Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Fun with civil unions

Most of my friends and family members just love Barack Obama. They think he's the most progressive candidate we have to offer. They're usually floored when I tell them that he doesn't support gay marriage. Well, in the Visible Vote 2008 special Democratic debate on gay rights, he and all the other Democratic candidates got to clarify their opinions.

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.