.
As my mathematician friend Deb says, 1st wedding + N, where N>0, is discriminatory. Opposite-gender couples do not have to go through this.
And so, I am furious.
I have to have a second ceremony because of the gender of my partner. I have to have a second ceremony because the state we lived in when we got married didn't recognize our marriage. We will have to have a third ceremony if the law in whatever state we move to next requires it. We have to do everything someone in an opposite-gender couple has to do, plus more, in order to get fewer legal rights, responsibilities, and protections.
I am frustrated and hurt because our wonderful wedding, with our beloved families, friends, and community, is not visible in this process, might as well not have happened for all it matters to anyone involved with our civil union.
And there are all these well-meaning straight people who are excited for me.
The mayor agreed to our pared-down ceremony.
Who knows how I will actually feel when we go back to Boro Hall again for our civil union ceremony and when our friends take us out to lunch. Maybe my anger will be tempered by pleasure and even some joy.
I'll try to let you know, gentle readers.
In the meantime, we'd certainly appreciate your holding us, our witnesses, the mayor, and her staff in the Light.
And everyone facing discrimination.
And everyone working to end discrimination.
My wife and I recently moved to New Jersey for her work. After we arrived, I started researching NJ's domestic partnership and civil union laws.
For same-gender couples, NJ offers everything but marriage: the law is exactly the same as for opposite-gender couples, with one major exception: "civil union" rather than "marriage." There is one application, whether you're applying for a civil union license or a marriage license; it has spaces for "Applicant A" and "Applicant B." The federal government won't recognize a NJ civil union, and other states might or might not, but the state of NJ can't control that. NJ is fairly unusual in that, if you've had a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or anything similar in another jurisdiction, you can transfer it to NJ, as long as it offers the same benefits and responsibilities as a NJ civil union, instead of having to dissolve it and re-register; although, if it didn't offer the same state-level legal protection, you do have to dissolve it and re-register. But to transfer it, you still have to fill out the paperwork ("Re-Affirmation of Civil Union"), unlike a straight married couple who moves to NJ.
It seems like the NJ civil union is as close as you can come without it being marriage.
Interesting, I thought. I wonder if we want to do this?
When we were first married, five-plus years ago, we asked ourselves if we should take advantage of our city's relatively new domestic partnership law -- especially since I'd been peripherally involved with the campaign, and since the former head of City Council, who'd opposed it vehemently, was now the mayor, and would have to sign it. Heh. Reading the law and the application left a bad taste in our mouths: it had second-class citizenship written all over it. We recycled the paperwork.
When we embarked on this itinerant phase of our lives for Beloved Wife's job, we moved to another city that turned out to have a domestic partnership law. What's more, we were required to register as domestic partners if I was going to be on her insurance -- the same way opposite-gender couples were required to marry if an opposite-gender spouse was going to be on the employee's insurance. Reading the law and the application, we found, to our surprise, no bad taste in our mouths: the city ordinance spoke of the diversity in our community, and of the need to protect all families.
We did have to giggle, though. The 2-foot by 3-foot, hand-calligraphed and hand-illustrated certificate, with our wedding promises, our signatures, and the signatures of more than 200 witnesses, never got us a legal thing. The 8 1/2-by-11 computer-generated certificate (not even the signatures were "live") with the shiny gold seal on it got me legal access to my wife's health insurance. We put the city certificate in our file cabinet for future reference; our Quaker wedding certificate hangs on our living room wall.
The following year, the voters of that state passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman, and making domestic partner benefits illegal (including my insurance coverage). My wife's employer, along with the city we lived in and many other employers in the state, found ways to insure "other adults" while being in full compliance with the law. I retained my health insurance, so did many other adults, and most importantly, so did many children: the new amendment put second-parent adoptions in jeopardy, and a lot of kids were in danger of losing coverage if they were on a non-birth parent's insurance.
We moved again; last year, we lived in a state with a very, very good domestic partnership law. Still not marriage, but nearly everything-but-marriage. We did not feel any leading or need to register: my wife's employer did not require us to; that state doesn't have income tax; we were going to be there for a year; this was an area with a very good record of honoring powers of attorney and other legal paperwork for same-gender couples.
