Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Marriage may not be the optimum rights-giver for gay couples, ie, some may be forced to marry even if they don't want to, bcz of the benefits puzzle, says Katherine Franke, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html

Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, “winning” the right to marry may mean “losing” the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we’ll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.

Of course, this means we’ll be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry — whether they be gay or straight — to have their committed relationships recognized and valued.

At Columbia University, where I work, the benefits office tells heterosexual employees that they must marry to get their partners on the health plan. A male graduate student I know, informed that he’d have to marry his longtime girlfriend for her to get benefits, was told, “Too bad your girlfriend isn’t a man — it would be so much easier!”

They ended up marrying, though they were politically and personally uninterested in doing so. I, by contrast, only had to fill out a form saying that my partner and I lived in the same household, to add her to my policy. An institution like Columbia (which is secular, I might add) should not be in the marriage-promotion business for either straight or gay employees, particularly when domestic partnerships can do the gate-keeping job just as effectively as marriage does.

I do feel this, especially since I'm in a similar quandary as the male grad student right now in re: moving in with my girlfriend and wanting to get her on my health coverage but unable to do so without actually being married, whereas if it was a boyfriend it wouldn't be an issue. But it seems like the next logical step to focus on as a result.

that seems to be sort of a backward way to look at the issue, doesnt it? the injustice here is that people dont universally have access to health care, not that domestic partnerships are "better" than marriage

yeah yeah yeah... but no. Just improve 'domestic partnerships' and get government out of the marriage business. Even R Diaz Sr would be happy!

well sure but i think that our first priority should be providing universal access to health care, not tailoring the way the gov't sanctions relationships to fit an unjust system

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576406201312879150.html

interesting article about the strategy behind the vote. depressing to realize that everything in this country, even gay marriage, requires millions of dollars from a rich libertarian

i'm beginning to change my opinion on health care... realizing that maybe i'm /not/ in favor of universal health care. universal catastrophy coverage, absolutely... but when did it become every employer's responsibility to cover each individual's private, non-work-related health?

well that's not really what "univeraal health care" is

huh?

universal

healthcare

I didn't think universal health care necessarily involved employers...? xposts

...single payer is better?

xp max

that "huh?" was to remy

i dont really get what hes saying

Oh. Right. Yeh, govt.-mandated employer coverage is a pretty lame excuse for "universal" healthcare.

its possible to be "pro"-universal health care and believe that its not the responsibility of employers to provide it. (in fact its kind of necessary!)

i.e., if you believe that everyone should have access to health care, there ought to be no preconditions to access--such as employment

tbf guaranteeing universal access to health care doesn't necessarily take employers out of the picture---for instance in France your employer by law contributes big coin to your health insurance.

yeah max i kind of conflated two points. i'll spread out what i was saying on a more appropriate thread, but i had a long conversation w/ an MPH friend last night, and I learned a lot of really interesting stuff. Single payer isn't the riht answer either, but i'll be more thoughtful and less glib when i get a chance to type out my thots

Employers more or less got in the benefits game as a way of recruiting key talent and encouraging them to stay. many employers are cutting health benefits, though, for financial reasons, and going to insurance that well, is insurance, but still costs a lot out of pocket (lots of those high-deductible health plans with an attached health savings/reimbursement account).

Universal health care might cause some of those employers to make greater cuts, given the 'national' option to their employees, but I still think many will remain competitive in the game because it still remains a good recruiting tool -- there are still people who go to lower paying jobs because of better benefits offered.

I'm still in favor of national health insurance, then again I'm pretty much a borderline socialist so like I actually want it to be like free and stuff...

tbf guaranteeing universal access to health care doesn't necessarily take employers out of the picture---for instance in France your employer by law contributes big coin to your health insurance.

