What's new?
Well, Kucinich is for gay marriage. But that's neither a big surprise nor a great victory - Carol Moseley Braun was too, and look what happened to her.
Obama, Clinton and Edwards all support civil unions and use the exact same "logic."
"[Civil unions] wouldn't be a lesser thing, from my perspective," Obama said. "Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I'm interested in is making sure that those legal rights are available to people."
I would have hoped that a man in a racial minority might be more sensitive to terminology and labels, but alas no. And we can see thanks to The Star Ledger that the whole civil unions thing isn't working out so well. Gay couples who got civil unions can't file their taxes jointly this year since they only just got unionized (or whatever the verb is). Of course, that's not the only way to look at it, which at least some judges realize:
While agreeing with the decision, Judge Edwin Stern filed a separate opinion expressing reservations about denying the couple's rights. A heterosexual couple living in New Jersey who were married in another state or nation before the end of 2006 would be allowed to file jointly, he noted.
In fact, the couple who sued (even though it meant they would pay more in taxes - you've gotta respect that) were already married! But it was in Canada, and so doesn't count in New Jersey. Why not? Because New Jersey has civil unions, not marriages! The New York Times also reported how New Jersey's unions weren't working so well. Right now it's a Times Select article you have to pay for, but rumor has it that they'll be doing away with that feature soon. Since you (probably) can't read it, here are some highlights. They require no comment from me, but if you don't feel like reading I'll just sum it up: civil unions are not equal to marriages.
Nickie Brazier called U.P.S., where she is a driver, to add Heather Aurand to her health insurance the day after their Feb. 22 civil union in New Jersey, knowing it would save them $340 a month. But U.P.S. said no. “They said it was because we’re not married,” Ms. Brazier recalled.
Dr. Kevin Slavin was able to sign his partner up for the health plan at the hospital where he specializes in pediatric infectious diseases but soon learned that both men’s benefits would be treated as taxable income — not the case for his married coworkers — and that his partner could not collect his pension if Dr. Slavin died.
...
Then there are cases like that of the lesbian who was told that she was likely to be denied coverage for a mammogram after she added her partner to her insurance. The insurance company changed the employee’s designation to male since there was no spot on its forms for “civil union spouse.”
...
As Thomas H. Prol, co-chairman of the New Jersey Bar Association’s committee on gay issues, put it, “The word’s starting to spread that civil unions aren’t working in the real world.”
...
Merissa Muench of Mount Olive, N.J., said her employer of seven years, a medical sterilization office where she is a technician, told her the company did not cover civil union partners.
“Civil union couples will most likely be treated as if they are single for purposes of qualifying for Medicaid, which can jeopardize the couple’s home if one partner needs nursing home care,” Mr. Hyland said.
3 comments:
I'm frankly not satisfied with any of the candidates on this other than Kucinich, and while that he is cool in a number of ways we must accept that he's not getting the nomination. (I'd really like to think that whoever gets elected makes him secretary of something!)
Obama's answer to the "separate but equal" question was a dodge. Clinton says that it should be decided state by state -- another dodge. Edwards (who I favor so far overall) also dodges. His wife is publicly all for supporting the full freedom to marry -- I want her to keep working on him until he sees the light!
And thanks for your examples on the clear inequality of civil unions. Married means the same thing in all 50 states, but civil union means something completely different wherever you go. How is that possibly fair?
The one good thing of all this is how public this debate was, and how all the dem candidates participated. I can't imagine that happening 10 years ago.
i don't know, i guess i think that it just doesn't seem realistic for any candidate who is serious about running for the white house to openly support gay marriage at this point. when such a large majority of the country is not only opposed to this idea, but militantly so, it would be political suicide - to a degree - for a serious candidate to support gay marriage.
i feel like in order to be a viable candidate - in the public's-eye system that this country runs on - you have to pick and choose your battles. i can't imagine that obama or clinton have any personal misgivings about gay marriage, but it's just not wise, at this point, to voice those opinions openly.
i don't know, part of me feels that the theory on which this country was founded is just like any theory, sometimes it doesn't pan out in practical application. it's all well and good to declare that all men are created equal, but doesn't work when the proviso is tacked on that this is only the case if everyone else (or at least a majority) feels this way as well. plus, i don't think we've ever shaken off our puritan past in that we live in an overwhelmingly conservative society over two hundred years later. i guess that's always hard for me to remember living so close to new york and working at the gayest college to ever gay (except maybe smith). as sad as it is, part of me would be surprised if this country ever reached a point at which gay marriage was fine and dandy.
also, i read that article in the new york times and it made me want to scream. there needs to be some sort of nation-wide understanding of civil unions, as there is with marriage. if you don't want to call it a marriage, fine, but at least make sure everyone is calling it, and treating it like, the same thing.
If there was a realistic candidate (one who had a reasonable chance of being elected, and more importantly of being able to work with Congress after election) who supported gay marriage, it would probably be the deciding factor for me. Unfortunately, there aren't any (although hooray for Elizabeth Edwards!). This sucks, but I can't just wish for a magic electable pro-marriage candidate to exist.
(Although I do feel sort of guilty for the fact that I'm about to move from a happy gay marriage state to a domestic partnership state. Ah well, hopefully we'll fix that soon enough.)
Post a Comment