A letter I sent to family and friends regarding marriage.  Much of it uses HRC information:

 

 

Dear Family and Friends:

The Congress of the United States proposes to amend the United States Constitution to restrict individual rights for those who are gay or lesbian.  The Federal Marriage Amendment would prohibit the marriage of same-sex persons. George W. Bush endorsed this discriminatory amendment saying on February 24, 2004, "Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Already, The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed under President Clinton’s watch, allows individual states to not recognize gay marriages performed in another state should that state make same-sex marriage lawful.  DOMA also defines marriage as that between a man and a woman.  DOMA finally prevents gay couples in committed relationships from enjoying any federal benefits of marriage offered to straight couples.  These rights include those related to survivorship, Social Security, and inheritance. Of course, the courts may eventually find DOMA to be unconstitutional since the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the United States Constitution requires states to recognize the "acts, records and proceedings" of all other states.  It is this clause that makes it possible for straight couples married in one state to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of marriage should they move to another state. 

Already, almost 40 of the 50 individual states have passed their own version of DOMA and refuse to recognize same-sex marriages should they become lawful in other states or countries.  Ohio, or instance, has one of the most restrictive and far-reaching gay marriage bans in the United States.  In fact, since I am an employee of the State of Ohio, there is a very real possibility that I will not be able to name Charles as the beneficiary of any of my retirement benefits should I die first.  Only one state, Vermont, comes close to granting many state rights to gay couples.  Civil unions such as those in Vermont, however, still do not grant any of the 1000-plus federal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by a man and woman who enter into marriage. Civil unions also do not have to be recognized by other states or by the federal government. Finally, as the Supreme Court of Massachusetts so eloquently said when they declared that that state must grant gay marriages, separate but equal is never equal. Civil unions, therefore, are not the same as civil marriage.

We who are gay or lesbian, and we who refuse to support the inclusion of discriminatory language in the Constitution of the United States, need your help. Already federal and state legislation prohibits gays and lesbian couples from enjoying over 1000 rights granted to those couples composed of a man and a woman.  We need your help in our struggle for equal rights. A story—

Charles and I have been in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship for eight years. Yet we are denied many basic rights.  Because we own our house together and the mortgage is in both our names, I had difficulty getting a car loan. Though I have excellent credit, some banks refused me a loan because they would not consider Charles’ income as contributing to our house payment. Had we been granted the same rights as straight-couples, banks would have considered our income jointly.

So, you may ask, why else is the proposed amendment so terrible? You were able to buy your car.  Why might marriage even be something important to those who are gay or lesbian?  For me, most of all, I would like to have the opportunity and the right to say legally and publicly that I love Charles and that I commit myself to him for the rest of my life.   I want to honor our relationship my making our commitment a matter of public record. For me, I also would also like the opportunity to marry since I no longer want to view myself as deserving of second-class citizenship in the United States. I would like to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities granted to other loving couples. 

Here, from a list compiled by the Human Rights Campaign, are just some of the 1000-plus rights Charles and I are now denied because we are gay men:

  • Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital. 
  • Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
  • Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
  • Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
  • Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.
  • Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
  • Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
  • The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.  
  • The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
  • The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death.

I, therefore, urge you to recognize and support our loving, committed relationship by learning more about the federal government’s proposed amendment to the Constitution. I also urge you to register to vote and to take advantage of that right to vote come this November.  Finally, I urge you to vote for those persons who will be more likely to grant equal rights to people like Charles and me. Below are some web-sites that will offer you information and ways to take action against discrimination.

Links:

 

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Marriage Center

Take Action

Petition for Marriage