Gay in Michigan? The Governor wants you to leave

The right-wing Michigan Governor has outlawed health benefits for unmarried partners of government employees. From the Advocate:

A bill to end health insurance coverage for domestic partners of government workers in Michigan was signed into law today by GOP governor Rick Snyder....

“Governor Snyder’s support for this bill is appalling," Emily Dievendorf, director of policy for Equality Michigan, said in a statement. "Today, the governor told unmarried public employees that they can no longer care for their partners or children. He has put hardworking gay and lesbian couples and their children into harm’s way by eliminating important health care coverage. He has spent the last two years talking about creating a welcoming state with a attractive business climate, and this bill flies in the face of those goals."

This will particularly hit academic institutions, as I've described before.  Academics don't like working in places where there is institutionalized bigotry.  Good time to be picking up talented faculty from U-Michigan.  And since more and more companies support benefits (indeed, quite a large number of major firms are actively opposed to DOMA ), this will also hit the business climate.

So Michigan may be purer, but it will surely also be poorer.

DP benefits for federal employees redux?

Federal employees have only limited benefits for their partners--some moving expenses, that kind of thing. Big ticket items like health coverage or pensions are not allowed. There's some effort to bring benefits to federal employees with domestic partners. The Advocate reports,

The bill would allow federal employees and their same-sex domestic partners to participate in federal retirement, life insurance, health, workers’ compensation, and family and medical leave benefits to the same extent as married employees and their spouses. They would also be subject to the same antinepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements that apply to married heterosexual workers.

The irony? Thanks to DOMA, those of us legally MARRIED as opposed to living in the second-class civil unions will not be eligible.

Both BP and I have employers who would cover both of us. However, as I've explained before, thanks to DOMA, the federal government does not consider us married. If BP were on my health plan, the costs would be reported as extra income to me, which would incur a fairly substantial tax liability. So we could get the coverage, but we would pay dearly for it. Fortunately we are both employed but it means that we have to navigate two very different policies and often can't use the same providers.

Yet another insult from my government confirming my second-class citizenship, and forcing me to live under Roman Catholic/Mormon rules.

Good News from AZ

In Arizona, in 2009 they passed a bill that redefined "dependents" of state employees as "spouses", with the intent that same-sex partners of state employees would no longer be eligible for health benefits.  Several plaintiffs took the state to  court (federal court).  When the district court found for the plaintiffs, Arizona appealed, and the case went to the 9th circuit, who have now released a ruling that keeps the law from going into effect, at least for now.

While the district court noted that Section O was not dis- criminatory on its face, because it affected both same-sex and different-sex couples, the court held that Section O had a dis- criminatory effect. This is because, under Arizona law, different-sex couples could retain their health coverage by marrying, but same-sex couples could not. Id. at 802-03. Therefore, the district court granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on equal protection grounds.

The decision carefully reviews all the arguments that were made supporting rational state interest in this law. Interestingly, despite claiming that it was a cost-cutting measure, the state did not provide any figures to back that up, while the plaintiffs showed that the expense was marginal.

There are some additional excellent quotes from the ruling:

The state is correct in asserting that state employ- ees and their families are not constitutionally entitled to health benefits. But when a state chooses to provide such benefits, it may not do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner that adversely affects particular groups that may be unpopular. ....

The state has also argued that the statute promotes mar- riage by eliminating benefits for domestic partners, but the plaintiffs negated that as a justification. The district court properly concluded that the denial of benefits to same-sex domestic partners cannot promote marriage, since such part- ners are ineligible to marry. Collins, 727 F. Supp. 2d at 807....

In sum, the district court correctly recognized that bar- ring the state of Arizona from discriminating against same-sex couples in its distribution of employee health benefits does not constitute the recognition of a new constitutional right to such benefits. Rather, it is consistent with long standing equal protection jurisprudence holding that “some objectives, such as ‘a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,’ are not legitimate state interests.”.....

Benefits and taxes: gay couples and friendly employers

It used to be that modern, forward thinking companies could be recognized by whether or not they give benefits to the partners of same sex couples.

But that's a double edged sword. If you are married, the IRS views those benefits as a perk of the relationship. But if you are NOT married, federally speaking (and no gay couple is married in the eyes of the federal government, thanks to DOMA), the IRS views those benefits as taxable.

These days, the modern, forward thinking companies are increasing the pay of the gay employee to cover their additional costs incurred by covering their partners. From the NY Times:

A growing number of companies are covering the extra costs that same-sex couples pay for domestic partner benefits — and even more companies are thinking about it. …. A handful of companies cover those extra costs, but not until Google adopted that policy earlier this year did the movement to equalize benefits begin to gain traction. Apple is the latest boldface name to join the effort.

