Separate and Unequal
Dec. 17th, 2009 01:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wlotusYesterday afternoon, after burning my brain out by studying for too many consecutive hours, I did some research on civil unions vs. marriage. Though I am an advocate for same-sex marriage, I did not know why other advocates insisted civil unions were not simply marriage under another name. Opponents of same-sex marriage have claimed civil unions give the same protections as marriage, so same-sex couples should accept that and leave the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Just a quick read, though, convinced me marriage equality advocates are right to be so adamant.
Legal marriage is a federally protected condition. No matter what state in the United States you travel to, your marriage and your rights therein are protected. You are admitted without question (and without the need to show legal paperwork) to your loved one's side when they are hospitalized. You have the right to claim their body and their estate (barring a will stating otherwise) when they die. If your employer offers family coverage under their benefits plan, you are entitled to said coverage without question. Whether living in or temporarily traveling through a state, these and other rights and protections follow you.
Civil unions, on the other hand, are recognized only on the state level. (Even worse, domestic partnerships are recognized only on the local level.) That means that as you travel to/through states, the rights and protections over your committed, life-partnership will vary...or even disappear. If you want any hope of legally protecting your union, you must carry legal paperwork with you to prove your partner has the right to make decisions about your healthcare and operate as power of attorney in the event of a medical emergency. Even with this paperwork, hospital employees may or may not give you the access you are entitled to, and a (lengthy, expensive) legal challenge may not go your way, as a surviving partner and their children recently found out in a Florida case. You must have a will (which can be contested by hateful family members, by the way) stating your partner has the right to claim your estate, in the event of your death. Even in states that recognize civil unions, you can be denied coverage under your partner's benefits, depending on the laws in that state and how an individual employer chooses to interpret said law. (This has happened in NJ, where civil unions are legally recognized.) You can be denied the right to claim your partner's body in the event of their death. And even if you have all of those rights in your state, if you are in another state when these issues arise, even if you were just passing through on your way to work, school, or vacation, those rights do not follow you across state lines, as each state makes its own decision about whether and how to recognize your relationship with your partner.
In short, your rights are fluid, based on the whims of whatever state you happen to be in at that moment. I wonder how many heterosexual couples would be okay with their rights and their relationships being treated that way.
In the 100 or so years between the end of American slavery and my birth, religious and socially conservative people used their interpretations of nature and the Bible to justify separation of the races and a lack of protection, respect, and recognition for interracial marriages. Just like justice eventually prevailed, allowing civil rights and marriage equality in those cases, I have to believe the same thing will happen in the case of civil rights and marriage equality for same-sex-loving people. It is common sense: anything less than full equality simply does not match the last few lines of our pledge to our flag, "with liberty and justice for ALL." That kind of injustice cannot stand the test of time. We as a nation have proven it already, and I believe we shall prove it, again.
I have to believe it, or I will be forced to no longer believe in my country.
Well, it looks like the copy of this post that was lost in the ether finally arrived...3 hours later! I've deleted the duplicate.
Legal marriage is a federally protected condition. No matter what state in the United States you travel to, your marriage and your rights therein are protected. You are admitted without question (and without the need to show legal paperwork) to your loved one's side when they are hospitalized. You have the right to claim their body and their estate (barring a will stating otherwise) when they die. If your employer offers family coverage under their benefits plan, you are entitled to said coverage without question. Whether living in or temporarily traveling through a state, these and other rights and protections follow you.
Civil unions, on the other hand, are recognized only on the state level. (Even worse, domestic partnerships are recognized only on the local level.) That means that as you travel to/through states, the rights and protections over your committed, life-partnership will vary...or even disappear. If you want any hope of legally protecting your union, you must carry legal paperwork with you to prove your partner has the right to make decisions about your healthcare and operate as power of attorney in the event of a medical emergency. Even with this paperwork, hospital employees may or may not give you the access you are entitled to, and a (lengthy, expensive) legal challenge may not go your way, as a surviving partner and their children recently found out in a Florida case. You must have a will (which can be contested by hateful family members, by the way) stating your partner has the right to claim your estate, in the event of your death. Even in states that recognize civil unions, you can be denied coverage under your partner's benefits, depending on the laws in that state and how an individual employer chooses to interpret said law. (This has happened in NJ, where civil unions are legally recognized.) You can be denied the right to claim your partner's body in the event of their death. And even if you have all of those rights in your state, if you are in another state when these issues arise, even if you were just passing through on your way to work, school, or vacation, those rights do not follow you across state lines, as each state makes its own decision about whether and how to recognize your relationship with your partner.
In short, your rights are fluid, based on the whims of whatever state you happen to be in at that moment. I wonder how many heterosexual couples would be okay with their rights and their relationships being treated that way.
In the 100 or so years between the end of American slavery and my birth, religious and socially conservative people used their interpretations of nature and the Bible to justify separation of the races and a lack of protection, respect, and recognition for interracial marriages. Just like justice eventually prevailed, allowing civil rights and marriage equality in those cases, I have to believe the same thing will happen in the case of civil rights and marriage equality for same-sex-loving people. It is common sense: anything less than full equality simply does not match the last few lines of our pledge to our flag, "with liberty and justice for ALL." That kind of injustice cannot stand the test of time. We as a nation have proven it already, and I believe we shall prove it, again.
I have to believe it, or I will be forced to no longer believe in my country.
Well, it looks like the copy of this post that was lost in the ether finally arrived...3 hours later! I've deleted the duplicate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 06:54 pm (UTC)I can't even believe that the debate has lasted this long. But I do really believe that the right will out in this one.
In Europe, everyone has to have a civil marriage. So the legal and religious aspects are clearly delineated. In the middle of our church wedding the priest stops the service, hauls out the civil register, and we sign it with our witnesses. Then the religious blessing takes place. In most countries it's two completely separate ceremonies and the religious one is optional. So a homosexual couple is entitle in almost every country to the SAME civil union that all couples have, and then they can sort out their religious blessing and sacrament in whatever way they choose. The funny thing is that the opening of the civil unions to gay couples was, at least in the UK but even in some of the more conservative countries like Spain, a non-issue. No uproar, no resistance, no backlash. Which is another expression of the reasons why I prefer living here to the US.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 07:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 09:27 pm (UTC)ETA admittedly the difference here is that changes to healthcare would actually IMPACT everyone where changes to marriage laws only impact the ones who get the rights they deserve!
no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 08:48 pm (UTC)Unfortunately, as long as DOMA is still in place, that does not hold for same-sex couples, as far as I know.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 02:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 03:07 am (UTC)I don't care what they call it--"civil unions" or "marriage" or "shacking up with legal benefits"--so long as every couple of any sex has to operate under the same title for their civil ceremony. What they choose to call it in their religious or private conversation isn't important.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 12:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 11:18 pm (UTC)Love your photography btw. :o)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 12:40 am (UTC)