But now we've moved to a state with a good civil union law, in an area with a mixed record of honoring powers of attorney and other legal paperwork. We're going to be here longer; we both have medical issues; we're thinking about kids.
All good reasons, but I was still doubtful. In my head, anyway. Someplace else, deep down, I had a very strong feeling about registering a civil union.
We've talked about getting legally married in Massachusetts or Canada. We've talked about domestic partnership and civil union and everything-but-marriage laws in other states. And I have felt very clearly that I am not willing to settle for second-best, for nearly-but-not-quite equal.
So, one, it has to be marriage. Not domestic partnership, not civil union. It has to be the same thing regardless of the gender of my partner, the same thing as it is for opposite-gender couples. And two, it has to be recognized by the federal government. Even if we were married legally in MA or Canada, our marriage would not be honored fully in the United States. Some states would recognize it; some wouldn't; they'd pretty much get to choose. We'd still pay federal income tax on my health insurance as "taxable income." We'd still have to carry powers of attorney -- and add our everything-but-marriage license -- when we traveled.
But...
I went back and looked at the law here in NJ again. It's still everything-but-marriage. It's still not federally recognized, like opposite-gender marriages are.
But, I had a strong feeling that we need to register our civil union.
I'm not sure if it's an actual leading or not. Would it feel this uncomfortable if it wasn't? Perhaps it's just a good idea, and perhaps not-quite-equality is not a good reason not to take advantage of the legal protections we do have.
I brought it up to Beloved Wife, and she agreed. Here's what she says:
"One of the things that is infuriating about marriage law in the U.S. is the blurring between religious and civil marriage. True separation of church and state would mean that the state recognized civil partnerships between same or opposite-gender couples, and if a couple wanted then they could also have a religious ceremony. Really, I think that if the New Jersey situation for same-sex couples were as good in real life as it is on paper, it should be the nationwide situation for all couples. It leaves a sour taste first because it's separate and almost-but-not-quite-equal (not all employers provide equal benefits, and some civil partners have had difficulties with health providers), within NJ vis-a-vis marriage, and because of all of the ways that our partnership won't be recognized outside of NJ or by the feds."
So, we printed out the application. I filled out the parts for Applicant A while she was cooking dinner. She filled out the parts for Applicant B while I cleaned up after dinner. We called the parents of some dear friends, who live nearby, and asked if they would be our witnesses. They would be honored, they said, and in fact, they sounded excited. We figured out a date when one of them could go with us to Boro Hall to apply for the license; I called the Boro Hall and made an appointment with the Registrar's/Health Department to fill out our application and pay our $28. ($3 stays with the Boro; $25 goes to the local domestic violence shelter.)
I had a question about something, though: on the application, you have to provide information about when the ceremony will take place. We already had a ceremony, it just wasn't legally binding. The clerk and I talked it through, and the conclusion she came to was: Yes, in order for this to be legally binding, you have to have another ceremony. She gave me the phone numbers of a judge and of the mayor for us to call.
For another ceremony.
Reading the applicable material carefully, it does look like the ceremony is necessary to make this legally binding. We can't just get someone official to sign our license, even with us present and in front of witnesses. There has to be a freaking ceremony. "Do you, Stasa..."
We had our appointment at the Registrar's/Health Department Office to fill out the application. (Both our friends came, and tossed a coin to decide who would sign the application as witness.) Then we trudged down to the Mayor's Office to find out if she could perform our civil union ceremony.
No, we didn't have a date picked out. What would be convenient for her? No, we don't have a time picked out. When would be convenient for her? Our flexibility both puzzled and inconvenienced the poor aide to the mayor. The four of us -- Beloved Wife and our two witnesses -- picked out a proposed date. The aide continued down the form to questions about the ceremony: Anyone giving either party away? Single ring, double ring, no ring? How many people present? How large a wedding party?
We've already had a religious ceremony, we explained. We just want something nice and simple.
Well, I'll fill this out and give it to the bailiff, and we'll call you and let you know if the mayor agrees to do your ceremony and if she's available on this date at this time.
