Civil Union (i.e. Vermont, ...)

[snookums]

I just got back from a lovely lesbian health conference in Vermont. Our only nonmedical presentation was given by a very accomplished, young woman attorney who was one of the lawyers who helped bring the case for same sex civil unions to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Spending time in Burlington, I really got a feel for how important this issue is for everyone, even for single people such as myself!

It's unfortunate that with the Vermont elections this fall, there is a chance that civil unions may no longer be available to same sex couples in Vermont.

Though I think the establishment of civil unions is tremendous, it is unfortunate that they are not recognized in all states. Additionally, it is truly sad that they are not recognized on a federal level. One important implication, for example, is spousal pension benefits. I could be with my partner for forty years, and when I die, she would not be able to have one penny of my pension. Pathetic, indeed.

I feel like I am living in a weird historic time, where someday we'll all look back (probably long after I'm gone from the Earth) and be dumbfounded that only "certain" Americans had the special right to marry. Maybe with the same sense of amazement I feel when I realize that I live in a country where interracial marriage was not allowed until, really, fairly recently! Ack!

Yesterday, I felt sadness when I heard an acquaintance talk (in a public setting) about someplace she and her "roommate" were going. See, this woman is gay, and she and her partner have been together for many, many years. It is sad that someone should feel so compelled to refer to their closest loved one by the cold and distanced term "roommate".

How affirming would it be for a hetero woman of HER relationship with HER spouse to refer to her husband as her roommate ? Language says a lot.

Anyway, I think this is a tremendously important civil rights issue (rather than a gay/lesbian issue specifically), and I have plenty more to say about it, but I am curious about the thoughts of others.

How do you think it affects all Americans and citizens of the world? What does it teach our children about equality and value of all people? And whatever else you have to share ~

Discuss.............

[snookums]

:bounce

[kb]

Hey, thanks for bringing this topic up.
I admit that i lean to more hetero (okay, i probably should just say that i'm bi), so i don't feel quite as committed to the civil union issue as people who definitely see it as effecting the quality of their life (possibly).
I understand why it is important for benefits and legality and also in the case of when partners have children and then the partners break up and the non-biological mother or - in the case of men together - father has NO rights.
I do pause, however, about the fact that marriage is such a heterosexual and religious institution. Not that "homosexual" and "religious" are exclusive of each other (as we've seen within the catholic church - oops, sorry, different topic!). But why try to conform to this particular model?
YES, i don understand the 'whys' for legal reasons. But why not change the laws regarding domestic partnership rather marriage?

[buttercup_fairie]

this post got my attention because my sister is gay and i'm living in vermont so whenever she's here visiting, we always end up talking about how one day she's going to get married up here since she can :supergrin

i think that keeping civil unions around is a major thing. we wouldn't be getting anywhere without it since it'd be telling the younger generations that it's wrong. cause isn't that the message that we'd be sending if civil unions were made unavailable? i thought it was so cool that vermont was the first state that allowed it but if they stop allowing it, we'll be taking a major step back.

whenever my sister talks about marriage and being able to get married, i'm happy for her and the thought of her not being able to get married makes me sad and mad at the same time. those are just my thoughts :bounce

[ediblewoman]

This is one of those questions...ugh. I just don't know where to begin. There is the argument that marriage is an antiquated and religious ideal that has no place in the law of the land in the first place. And that gay couples, instead of seeking legal marriage, should be working to change the standard that says only married couples are "legitimate."

But then, that's the whole point, isn't it? Legitimacy. Respect for our love, protection for our families, recognition that we are not aberrant, perverse, or subversive, but just people who feel love and loss like anyone else. I have a raging maternal instinct (so I'm a nanny, until I figure out how to get a family of my own), and a mother who has been planning my wedding since I was five, so I tend to be in the camp that wants domestic partnerships recognized.

And as liberal (and gay) as Minneapolis is, we have all those rural voters who will never (it seems) even consider legalizing same-sex marriage. The big battle lately has been over domestic partner benefits for state workers. I hate that.

edible woman

[drsharky]