― Euler, Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:03 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

sure, but nor does it require employers to provide care or insurance. "universal health care" is just that, universal access to care--there are a lot of different ways to achieve it!

bien sûr, just pointing out that remy's point was conflating a couple of different points. There's universal health care in France but it costs the employers big time, & like in the USA lowers take-home salaries.

what i was getting at, incoherently, was i believe in a generous universal emergency/catastrophe coverage provided through a shared health pool. beyond that, individual health savings plans but ill get into it later

ick, I hate Health Savings accounts of all ilks. gimme a good HMO/EPO anyday (I'm aware that for people in rural populations, that these generally suck).

legalize w33d

and put it in specially marked cereal boxes

w33dies

^would buy

I know a male/female couple who couldn't get coverage
under each other's employers for ages until WA set up domestic partnerships, now they have a lot more protection as a couple who don't want to marry (both are older and divorced, marriage wasn't something either wanted again). So crazy that this is so tied up with if you have a job and who you work for.

So crazy that this is so tied up with if you have a job and who you work for.

Yeah that's kind of the not-spoken-enough part of all the marriage fights is that the legal and financial advantages of being married are themselves so deeply screwy and rooted in norms (the one-worker family with the stay-at-home spouse) long since eroded anyway.

Right---I'm probably recapitulating something said above but my impression since the 1990s is that plutocratic opposition to gay rights is grounded in their being "good" businesspeople, recognizing that they stand to lose financially if the financial benefits of marriage are more widely distributed. It may not add up to much $$$ but these folks live on the margins anyway.

whereas I think (& could be wrong!) that 1960s civil rights did not cost the plutocrats much; and maybe it even helped since it got money that might otherwise be sitting under mattresses or in segregated economic structures into their hands. Hence the plutocrats did not make too much of 1960s civil rights (and again could be wrong about all this)

is/was there plutocratic opposition to gay rights? i thought the opposition was 90% religious/moral in character.

I'm a bit of a cynic on this---I follow the money---but shit like DOMA & the usual GOP claptrap against gay rights wouldn't be a thing if they were just a sop to people clinging to the missionary position because God says so.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/06/24/opinion/sundayreview_hpimages/sundayreview_hpimages-custom3.jpg

^the true story of how new york legalized gay marriage

I'm a bit of a cynic on this---I follow the money---but shit like DOMA & the usual GOP claptrap against gay rights wouldn't be a thing if they were just a sop to people clinging to the missionary position because God says so.

― Euler, Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:38 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eh, i "follow the money" too and i dont think that rich people were ever, in particular, opposed to gay marriage. in fact it seems to have been legalized in ny only through the interference of rich republican/libertarian donors who were able to effectively lean on GOP opponents

its a "red meat" issue or whatever the phrase is. like abortion, something else i cant see a "plutocratic" argument against but is nonetheless one of the GOPs big issues

i think what were seeing is the republican leadership fast realizing this issue is not only no longer an electoral winner for them but is in fact inflicting serious long term damage via alienating the youths

i mean they can only afford to pander to their red meat constituency to the extent that it helps them win

obvs new york is somewhat ahead of the curve in that its fairly liberal, but just you know somewhat

not like he endorsed marriage, but in her book Nixon's late-life assistant wrote that Dick said of the GOP waging the '92 culture war, "Gay, not gay, i DON'T CARE" (paraphrase). So he got over his aversion to All in the Family presenting homos sympathetically, perhaps.

id imagine a lot of the gop leadership personally doesnt really care: gay; not gay

like there are tons of gays in important positions on the gop side in washington, all those stories abt bush being in his personal life quite chill re gays, etc

ken effin mehlman

yeah just goes to show you power is a much stronger fraternity than sexual identity race gender or w/e

not like he endorsed marriage, but in her book Nixon's late-life assistant wrote that Dick said of the GOP waging the '92 culture war, "Gay, not gay, i DON'T CARE" (paraphrase). So he got over his aversion to All in the Family presenting homos sympathetically, perhaps.

He went further: "I knew plenty of people in my White House who were gay; not my business."

In her book Laura Bush mentions pulling "George" aside and scolding him for supporting a constitutional amendment consecrating het marriage ("We know so many people who are or whose children are gay").

wait, his name isn't really George?

this thread title is a delight btw

reading up a bit: the Koch brothers & Richard Scaife favor gay marriage; it's a small sample, but I couldn't find anything on the Waltons or Sheldon Adelson. So I'm thinking I'm wrong on this one.