Civil Marriage = Civil Rights
Frank Woo, a member of Grace Cathedral's Board of Trustees for the past five years, shares his thoughts of "gay marriage" versus civil unions with Dean Alan Jones and puts a human face to a topic that confuses many.
Dear Alan,
Over these many, many years I have grown to admire and respect you deeply.
That respect grew more when you approached me after the board meeting and
asked me to forward more information to you about "gay marriage." It showed
that you truly cared and for you to take your position without a lot of
information showed that it was truly from the heart.
I cannot begin to tell you how relieved I was to hear that you and the
Cathedral support marriage between two adults making a personal commitment
and taking on responsibilities and obligations for each other, regardless of
sexual orientation.
I know that it is inevitable that reporters and the media ask you or the
Bishop for your views on so-called "gay marriages." As I said at the
meeting, my biggest fear is that a statement from the Cathedral or the
Diocese will blur the issue. That is, churches and other religious
institutions will never be required to perform marriage ceremonies with
which they disagree. This will not change with "gay marriages," even
without a constitutional amendment.
The Iraq War statement and the aftermath are still fresh in my mind. I just
hope there's no fallout with the community-at-large or with congregation
members on our stand on "gay marriage." I am always mindful that when I
have these discussions I always point out that a marriage license is a
government-issued contract and that when a couple goes to the County Clerk's
office for a marriage license, religion plays no role. Fortunately, I've
been successful by further pointing out that the U.S. Constitution's
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses make clear that religious
institutions have the freedom and flexibility to choose, without
governmental interference, the types of unions they will solemnize.
Civil Unions versus Marriage
Since I'm on the National Board of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's
largest gay and lesbian advocacy group, I am very familiar with your initial
question of strategy on civil unions versus marriage. While civil unions
are a step forward in ensuring equality, they are not equal to marriage -
they do not provide the same protections, rights, and benefits as marriage.
Civil unions provide only the state-level legal protections provided by
marriage. According to the General Accounting Office, there are over 1,000
other rights, benefits, and protections that are granted to married couples
by the federal government that are not available to couples who are in civil
unions, such as:
- Social Security survivor benefits.
- The right to make medical decisions on a partner's behalf.
- The right to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill
partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and
parents, but not a partner or a partner's parents.
- In the case of death, a spouse can draw on the Social Security of the
deceased husband or wife, automatically inherit a shared home, assets and
personal items in absence of a will, inherit retirement savings tax free,
and be exempt from property tax increases.
- When a spouse dies, marriage entitles the surviving spouse to bereavement
leave from work, to file wrongful death claims and to decide numerous other
legal rights and protections.
- The right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after the
loss of a job.
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
- Spousal privilege protects married couples from being forced to testify
against each other.
Further, civil unions are only available in Vermont and are not recognized
under the laws of other states. For example, Vermont couples in a civil
union who travel across state lines would not always be able to visit each
other in the hospital or make medical decisions for each other in case of an
emergency. Married couples do not face these difficulties.
As you may know, Governor Davis signed AB 205, the Domestic Partner Rights
and Responsibilities Act of 2003, scheduled to go into effect on January 1,
2005. AB 205 has been compared to Vermont's civil unions as AB 205 will now
provide nearly all the legal rights, benefits, responsibilities, duties, and
obligations under State law currently available only to married couples to
registered domestic partners and their families. However, two separate
lawsuits have been filed in an attempt to overturn the law. Also, a ballot
referendum that would require California voters to approve the law is
currently being circulated for signatures. So, it is tough even in
California to fight for civil unions.
Unlike civil unions, which aren't portable, marriages are recognized across
state lines, under the Constitution's full faith and credit clause. If the
question of recognition is left to the states via civil unions, same-sex
couples in some states might not achieve equality for decades. After all,
it wasn't until 2000 that Alabama voters removed laws against interracial
marriage from the state constitution - and that was with a solid 40 percent
voting to keep the law on the books.
