Thursday, October 31, 2013

Missouri Fail: Why it Matters

So, a policeman in Missouri was killed in the line of duty.  What happened to his family?
On Christmas Day 2009, Missouri State Trooper, Corporal Dennis Engelhard was hit and killed in the line of duty when a car hit an icy patch and veered out of control. He left behind his partner of 15 years, Kelly Glossip, and Kelly’s son who they were jointly raising. 
The Police and Fireman’s Fund held a fundraiser for the parents, at which they ignored Engelhard’s spouse and child. The State Troopers issued an obituary stating that Engelhard was ‘single’ and the Governor asked people to pray for his family, who who “lost a beloved son and brother.” 
And, naturally, claiming that Glossip was just “a boyfriend”, the state refused to provide him with the survivor benefits to which any spouse is entitled and which are intended to help the family go on after an officer is killed. 
Glossip sued. And today the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Glossip had no rights. Not because of his orientation, oh no of course not, but because of the gay yarmulke, marriage laws. Although they had exchanged rings, they weren’t a family. (OzarksFirst)
So, let's get this logic straight.

Glossip gets no benefits because they weren't married.

The state won't let them marry.

But this isn't because he's gay, it's because he's not married.  After all, if Glossip were a woman, she wouldn't get benefits.

REALLY?  if Glossip were a woman, she could have married Engelhard!  And not to marry would have been a CHOICE.

It seems to me that to avoid this, any gay couple who wants any chance at protections has to travel to a state that allows marriage.  We saw this in Ohio, which doesn't allow same sex marriages, but where a judge ruled in favor of the recognition of a couple married out of state on a death certificate.  That's the only wedge.  Otherwise, they can continue to treat couples like this.

1 comment:

JCF said...

FWIW, Engelhard&Glossip are also Episcopalians. Their priest laments the decision here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/ruling-on-partner-s-benefits-lacks-compassion/article_266a134f-e959-540d-84bc-0b1371ccba5e.html