A provision within a draft of the health care overhaul bill would have eliminated the tax, but it was ultimately dropped. The Human Rights Campaign said it continued to work on getting a bill passed, but until that happens — if it ever does — employees or their employers must pay the extra tax. (Many companies will cover the costs only for same-sex partners, since opposite-sex couples have the option to marry.) …

The biggest deterrent, of course, is the cost. Many companies support efforts to eliminate the tax altogether, but they’re unwilling to cover the costs employees now face.

Okay, I'm really happy that the companies are doing this. Of course. But there's another sting to the tail, here, and that is that it entrenches a second class status for LGBT people, even if they are married: an asterisk by their name. I'm married, dammit, I have the license to prove it. There should be no difference in my treatment by the IRS.

And, on the other hand, it also gives LGBT a sort of a "bye" from the commitment of marriage.

My employer provides benefits for same sex partners. When I started this job a number of years ago, to prove the partnership, they required evidence of "co-mingled finances": both names on a lease, a joint checking account, or a common car ownership*. That's not marriage, that's co-habitation.

It's not enough for a straight couple, if they want benefits. But for LGBT people in many places, it's all they've got. How do we distinguish a faithfully committed MARRIAGE from a simple co-habitation? Unless we have marriage, we can't.

Marriage matters. LGBT people should have the same access as straights to marriage-associated benefits--and importantly, they should have to be married to get them.



*This was before marriage in CA, before Prop8, and at the beginning of Domestic Partnerships. And what's a DP, really? It's a form you download from the internet to give you 2nd class status. It has no meaning outside of the state. Even today many attorneys do not recommend LGBT people get DPs, because they are legally uncertain in many respects, and there are many cases of them being ignored. Until these cases are litigated, it isn't clear that they really WILL get you any rights. And of course, neither marriage nor DP gets you anything from the Fed, so you still have to pay $$$ for trusts etc etc.

Attacking gay couples in Wisconsin: cause for a brain drain?

The Marriage Equality battle is not and never has been limited to the M-word. Those opposed to marriage equality are often opposed to any legal recognition of GLBT rights. We saw this in Washington state, where the forces of evil tried to overturn a domestic partnership law. And now, yet again, in Wisconsin which outlaws both marriage and civil unions, but has a paltry little registry to give people a few rights, like hospital visits. But even that is too much for the forces of Hate:

A social conservative group filed a lawsuit ... challenging Wisconsin's domestic partner registry, arguing it is a violation of the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
...
"A reasonable person observing this registry would easily conclude that it is intended to mirror marriage,'' said Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, . ....

The registry's benefits do not come close to the rights that come with marriage, said Katie Belanger, executive director Fair Wisconsin, the state's largest gay rights group that lobbied lawmakers to approve the registry.

She said the registry extends 43 benefits compared with 200 for married couples under state law. "These are the most basic, critical things that couples need to have to take care of one another,'' Belanger said.....

And here I always thought Wisconsin was liberal.

A few years ago, Wisconsin passed a constitutional amendment banning both same sex marriage and civil unions. A suit was brought against this amendment, arguing that by law it could only do one thing at a time. However, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the amendment as legal. The debate, much like California's Prop8 case that was tried in STATE court, was not really about the SUBSTANCE of the amendment, but the PROCESS, and the result is that both marriages and civil unions remain illegal.

Previous efforts to preserve domestic partner benefits at the University of Wisconsin also failed . Like Michigan and Virginia, the Republicans in State Government relish denying any recognition to gay couples.

As I've commented before, academe is a pretty brutal marketplace. U Wisconsin-Madison, the flagship campus, has certainly lost faculty over this. There's a good article about GLBT faculty in Nature from 2008:

For many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender academics around the world, issues such as job security and peer support are top concerns. But a growing number are moving long distances, or out of academia altogether, on the basis of benefits often beyond an employer's power to grant.

The shift has created new tensions between public universities and their funding sources and has prompted fears, especially in the United States, of a brain drain to more accommodating places. .... liberal university towns in the Midwest are bidding farewell to top talent after recent state amendments blocked even straight domestic partnerships. Job-seekers have weeded out prospective employers for the same reason. Scientists from European and other countries are incorporating gay-friendly immigration laws into their decisions about where to work abroad.

Even straight faculty and students are put off by the bias expressed by the absence of partner benefits. And we're not just talking about a faculty member writing a few books and reflected prestige. In the experimental sciences, a professor with a vigorous research program can bring millions of dollars into the university in overhead, quite apart from the money that goes to the lab or pays salaries. Those overhead dollars are something no Dean wants to lose.