Hear, hear, edible.
I live in the state from whence came our President... and on this point, what a hypocrite he is!
In Texas, a hetero couple can declare themselves civilly married after just ******** hours. That entitles them to all kinds of things, from dependent status on health insurance, to Crown Room privileges from airlines, to sports club memberships, and especially to rights like helping to make key medical decisions in a hospital.
When I came to Texas and was filling out my benefits package, I thought, "what the heck, I'll just ask"-- and I asked the benefits coordinator at my place of work if I wasn't married, could I put someone else down as a dependent on my health insurance plan? She said "yes, you just have to be able to answer yes to the following questions:
****. Do you live in the same household?
****. Do you share household expenses and responsibilities?
****. Do you present yourselves as a couple to the community?
When I answered yes to all those questions, she said "OK, then put *his* name here in these blanks." I pointed out that this was a same-sex relationship, and right away the benefits woman said, "Oh, no... NO... absolutely not. You can't claim THAT PERSON on your forms." I pointed out that I could answer yes to all of her questions, and suggested that she was misleading at the least and downright discriminatory at worst-- because she extends paid benefits to those who pay into the system, and yet she is saying I am not eligible for the same services.
Long way around saying it, but facts are facts. If people don't want to use the word "married" for a loving, committed, relationship of years, so be it. And I'm offended by the statements about Catholics, kb... I really get upset at people who conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. But this is a matter of money and of equal access to key services. I have had to deal with serious medical emergencies with my partner in the hospital, and you would not believe the crap we have to go through just to get me back there! When they say sternly, "are you family?" I simply say YES-- partly as a play on the popular term for us in the LGBT community, but partly because that is what I consider us to be. Anyone who tries to suggest otherwise and who wants to deny equal access to benefits and services that others are entitled to is supporting institutional discrimination. If you don't like it, go home and deal with your own relationship, but let me have the person who loves me and accepts me and who I come home to every night.
That's my input on the subject. Time for me to hop off the soapbox for now!
s

[snookums]

Thank you everyone for your thoughts. DrSharky, although I am not surprised at what your university told you, I am fully appalled.

Buttercup, your sister is lucky to have such a supportive sister!

kb and ediblewoman, I understand where you're coming from regarding conforming to the "marriage model". This affects me personally because I am single, and may remain so forever (who knows - it would not surprise me in the least).

Anyway, it really bothers me in relation to certain "benefits" of society: for example, a legally married person can get on their spouse's health insurance policy, simply due to their spousal status. When I was self employed, I was unable to buy a health insurance policy at ANY price because I had a PRIOR history of major depression, and no company was willing to insure me. However, if I was married, I could have tacked myself on to my spouse's group policy.

As you may imagine, this pissed me off. With the example of health insurance, I don't think someone's ability to get health insurance should depend on them being married to someone who works for a company who offers group health insurance. It's absurd. I am not my spouse's property.

If I was in love with someone I wanted to be my partner for life, I would want to have some sort of actual ceremony (?wedding) and formalize our commitment, though I'd have to do some further thinking about what sort of legal entanglements I'd want to involve myself in. Certainly, I"d want my partner to be my medical power of attorney, etc, but that can be accomplished without marriage. Heck, I could choose my next door neighbor to be my medical POA.

Anyhow, I do dislike somewhat the idea of marriage as a "standard". Maybe it's because I"m terminally single and I live in a society where everything (be in gay, straight or inbetween) is "couple-oriented". There are so many benefits afforded to couples - and I don't mean simply financial or insurance benefits, but a lot of social and societal benefits.

Maybe I wouldn't notice it this much (or even feel this way) if I were partnered.

[snookums]

Oh, and sometimes I think it's a bit sad that more straight people don't have more thoughts on this issue.

This doesn't just affect queers. Although we may or may not care for the institution of marriage (be it opposite or samesex marrage), I think it's probably easier to start with addressing the inequities that exist between gays and straights in relation to marriage, then to attempt to change the mindset of a nation through dismantling marriage as the "standard".

Some may disagree, but I think fundamentally the civil union issue is a human rights issue, and for that reason, I am saddened that more people in general (straight folks....) don't think deeply about this. It DOES affect them. When one groups' rights are being abridged, ALL people are affected (and as it's been said in the past, no one then truly has freedom.)

[smileagain]

this is one of the most frustrating things for me...

i love my partner deeply, and we have every intention of spending our lives together, YET we can't get married.

at the moment, our biggest problem is since we can not get married i am not eligble for claiming independent on my FAFSA forms which is truly hurting me finacially.

regardless, the major hinderence against legalizing same-sex marrige in the USA is if the majority starts giving us more support.

maybe if "president" bush remembered that his VP's daughter was on the other side of the fence he would get his act together.

[drsharky]

Snookums, I think this affects straights a lot more than some have suggested thus far.
Some straight people simply don't want to get married (for lots of reasons), but they want to affirm a lasting relationship and they want to receive benefits that might be associated with that union (like health insurance and so on). Sounds to me exactly like what we are talking about here. Yet for those straight folks who dislike the institution of marriage (or the legal mumbo jumbo that goes along with it) a civil union would help them. Still, in some states (like Texas) all they have to do is SAY they are in a civil union, and that is legally acceptable as far as I understand it. ARGH.
And you're right. I did not expect the benefits people to give my partner benefits, but I did want to press the issue. I also did not expect such disrespectful treatment at the hands of the HR coordinator. So it goes.
s