--- Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> At a teach-in I went to I was told that there are over 1,040 civil
> rights
> that accrue to heterosexuals when they marry.
>
> In my own life, I was barred from the hospital in which the man I
> was with
> for 10 years (and whom my mother called her third son) was dying of
> AIDS in
> the ICU. We videotaped our wills to make them foolproof.
While all people should have wills, durable powers of attorney, medical directives, burial directives, etc., it is MANDATORY for gay individuals who want someone, other than direct family or the state, to facilitate these matters. Often, gay couples find themselves, like Brian, going to the Nth degree and "papering" their directives as tightly as legally possible. That costs $$$.
But here's another example: My partner covers me and my kids (our kids, but legally, they are "mine" except under her insurance policy, or on every fourth Tuesday when they belong to... get the picture) on her company's healthcare policy, much like her married heterosexual counterparts. There's one difference, though. Unlike married couples, the premium for domestic partner benefits is considered taxable income for which she is assessed and deducted out of each paycheck. The same benefit it more expensive.
I've long felt that insisting upon the word "marriage" instead of pushing for "civil unions" would do nothing more than incite the social conservatives into using "gay marriage" as the next political Willie Horton in the 2004 race, and I think this is what is happening. However, I've also seen how having the "separate but equal" coverage under the much lauded domestic partner benefits scheme has continued a pattern of second-tier citizenship, allowing me to rethink my position on accepting "civil unions" instead of "marriage."
I've heard one solution might be to work towards "civil unions" first, and, upon such success, then argue the case that this is a "separate but equal" interpretation of the law that can only be remedied by promoting civil unions to full-fledged "marriage."
This word, "marriage," causes so many problems (an understatement, if there ever was one). But in looking at the history of the word in the OED, I see a variation that might be the consumate compromise for all involved: "civil marriage." It distinguishes between the religious and the governmental while including, in it's linguistic history, all that is, as pertains to law, "marriage."
Heh, including d-i-v-o-r-c-e.
- Deborah R.
===== “If anybody can come back from the dead and write about it, it’s George Plimpton.” -Kurt Vonnegut, toasting the late literary legend at the Paris Review’s 50th-anniversary bash