The "creative economy" that drives modern growth is gay-friendly. People don't want to be part of an anti-gay environment. Marriage equality correlates with economic growth. It's a good time for other universities to cherry-pick Wisconsin faculty, and potential faculty and students would do well to consider what sort of values they want around them.

A ray of hope in Arizona

Last September, Arizona's governor Jan Brewer decided that because of the state budget crisis, domestic partner benefits would be rescinded for GLBT citizens. Arizona claimed it didn't matter because people could buy insurance on the private market (for $$$$$, of course....)

Lambda Legal sued and has won a preliminary injunction.Writes the judge,

[T]he Ninth Circuit has recognized there is 'an inherent inequality' in allowing some employees to participate fully in the State's health plan, while expecting other employees to rely on other sources, such as private insurance or Medicaid. 'This back of the bus' treatment relegates plaintiffs to a second-class status by imposing inferior workplace treatment on them, inflicting serious constitutional and dignitary harms that after-the-fact damages cannot adequately address.

Lambda Legal goes on,

Sedwick also rejected the State's claims that maintaining the same benefits for gay employees that their heterosexual co-workers will continue to receive would endanger other state services:

"The State's argument, which is not supported by any evidence, is speculative at best and discriminatory at worst. Contrary to the State's suggestion, it is not equitable to lay the burden of the State's budgetary shortfall on homosexual employees, any more than on any other distinct class, such as employees with green eyes or red hair."

Emphasis mine.

The case continues.

FMLA leave: there is less in this than there appears

When President Obama was elected, he promised to be a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community. For example, although he promised in his State of the Union speech there would be the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) this year, which is favored by something like 70% of Americans, that won't happen. The Pentagon and his own Defense Secretary dragged their collective feet (leading one to ask who is actually in charge here), and a compromise measure rescinding DADT "in theory" pending further study now languishes as an amendment to the defense bill that Obama threatens to veto (for other reasons). So much for the promise, eh?

Much less progress has been made on repeal of the invidious Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or on passage of the Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA) which is tangled up in conservative fears of trans people in restrooms. The White House expends no capital on these bills but issues empty proclamations. Andrew Sullivan calls it the "fierce urgency of whenever".

The little progress there has been has come through executive orders. The problem with these is that they are weak, and not permanent. They can be rescinded by the next President, so they are pretty perilous--don't count on them. And they have unexpected stings to their tail.

The latest is an extension to the FMLA, the Family Medical Leave Act. This allows people unpaid leave from their jobs of up to 12 weeks to care for a sick spouse, child, or family member. Much has been made that this is now to be extended to GLBT families so they can take care of their kids; the Williams Institute estimates that up to 100,000 children may benefit. Family values, right? Yes, that's grand, (as long as Bush the Third, whoever he may be, doesn't rescind it.)

But it's not about recognizing our families, that we have families. It is just extending the definition of who can care for a child. And while that's good, it's not really the point.

And there's one more thing. DOMA precludes using FMLA for partners to take care of one another. So if my wife were ill, under federal law, I would not be allowed unpaid leave to take care of her. Thus, the promise implicit in this executive order feels somewhat hollow. Fortunately many private employers are more forward thinking , and I'm lucky that my employer recognizes my relationship. But many people aren't so lucky.

DOMA spreads its invidious slime throughout many policies. The government is offering unmarried couples, straight and gay, some benefits. The Domestic Partners Benefits & Obligations Act (DPBO, not yet passed) that would allow federal employees some benefits for their same-sex partners? Legally MARRIED same sex couples are likely excluded because of DOMA. The IRS is moving towards modest recognition of DPs, but NOT married couples. Ironically, I am even less of a person in this country being married, than with a $20 DP certificate notarized at Kinko's.

I got news for you, Mr President--and the useless, craven Democratic Congressional caucus, you too. I don't pay second class taxes. I don't cast a second-class vote. And I don't make second class donations. It's about time for some of that "fierce advocating", not just A-list cocktail parties where the High Gay tuft-hunters get to have their pictures taken with the President and congratulate one another that the Ambassador to New Zealand is Family.

I leave you with a quote:

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Barack Obama, 1996.