We could do another day or time if it doesn't, I offered.
If this doesn't work, you can talk about it when we call, she said. I have to put down a date and time.
Ah, bureaucracy.
As we were leaving, our friends offered, If she can't do it, we know one of our ministers would. (They're members of the Unitarian Universalist Church in our town.)
Well, for that, we could probably get someone from the Meeting here, I said. But I don't think it would feel right to have anyone religious do it. We already had our religious wedding, in our former Meeting (the same year as their son and daughter-in-law; in fact, we were in each other's weddings). To have a religious officiant feels like invalidating our wedding, or acting like it never happened. It would feel like a violation of the Testimony of Integrity. I think we just want it to be civil. Beloved Wife nodded.
To their credit, that made sense to our friends, and we could tell they were a little troubled by it.
A few days later, the mayor's aide called, sounding perky and excited. Genuinely so. "Hi, it's So-and-So from the Mayor's Office, calling about your wedding. Mayor So-and-So has agreed to perform your civil union ceremony on thus-and-such date and time. Now, I'll mail you a copy of the ceremony she uses, and you can edit it and mail it back to me."
(Here's a cool thing: the mayor does not accept honoraria for weddings or civil unions. She asks for a donation to the domestic violence shelter instead, and provides their information and an envelope addressed to them.)
We called our friends: Does this date and time work for you? Yes, we'll be there. And we'd like to take you out to lunch afterwards, if we may.
Sigh. Is everyone involved more excited about this than I am?
It's a small town; the envelope arrived the next day. The ceremony was a variation on the standard Do you, lawfully-joined, in sickness and in health, hard times and easy, til death do you part.
We thought about it. We talked about it. We sat down together and worked it out. We went through every part of it, asking, Can we say this? We tried them out on each other. Does this work?
Does this feel honest and true?
And in the end, we couldn't repeat any part of our Quaker wedding promises. In part, because someone will be pronouncing us, and that is just not compatible with Quaker marriage. It would be lying to repeat that in front of the mayor and have her pronounce us. Part of it is also because we've already said those promises, and while we may (and do!) repeat them to each other, it can't ever be on command. Part of it is that it feels like lying to repeat them as part of another ceremony after which we somehow have a different status.
And some of it is about separation of church and state. We've had our religious wedding. This is purely and completely about civil law.
We found we couldn't repeat any part of the mayor's proposed ceremony that duplicated the wedding we'd already had.
I, in particular, found I didn't want any part of the ceremony to have any significance that wasn't purely legal. So what we said had to be in the service of the civil union contract, with the mayor pronouncing the contract as now in effect, as now legally-binding and legally-recognized.
We felt good about the edits we came up with. They felt right.
We weren't sure what the Mayor's Office would think.
I dropped the edits by the Mayor's Office, and it turns out in-person was a good thing. The clerk was definitely taken aback. I don't know if she'll be willing to do something so short; I mean, this will take five minutes...
Yes, I said. We want something very simple. She blinked. We've already had a religious ceremony, I added. She blinked again.
I understand, she said, I just don't know if the mayor will be personally comfortable... she trailed off.
I decided to try to explain, a little. I explained that we're Quakers, that we had a Quaker wedding, that to repeat those vows could be a violation of the Testimony of Integrity, that...
I could tell she didn't get the "Quaker" or "Testimony of Integrity" part; but she got the "religious reasons" and "violation" part. Her expression changed, became a little less strained, a little less puzzled. She pulled out a Post-It, put it on the sheet, and started a note to the mayor.
I'll tell her it's for religious reasons. I think she'll be fine with it, but I'll call you tomorrow and let you know.
I thanked her and left.
I felt torn.
I called her later and said, We can bring information about our Quaker wedding with us if that will help the mayor feel more comfortable. No, no, you don't need to do that, she said, I'll talk to her and I'll call you back tomorrow.