Financial Impact
What's frightening to me as I get older is the feeling of less control that
I have over my life and what I've been able to successfully achieve and
retain and ultimately pass on to the most important person in my life. The
report, "The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual
Seniors," found that more than one in 10 same-sex couples include someone
over 65 years old, and nearly one in four include someone over 55 years old.
Since same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, we face tremendous
financial burdens as we get older. The greatest risks are to the "widows"
and "widowers" in three significant ways:
- Unlike married heterosexual couples, surviving same-sex partners are denied Social Security survivor benefits, an average loss of $5,528 each year.
- Surviving partners are routinely forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes when they inherit a retirement plan from an unmarried partner - while married spouses in the same situation are charged no taxes at all.
- A surviving same-sex partner is charged an estate tax on the couple's home - even if the home had been jointly owned.
Gay and lesbian seniors also are at significant risk of losing their home when an elderly partner enters a nursing home. This is because federal Medicaid law permits a married spouse to remain in the couple's home when a husband or wife enters a nursing home. Sadly, it does not grant unmarried couples the same right.
Since same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, lesbian and gay
families are taxed for health benefits provided to their domestic partners.
Saving the Institution of Marriage / Proposed Constitution Amendment
It saddens me to hear fellow Americans say that if we allow "gay marriages,"
we may as well allow polygamists and pedophiles to marry, or to allow a
parent to marry his/her own child. This is probably the one issue that
hurts me the most and I cannot even begin to fathom the comparison.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling on November 18, 2003, and
its reaffirmation a last month informed lawmakers that only marriage -- not
civil unions -- would provide equal protection under the state constitution
to same-sex couples.
What has been a Massachusetts State issue has escalated to the national
spotlight because of politics, not necessarily gay lobbying. It's been
reported in the Washington Post that the president, as a way to "to start
the general election campaign on a fresh issue," has endorsed Colorado Rep.
Marilyn Musgrave's Federal Marriage Amendment.
To have my own President endorse a proposed Constitutional amendment, the
Federal Marriage Amendment, instills great fear since he and others can
easily discuss rewriting the U.S. Constitution to treat one group of
Americans differently from others. Since the Bill of Rights was ratified in
1791, the Constitution has only been amended 17 times. With the exception
of Prohibition, which was repealed, those amendments have been used to expan
d rights.
To know that the proposed amendment's intent is to not just "save marriage,"
but to kick us way back in the closet is frightening. The Musgrave
amendment goes so far as to possibly deny any state legislature or
electorate from ever voting to pass their own state's domestic partnership,
civil union or marriage laws. The courts could be barred from enforcing the
legal protections that a legislature provides through civil union or
domestic partnership laws.
I cannot understand how two same-sex adults in love and ready to commit
themselves to one another can possibly affect any other marriage. What's
scary to me is when kids on a reality show can pick their father's new
bride, without his input. What's scary is when Britney Spears can marry and
have that marriage annulled 55 hours later because they took a "joke too
far." What's scary is there are shows such as "The Littlest Groom," "Joe
Millionaire," "My Big, Fat Obnoxious Fiancée." Where is the outrage to
"save marriage" in these instances?
I think the following excerpt from John Cloud of the current Time Magazine
is perfect in highlighting the disparity and the impact on the Second
Family: "Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 879 makes it illegal
to threaten certain individuals guarded by the Secret Service, including the
President, the Vice President and their families. At first blush, you
wouldn't think the statute has anything to do with the war over gay
marriage. But consider this: that law makes it a federal crime to threaten
the husband of Elizabeth Cheney, one of the Vice President's daughters. But
it does not outlaw threats against the lesbian partner of Mary Cheney, his
younger daughter. Legally speaking, Mary's partner is not a member of the
Vice President's family but, rather, a total stranger to it."
I have attached a brochure produced by the Human Rights Campaign that I found to be extremely useful. I hope you will too.
Thank you for your friendship, compassion, and integrity,
Frank