Why it matters: Get out, you don't belong here

Sharon ....and JoAnn.....had been life-partners for 17 years, when JoAnn’s chronic illness worsened and she was hospitalized at the University of Washington Medical Center. On September 3, 2005, JoAnn was moved to the ICU and came under the care of a contract nurse, Karen Hulley, for the night. And on that night, their lives changed forever. Despite the fact that the University and JoAnn’s doctor permitted Sharon to be by her beside constantly, Nurse Hulley, repeatedly refused Sharon access to JoAnn’s room and bedside, continually evicting her from the room. By the time Sharon regained access to her partner the next morning, JoAnn’s condition had deteriorated, and she was heavily drugged. She died within a matter of hours.

Go to the Insider Exclusive page to watch the video.

Pam's House Blend comments that powers of attorney and health care proxies aren't enough:

Sharon and JoAnn had copies of their power of attorney and health care proxy with them, and copies were attached to JoAnn's chart. And they had the cooperation and backing of JoAnn's doctor. But after hours, after the doctor had gone home and the night nurse was in charge, all respect for the law and contracts went out the window. Whenever Sharon tried to be in the room with JoAnn to comfort her as she lay dying, the nurse screamed at her "You don't belong here!", and kicked her out. So much for powers of attorney and health care proxy being a meaningful substitute for a civil marriage.

Should we settle for civil unions?

Should we settle for civil unions?

There was a story in the AP last week questioning whether the GLBT community should focus on getting civil unions rather than on marriage.

In the weeks since Maine voters handed the gay marriage movement its 27th electoral defeat in five years, other activists have voiced similar qualms about making marriage their main goal. Gay rights leaders have insisted that anything less than full marriage equality is unacceptable, but some are asking whether the uncompromising strategy has forestalled interim steps that could improve the lives of gay men, lesbians and their families.

At some level this makes sense; what does it matter what you call it? HOWEVER, what we know is that it matters. Here are my reasons:

1) Civil unions (or domestic partnerships; DPs) vary widely from state to state in the rights and protections they provide, from WA and CA where they are supposed to be "just like marriage" to other states where their coverage is incomplete.

2) In fact, even in those states where they are supposed to be complete, they aren't. In CA you don't even get a DP in the same way; a $20 notary form is not the same as a marriage license and personal interview. There are numerous stories about legally registered partners STILL being denied health care access. If you are a state employee, your DP is not covered by the state long-term insurance plan. You have to litigate every single piece of coverage to be sure they are the same. This is why in NJ a commission found that civil unions are NOT the same, and the only remedy is civil marriage.

3) DPs and Civil Unions don't cross state lines or international boundaries. They only exist within the state for state law.

4) I resent like hell the notion that I have to "earn" my rights by some sort of probationary period. "Maybe when they see that the sky doesn't fall," people say. Well, the laboratory of Massachusetts shows that marriage equality has no ill effects on the society at large. I am not a 2nd class citizen and I don't have a 2nd class relationship.

5) The bad guys aren't any happier with DPs. Look what they did in WA: they tried to defeat a law that gave generous provisions to DPs, "marriage in all but name", and they almost succeeded. In Nevada and elsewhere, Republicans have opposed civil union laws. Indeed, they are so eager to outlaw any benefits, that in Virginia you can't even draw up a private contract protecting your partner.

"A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."

Virginia is not for lovers. It's a state of hate.

The fact is, it isn't about the name of "marriage" or the concept of "marriage". It's about any recognition of our partnerships and families.

So, no, we shouldn't settle for civil unions. Separate but equal in this country is only separate, never equal.

Rhode Island Gov: GLBT have no rights to plan partner's funeral

From the Advocate:

Gov. Don Carcieri vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have given same-sex couples in Rhode Island the right to plan funerals for deceased partners.

The socially conservative Republican said the proposed protection represents a “disturbing trend” of the incremental erosion of heterosexual marriage, reports the Associated Press. Rhode Island does not recognize same-sex marriage.

The mind boggles, doesn't it? Because obviously, letting a grief-stricken partner take care of their loved one's arrangements is a chink in the door of HUMAN DECENCY and we can't have that, now, can we?

From the Boston Edge:

[RI] State Rep. David Segal (D-Providence) said the bill "would have let domestic partners claim the bodies of their deceased partners, and arrange funerals for them."

Segal noted the funeral planning bill was supported by the overwhelming majority of members of the Assembly who oppose marriage for gays and lesbians It passed by a vote of 63-1. And Segal expressed outrage over Carcieri’s veto.

"This bitter, cruel, pathetic man is grossly unworthy of the esteem the people of Rhode Island have bestowed upon him," Segal wrote in a blog post on Rhode Island’s Future.

Carcieri has a contentious history with Rhode Island’s LGBT activists. The Governor was widely condemned for his appearance at a Massachusetts Family Institute fundraiser last month. The governor told the 300 attendees he believed marriage was "not a civil right.".....