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. Our friends, and these strangers in the Boro Hall, from the registrar and the registrar's clerk to the mayor's aide to the mayor, are clearly and genuinely happy for a same-gender couple to be getting the closest thing currently possible to equal rights. They don't get many same-gender couples -- when I went back and said I was there to proof my civil union license, I didn't even have to give my name; we're the only same-gender couple in process right now. But not one person has stuttered, looked flustered at the two-women-thing or the civil union thing, not one person has even asked me about my future husband. So on some level, they get it; I can tell.
I don't want to come across as disrespectful of the mayor, of our friends, of anyone involved. And I'm glad that I'm about to get a level of legal protection I've never had.
But this thing by which we're getting nearly-equal rights?
It's discriminatory.
And that makes this whole situation infuriating.
It's discriminatory because it doesn't grant us equal rights. We won't be legally married. Even in this state, there are employers and hospitals which grant certain benefits and privileges to married couples but which don't recognize civil unions, because they're not marriages. There are no federal benefits or responsibilities: my taxes will still be whacked, and if Beloved Wife dies next week, I still won't be able to collect her social security.
It's discriminatory because we are required to have another ceremony. And if we move to another place where this civil union isn't recognized, we will have to dissolve this civil union and, if we have to have a ceremony to make whatever they offer (if anything) legally-binding, we will have to have another ceremony. And the same thing again if we move again, which we might well have to for my wife's work. How many times will we have to do this? I have F/friends who keep a spreadsheet of their legal unions.
As my mathematician friend Deb says, 1st wedding + N, where N>0, is discriminatory. Opposite-gender couples do not have to go through this.
And so, I am furious.
I have to have a second ceremony because of the gender of my partner. I have to have a second ceremony because the state we lived in when we got married didn't recognize our marriage. We will have to have a third ceremony if the law in whatever state we move to next requires it. We have to do everything someone in an opposite-gender couple has to do, plus more, in order to get fewer legal rights, responsibilities, and protections.
I am frustrated and hurt because our wonderful wedding, with our beloved families, friends, and community, is not visible in this process, might as well not have happened for all it matters to anyone involved with our civil union.
And there are all these well-meaning straight people who are excited for me.
The mayor agreed to our pared-down ceremony.
Who knows how I will actually feel when we go back to Boro Hall again for our civil union ceremony and when our friends take us out to lunch. Maybe my anger will be tempered by pleasure and even some joy.
I'll try to let you know, gentle readers.
In the meantime, we'd certainly appreciate your holding us, our witnesses, the mayor, and her staff in the Light.
And everyone facing discrimination.
And everyone working to end discrimination.
Monday, October 19, 2009
More on marriage equality
I found myself writing recently, a little unexpectedly, about some of my experiences with marriage inequality, and why marriage equality matters when it comes to real-life, practical details.
Well, I'm finding myself even deeper, more face-to-face, with marriage inequality right now, and it's very, very frustrating.
I'm a reluctant marriage equality advocate, let me admit that.
For most of my adult life, I have had two big issues with marriage. One is that marriage is not necessarily good for women. In terms of mental health, quality of life, economics, and other areas, the research is pretty clear on this, and has been for many years. Yes, for many women, marriage is beneficial; but when you aggregate very large amounts of data, marriage is not necessarily or by definition good for women overall.
My other issue has been about the separation of church and state, about the little-understood difference between religious and civil (or legal) marriage, and about how minority religions are treated differentially under the law (even though we're not supposed to be).
Most people simply don't understand the difference between religious marriage and civil, or legal, marriage; to borrow a phrase from Bishop Gene Robinson, the difference between religious rites and civil rights: where each happens; who performs each.
But in the 21 years that I have been out of the closet as a lesbian, all the practical ways in which my life is more difficult and so many of the ways in which I am legally not afforded equal protection under the law keep coming together in this sharp point of marriage inequality.
And then, on top of it, the Goddess called me not just to be in a committed partnership, but to be in a marriage.
So, between those two things, here I am, a marriage equality advocate.
I know there are people who think civil marriage is the be-all and end-all of equal rights for LGBTQ people. Um, no. Civil marriage for same-gender couples will not keep my trans friends from being fired or being evicted for being trans, or address any of the other kinds of inequality lesbians, gay men, bisexual women and men, transgender women and men, and queer women and men face.