A statement on MFI’s Web site describes homosexuality as "an unhealthy practice and destructive to individuals, families and society." The organization also maintains gays and lesbians can be cured through prayer.

Update this veto was overridden in January 2010.

It's not the same thing: marriage and DPs

I'm glad that Washington appears to have saved domestic partnerships--though the margin is agonizingly close. But the closeness of that race is proof that this battle is not about a word. It's not about marriage. It's about ANY recognition of same sex couples.

So why does the word itself matter? next time someone says that in a post-Prop8 world, marriage and DPs in CA are the same, remind them that it's just not true. Some differences are listed here: Marriage versus domestic partnership in CA.

These include a big one, that legal status and rights are not portable out of state. And even with protections, as we've seen rights may be denied IN state. Tax benefits, retirement, leave and other benefits are absent. There are no immigration protections, and other differences in how they are treated compared to marriage including common residency name change, and privacy. Interestingly marriages are not state-recorded or easily searchable. But DPs are. whazzup with that?

And let's also remember that, as shown in Washington and Wisconsin, even benefits from civil unions are under attack by the haters. As Andrew Sullivan wrote recently

it doesn't matter what equality is called - civil unions, domestic partnerships, civil partnerships, or civil marriage - the GOP believes in no rights for gay couples whatsoever.

As a recent Op/Ed in Maine wrote,

There is virtually no way to surgically carve out and tie together all the rights and responsibilities of marriage in a legal relationship that does what marriage does without calling it marriage......

Families led by same-sex partners are here now. They are part of our communities and they need and deserve the legal protections -- as well as the dignity -- that comes with civil marriage status.

It's not about marriage. It never was. It's about bigotry.

Support Washington's Referendum 71

Approve Ref. 71
Preserve the Domestic Partnership Law
SIX SIMPLE THINGS YOU CAN DO

Phonebank at our campaign office to spread the word
Donate to support the Approve 71 campaign
Change your Facebook photo to the Approve 71 icon and talk about Approving 71 in your status messages
Link to Approve 71 from your email signature.
Change your voicemail message to tell your friends and family to Approve Referendum 71.
Print out and distribute the handouts from our website.

For more great things you can do check out: WWW.APPROVE71.ORG
Facebook icons are under Spread the Word at the top, and handouts are under Handouts on the right.
Now: Go tell 10 friends to do these things, too!

Upcoming votes: Vote No on 1 in Maine, Yes on 71 in Washington

Do what you can to help our brothers and sisters. The biggie is Maine: this is the M-word, folks, marriage. The lies have started with the successful PropH8 campaigners up to their usual tricks. The vote will be close. Stand up for equality in Maine: we really, really want to win one at the ballot box. Can you give money? fly out to help? Whatever you can do, please help preserve equality in maine and VOTE NO ON QUESTION 1.


The Washington election is about domestic partnerships, NOT marriage. But, proving that they LIE when they say it's only about marriage, the haters are out in force claiming that DPs ARE marriage. This is simply bigotry. Help keep the DP law intact in Washington state: VOTE YES ON REFERENDUM 71.

Bad news: Referendum 71 on Washington Ballot

From the Seattle Times:

A referendum that could overturn Washington state's "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law has qualified for the November ballot.

The secretary of state's office said Monday that sponsors of Referendum 71 had 121,486 valid petition signatures - enough to put the newly expanded domestic partnership law to a public vote.

A secondary check of rejected signatures was not complete, so the number could increase.

The new law was supposed to take effect on July 26, but was delayed until the signature count was complete. Now, it won't take effect unless it is approved in the Nov. 3 election.

The measure would expand existing domestic partnerships to give gay and lesbian couples all the state-provided benefits that married heterosexual couples have.

Remember: Vote YES to approve rights for gay couples. Vote YES to protect ALL families. MOre info: http://approvereferendum71.org/

Meanwhile, the Times reports that donors cannot be hidden.

Earlier Thursday, the PDC denied a request by Protect Marriage to redact and seal the names, addresses and occupations of donors. Donor information already had been made public, in accordance with state law.

The group had cited threats of violence against supporters and churches in its request.

Larry Stickney, a key organizer behind R-71, told the PDC he's received death threats and hundreds of "vile, obscene, threatening, nasty" e-mails. He said he found someone in his yard a few weeks ago photographing his house.

But the commission said the group had not proved that disclosure of the information would result in "unreasonable hardship" to contributors, and that keeping the names from the public would thwart the purpose of the public-disclosure law: to avoid secrecy in campaigns.

While Protect Marriage did provide the commission with some threatening e-mails and blog postings, it "provided no evidence from or about donors that have demonstrated that they have received threats of violence against their lives or property," or that they were being targeted for boycotts, PDC Assistant Director Doug Ellis said at the hearing.

That ruling applies only to donors to R-71.

Time to take the white hoods off, finally. The state should not hide people who vote against the rights of their fellow citizens from facing their compatriots.

More news from Wisconsin

I've written a lot recently in how the Bad Guys are attacking even Domestic Partnerships. (See here). In Wisconsin, they have a hate amendment, but recently they passed a domestic partnership policy that allows "dozens" of rights, you know, like hospital visitation?

Naturally the haters jumped in immediately with their anger that this was JUST LIKE MARRIAGE so they have filed suit against it. And the Republican WI Attorney General Van Hollen will not try to defend the law.

As reported by the LA Times

The governor blasted Van Hollen's decision, saying the law is defensible. He released a copy of a memo from University of Wisconsin law professor David Schwartz that found the law did not conflict with the marriage amendment.
....
The governor and lawmakers have expressed confidence that the law will be upheld since the legal benefits granted are a fraction of the more than 150 given to married couples.

Registering will make it easier for same-sex couples to complete legal transactions like transferring property and executing wills and allow partners to obtain health insurance through employers that extend coverage to domestic partners.

Partners also will be guaranteed the right to visit each other in hospitals and care facilities, make end-of-life-decisons and take off work under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for each other. They will not have the right to jointly file taxes, among others.

The nonpartisan Legislative Council concluded the law should survive a legal challenge because it does not give "comprehensive, core aspects of the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples." Those include the ability to divorce and to share marital property.

Yeah, dangerous stuff there--visiting partners! Insurance benefits!

To quote again that US News article, the Christian Conservatives have to fight the fact that a majority of Americans believe their should be some benefits for same sex couples

I'm not saying religious conservatives are acting purely politically—many do believe that providing benefits to gay couples is a sneaky way of legalizing gay unions. But given those poll numbers, it also makes political sense for religious conservatives to try to reframe the benefits issue as a gay marriage issue.

Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, see benefits and gay marriage as much different issues, since extending some benefits to gay partners still excludes key benefits of marriage.

We must recognize that it isn't marriage these people oppose. They oppose any recognition or respect for gay couples and gay families. Call it what it is: bigotry, pure and simple.

Support FairWisconsin.

DPBO moves out of committee.

What is DPBO you ask?

Its the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517) we talked about here sponsored by Rep. Tammy Baldwin. Lawdork reports

The bill would provide for health care, family and medical leave and other benefits to federal employees with same-sex domestic partners. ..... Baldwin said in a news release that she was “delighted” with the subcommittee’s action......

The bill now goes to the full committee, which is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York. The bill also has been referred to the House committees on House Administration and the Judiciary.

Lawdork has some thoughtful consideration of how this bill will make sense of the disparate ways GLBT people can be legally connected in their home states. He has some suggestions here. More commentary from Pam's House Blend.

Also, you can read testimony (PDF) from the WIlliams Institute at UCLA which studies policy around sexual orientation.

More on Referendum 71: secret signatures

From Pam's House Blend, more about Referendum 71. Remember, if enough signatures were gathered (which is questionable), it will put a referendum on the ballot asking the voters to approve the expanded domestic partnerships bill.

We must VOTE "APPROVE" to preserve the Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009 (SB 5688).  Yes, I said APPROVE.  This is due to the way the ballot was worded by the Attorney General:
REFERENDUM 71
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
Approved __X__
Rejected ___
......

There has been some misinformation that if we don't vote APPROVED, the entire DP system will be repealed.  This is false.  Referendum 71 is about approving an incremental enhancement to existing DP law.  Existing DP law will remain intact no matter what.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Not surprisingly, the opposition are trying agin to hide their hatred under the cloak of anonymity. They tried the same thing in CA, and were fortunately thwarted. Despite their claims that PropH8 supporters would be harrassed, they weren't. And if we're talking harassment, howabout the ultimate harassment of denying a citizen their right to marry, or the right to protect their family? Remember just WHO the real victims are here!

Democracy only works in the sunlight. Or as my mother would say, if you are ashamed to be known for doing something, that is a clue that perhaps you shouldn't have done it.

Another reason for secrecy may be the reports that the signature-gatherers lied about the petitions, and claimed that signing them actually supported GLBT rights (Again, from Pam' House Blend. They may not want to have people who support GBLT rights finding out their signatures were collected under false pretenses. A version of this also happened in CA where marriage equality opponents would show up to pro-equality rallies and tell people to vote YES on PropH8 if they supported gay rights.