But yes, marriage equality matters. It matters for both symbolic and practical reasons. It matters because oppressions are connected: I earn less as a woman; my family earns less because the two adults in it are both women; we lose money every year because we pay extra taxes on my health insurance and because we have to pay extra money for legal paperwork -- powers of attorney, wills -- to achieve some of the legal protections as opposite-gender couples. Does this matter next to homelessness? I've been homeless, and I've done case management with homeless folks, and shit, yes, it matters. For people living paycheck-to-paycheck, that tax burden at the end of the year can mean missing a rent or mortgage payment, paying taxes instead of groceries or utilities, or other such impossible choices. These are exactly the kinds of things that lead people to lose housing -- to become homeless.
(For more information: The New York Times had a very good article recently on the literal additional costs with being in a same-gender couple: The Higher Lifetime Costs of Being a Gay Couple. They also had an article pointing out the complete ridiculousness of our patchwork of same-gender marriage laws, as evidenced by a Texas couple who would have to move back to Massachusetts for a year in order to get divorced.)
So, no: marriage equality is not a white, middle-class luxury. It's a basic right. It's not the ultimate proof of equality under the law, but it's absolutely an important, essential milestone on the way for full equality for LGBTQ citizens.
And I, for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of this unequal bullshit.
Well, I'm finding myself even deeper, more face-to-face, with marriage inequality right now, and it's very, very frustrating.
I'm a reluctant marriage equality advocate, let me admit that.
For most of my adult life, I have had two big issues with marriage. One is that marriage is not necessarily good for women. In terms of mental health, quality of life, economics, and other areas, the research is pretty clear on this, and has been for many years. Yes, for many women, marriage is beneficial; but when you aggregate very large amounts of data, marriage is not necessarily or by definition good for women overall.
My other issue has been about the separation of church and state, about the little-understood difference between religious and civil (or legal) marriage, and about how minority religions are treated differentially under the law (even though we're not supposed to be).
Most people simply don't understand the difference between religious marriage and civil, or legal, marriage; to borrow a phrase from Bishop Gene Robinson, the difference between religious rites and civil rights: where each happens; who performs each.
But in the 21 years that I have been out of the closet as a lesbian, all the practical ways in which my life is more difficult and so many of the ways in which I am legally not afforded equal protection under the law keep coming together in this sharp point of marriage inequality.
And then, on top of it, the Goddess called me not just to be in a committed partnership, but to be in a marriage.
So, between those two things, here I am, a marriage equality advocate.
I know there are people who think civil marriage is the be-all and end-all of equal rights for LGBTQ people. Um, no. Civil marriage for same-gender couples will not keep my trans friends from being fired or being evicted for being trans, or address any of the other kinds of inequality lesbians, gay men, bisexual women and men, transgender women and men, and queer women and men face.
But yes, marriage equality matters. It matters for both symbolic and practical reasons. It matters because oppressions are connected: I earn less as a woman; my family earns less because the two adults in it are both women; we lose money every year because we pay extra taxes on my health insurance and because we have to pay extra money for legal paperwork -- powers of attorney, wills -- to achieve some of the legal protections as opposite-gender couples. Does this matter next to homelessness? I've been homeless, and I've done case management with homeless folks, and shit, yes, it matters. For people living paycheck-to-paycheck, that tax burden at the end of the year can mean missing a rent or mortgage payment, paying taxes instead of groceries or utilities, or other such impossible choices. These are exactly the kinds of things that lead people to lose housing -- to become homeless.
(For more information: The New York Times had a very good article recently on the literal additional costs with being in a same-gender couple: The Higher Lifetime Costs of Being a Gay Couple. They also had an article pointing out the complete ridiculousness of our patchwork of same-gender marriage laws, as evidenced by a Texas couple who would have to move back to Massachusetts for a year in order to get divorced.)
So, no: marriage equality is not a white, middle-class luxury. It's a basic right. It's not the ultimate proof of equality under the law, but it's absolutely an important, essential milestone on the way for full equality for LGBTQ citizens.
And I, for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of this unequal bullshit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)