Finally, the referendum supporters stand to make money off the sale of those names and addresses to political campaigns, etc etc, if they aren't public. There's a simple explanation for their claims of victimhood. It starts with G and it ends with D and it spells GREED.

This leads me to wonder at the values and integrity of a movement that is based so heavily on lies and misleading people. If they don't have sufficient confidence in the rightness of their cause so that they have to lie about it, what does that tell us?

Attacking DPs: WI, WA

In Washington, the state has passed a generous domestic partnership law which as I've discussed here, and also here, is under virulent attack by the forces of hate.

You see, although they insist that they only care about the word "marriage", it's clear that they oppose any civil rights for gay people. It's not about marriage. And we need to call them on it over and over.

So, under Washington law (and not unlike Maine's), with enough signatures they can hold a voting referendum against this new law. So the forces of evil have been busy collecting signatures on what is called Referendum 71. It's been a bit of a challenge, because Washingtonians actually support recognition of gay unions (remember, this isn't marriage, just domestic partnerships/civil unions). So the bad guys have been lying about what's on the petition, claiming that it supports marriage equality (a trick they also used in CA). And they've been lying about the referendum itself.

Secretary of State's office spokesman David Ammons says, "The state supreme court has said you can lie in campaign utterances and campaign materials. We have no jurisdiction over extra words and sales pitches that sponsors choose to put on petitions." In other words, the Referendum 71 petitions could claim that the measure would ban abortion, impeach the governor, guarantee salvation... almost anything (short of threats or bribery) to persuade people to sign it.

Wow. Just wow.

This weekend the Referendum 71 supporters handed in their signatures. It will take awhile to know whether they got enough to get it on the ballot, or whether Washingtonians were smart enough to see through their lies. If it does get on the ballot, expect another expensive fight as in CA and ME. The alliance here is Washington Families Standing Together.


Meanwhile, the same sickness has hit Wisconsin. A group has challenged, yes, a domestic partnership bill as being "unconstitutional" because of the state constitutional ban on same sex marriage. But it's not marriage, you say. I agree. The problem is that Wisconsin's Hate Amendment also bans " legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals". So is a domestic partnership substantially like a marriage? Or not?

"We are hopeful that the state Supreme Court will recognize that domestic partnerships are not substantially similar to marriage, and will arrive at a fair and just decision that upholds these basic protections for same-sex couples," Katie Belanger, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, said in the statement.

Here's the problem. Even amongst states, the term "domestic partner" or "civil union" does not have a common meaning. In California, DPs are supposed to have all the rights of marriage (until every one of those rights is litigated, we'll ahve to see). In Wisconsin, DPs have few rights. In Washington, it's something in between. And the forces of hate attack gay couples state by state. Support FairWisconsin.


The conflict is neatly summed up in this US News article:

Conservative Christian groups criticizing the president's memorandum extending certain benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees are alleging that the president is approximating the benefits of marriage—that he's basically creating "marriage light." It's an interesting line of argument because polls show that most Americans support benefits for gay partners but oppose gay marriage.

I'm not saying religious conservatives are acting purely politically—many do believe that providing benefits to gay couples is a sneaky way of legalizing gay unions. But given those poll numbers, it also makes political sense for religious conservatives to try to reframe the benefits issue as a gay marriage issue.

Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, see benefits and gay marriage as much different issues, since extending some benefits to gay partners still excludes key benefits of marriage.

Finally, some revealing quotes from the other side. First, from the NY TImes, about the conflict over 2010 vs 2012 for repeal:

For opponents of same-sex marriage, meanwhile, the debate among gay rights advocates has been entertaining.

Because, of course, denying faithful couples any rights is SO funny.

Second, the LA Times quoted a leader of the movement that is attacking domestic partnerships in Washington state:

"It's the last incremental step to gay marriage for gay activists," said Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network, who is helping coordinate the signature campaign. "We're not trying to take anything from anyone. We're simply trying to defend and keep marriage as it has always been throughout all of human history."

So what do you call it when you repeal a law that grants people basic rights? If that's not taking something away from someone, what is? We know they lie. But really, isn't it time someone call them out on it?

Federal employee benefits: married people need not apply

Obama signed today a memorandum for partner benefits that federal employees already had. In his remarks, Obama says the right words:

I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it.

"I am also proud to announce my support for an important piece of legislation introduced in both Houses of Congress last month -- the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. This legislation will extend to the same-sex partners of Federal employees the same benefits already enjoyed by the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. ....

"Extending equal benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees is the right thing to do. It is also sound economic policy. Many top employers in the private sector already offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees; those companies recognize that offering partner benefits helps them compete for and retain the brightest and most talented employees. The Federal Government is at a disadvantage on that score right now, and change is long overdue.

"As Americans, we are all affected when our promises of equality go unfulfilled. Through measures like the Presidential Memorandum I am issuing today and the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, we will advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded and continue to perfect our Union."

Meanwhile, Aravosis counters that DOMA did NOT prevent actual benefits (you know, like health care?)

Here's why: DOMA prohibits granting benefits based on marriage, it does not prohibit granting benefits overall. Thus, you define a standard that isn't marriage, such as domestic partnerships as defined by, say, the amount of time spent dating, living together, comingling funds, etc. Had Obama simply said we will give health benefits to the domestic partners, straight and gay, of all federal employees, and given a definition of domestic partner that does not include marriage of civil unions, he could have done it.

Interesting theory. THere is some support to this because Federal judges have found (although not by court ruling) that two gay justice department employees are entitled to health benefits; the rulings implied that since the employees weren't married, they could be eligible. Even if it's not true that Obama could have done it NOW, under DOMA and the pending DP act, it sounds like gay couples who legally married in their home states are the only ones that will be ineligible for proper benefits. Inotherwords, marriage will DEPRIVE people of benefits.

I'm afraid at this point, though, talk is cheap. An executive memo (that will expire when he leaves office) that gives people sick leave and long term care insurance, doesn't really count as significant movement. I am expecting some fierce advocating, here, that will make ALL Americans full citizens.

Update: The NY Times has an editorial.

Partner benefits for gay federal employees: no health care?

The White House has announced that, as expected, President Obama will offer gay federal employees domestic partner benefits.

President Barack Obama will be signing a presidential memorandum Wednesday to provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The signing is scheduled for 5:45 p.m. in the Oval Office, and the president is scheduled to make brief remarks.

But I want you to realize there is less in this than you think.
The big issue is that because of DOMA, these "benefits" will not include health care. They will not include retirement. As the Advocate reports,

The White House press office declined to detail which benefits would be included, but people familiar with the legal obstacles posed by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, said health benefits are not likely to be a part of the package. The Lieberman-Baldwin Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, a bi-cameral bill that was introduced last month, will still need to be passed by Congress in order for full benefits to be extended to domestic partners of federal workers

"...it will take an act of Congress for the full suite of benefits such as health benefits and retirement benefits to be provided for same-sex couples and families," said Leonard Hirsch, president of Federal Globe: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees of the Federal Government. Hirsch said the executive branch has the authority to extend certain other benefits through departments and agencies, such as providing relocation costs for partners of federal employees.

Read that again. No health care. No retirement. Because of DOMA, which the president's DoJ supports. So they may get some relocation expenses. So what?

(There is some disagreement in the media whether health care is covered or not. The White House isn't saying "on the record" whether it is; the Advocate's legal experts and the GLOBE president say they can't be, because of DOMA. The NY Times confirms that no health benefits are included.)

Partner benefits have been provided by many employers to gay couples around the country for a long time. In fact, the HRC has a corporate equality index that ranks employers. Such benefits are not all they are cracked up to be, however. For same sex partners, they are fully taxable as income. So if your plan costs your employer say an extra $800 a month for your partner, that $9600 a year will be considered additional taxable income from the IRS. Something that they DON'T do if you are husband and wife. But Thanks to DOMA,, the Fed can't even match hundreds of private employers who already provide this option, imperfect as it is.

But you have to hand it to them, it's a very canny move. It appears in response to the DoJ debacle (it wasn't, we've heard about this for a while). They manage to deflect the gay ire by a masterful bit of legerdemain . "Look! shiny!" They spend relatively little political capital on something that affects relatively few people and gives them basically NOTHING. They manage not to address any of the Big Issues that the community cares about, those 8 promises they made about everything from DOMA to ENDA. Remember they promised to repeal DOMA? Did you know that is no longer part of their agenda. As we could tell from the DoJ brief.

Still, they have deflected the firestorm. Everyone will quiet down, and if they don't, they will be pointed at as the whiny gays. Relocation expenses! You should consider yourselves blessed! And true equality is a can that just got kicked down the road.

Update: White House Press release enumerates benefits:

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

This does not include health insurance benefits, only long-term care. And as if this isn't pathetic enough, it has been suggested that these rights herein enumerated already have been given to gay federal employees--or at least are permissible, if not mandatory.

Update Good overview from The LA Times.