Gay Marriage Archive

0

Californians Rally for Equality

State and local officials joined hundreds of people outside the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center in Hollywood on Sunday morning to kick off a national grass-roots campaign demanding equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

The rally and march — dubbed Rock for Equality — was put together by the center and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in conjunction with the Aids Community Action Foundation, said Jim Key, a spokesman for the center.

At the rally, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood), who is a member of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, announced that she would sponsor legislation to provide equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

“I don’t think it’s right that Americans should be treated differently by the country they love because of who they love,” she said, triggering thunderous applause and cheers from the crowd.

“Right now, same-sex marriage couples pay equally into a system that they don’t receive equal benefits from in return,” Sanchez told the crowd. “Shame on this country for allowing that to happen.”

As of now, people in same-sex relationships are denied Social Security survivor benefits from their deceased partners because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships as valid relationships.

Sanchez’s bill calls for the Social Security Administration to recognize those civil unions or domestic partnerships as valid relationships for the purpose of disbursing survivor benefits that heterosexual couples with a marriage certificate now receive.

“I’m saying to the Social Security Administration, this must stop,” Sanchez said.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-El Monte), who also attended the event, offered to coauthor the bill.

“In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act as a law to protect the elderly from poverty. It was a great moment, but the act wasn’t perfect,” Chu told the crowd.

“In 1966, members of the armed services were added. In 1983, federal employees were added. And, in the year 2010, that will be the year people from the LGBT community will be added,” she said.

About 700 people — young, middle age and old — attended the rally, including Maria Garcia, 44, of North Hollywood, who had arrived an hour early with her 23-year-old son, Philip Garrelts, who is gay.

“Every mother should do this for her children,” she said. “There should be equal rights for everyone.”

Read the rest in the Los Angeles Times.

Popularity: 1% [?]

0

Marriage Monday: Weddings in Washington

Monday, March 22, 2010 By Erin Pelletier
Photo Illustration by Brandon Weight
On March 3, same-sex couples gained the right to marry in Washington, DC. Washington is now the sixth place in the United States where same-sex couples can marry, joining Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. The new right came after months of Congressional and local opposition, and gay rights advocates are calling for a broader, more expansive change.

The new marriage law gives same-sex couples numerous rights, including the right to visit each other in the hospital, file taxes as a couple and be seen as a married couple by health insurance companies. Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the new rights into law in December, but because the District of Columbia is governed by Congress, the law had to undergo Congressional review. There were many Congressional attempts to block the legislation, including an attempt to have the Supreme Court delay it. Chief Justice John Roberts rejected this request.

“From a legal point of view, I think it is great,” said Senior Kiersten Kampshroeder. “Now it’s definitely how it should be.”

Many activists within the gay community and others who support gay rights say that the new law is a sign that all American states and territories should legalize same-sex marriage. They argue that if something is legal in the United States capital, it ought to be legal everywhere.

Read the rest at My Highschool Journalism

Popularity: 2% [?]

0

What is the Defence of Marriage Act?

Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Four states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont) currently allow same-sex marriage (with Maine and New Hampshire having passed not-yet-implemented legislation to join that list), five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted state-level statutes to the same effect.

Popularity: unranked [?]

0

Hubby Hubby renamed by Ben and Jerry’s…

hh-graphicHubby Hubby renamed by Ben and Jerry’s…

“In partnership with Freedom to Marry we are gathered here to celebrate Vermont and all the other great states where loving couples of all kinds are free to marry legally. We have ceremoniously dubbed our iconic flavor, Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby in support, and to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality. Check out our press release.  If you live in Vermont, or visiting, you’re invited to celebrate the pride-filled occasion with an all naturally fabulous union of Peanut Butter Cookie Dough ice cream, fudge and pretzels. “

Popularity: unranked [?]

0

Be Careful What You Wish For

When I consider the debate over same-gender marriage a thought comes to mind that isn’t usually part of the dialog: “Be careful what you wish for.”

First, let me say that I am a staunch advocate for full marriage equality for same-gender couples. According to pro-marriage equality organizations, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights, civil marriage, at the federal level, provides for some 1,500 legal rights and responsibilities that are virtually ironclad and guaranteed with a $35 (or whatever the going rate) marriage license and an “I do.” The Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV) of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that for heterosexual married couples those rights are consistent and transferable throughout the United States, regardless of where the marriage was performed. (Thanks to “DOMA,” the Defense of Marriage Act, married same-sex couples are exempted from the Full Faith and Credit clause.)

In contrast, the rights afforded by state-sanctioned Civil Unions number in the low-to-mid hundreds, while municipally-granted Domestic Partner benefits generally top out at no more than a couple of dozen. Further, neither Domestic Partnerships nor Civil Unions are recognized outside of their home jurisdictions.

Couples not covered by local, state or federal regulations can have certain documents drawn up to provide for limited protections, but the cost of these documents can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars, and unless carefully drafted they can be challenged and overturned by “legal” relatives.

The bottom line is that all couples should have equal access to all of the rights and responsibilities of federal civil marriage without having to incur exorbitant costs in securing those rights.

Ironically, during the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, the “rights” of marriage were of little interest to those denouncing the “rites” of marriage. The mantra of the day was, “We don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love.” And they were absolutely correct. When a relationship is basking in the first bloom of love there is no need for the legal protections that come with a marriage license. It’s only when the relationship is threatened, whether from without or within, that the legal ramifications of marriage become important.

When most of us think of marriage equality we tend to think primarily of the rights and privileges associated with legal marriage. As soon as that marriage license is signed and notarized, your spouse is your legal heir and next-of-kin. With the stroke of a pen your legal spouse moves to the head of the line, ahead of Mom and Dad, your brothers and sisters, and any other blood relatives.

But let’s take a look at the flip side—the “fine print,” if you will, of the marriage contract. Let’s look at a few of the responsibilities that come with legal marriage.

Credit. We’ve all seen those ads on TV where the guy is singing about knowing your credit score. Well, he’s telling the truth. When you marry the love of your life, you’re also marrying his or her credit score. Later, when you go looking to buy your little “dream home,” your partner’s poor credit history can mean you can’t get a loan, even if you can afford it on your own income. At the very least, it may bounce you into a considerably higher interest rate, costing you tens of thousands of dollars over the life of your mortgage. The same holds true for buying a new car.

Bills. When unmarried couples have bills, each partner is only legally responsible for his or her own expenses. Not so for marrieds. If lover boy is a shop-aholic who has more shoes than Imelda Marcos and whose favorite pastime is “acquisition therapy,” you may be left holding more than the shopping bags. Maybe a few hundred dollars at Macy’s isn’t a problem, but bills aren’t limited to shopping binges. Suppose your sweetie is hospitalized with a serious illness. As the legal spouse, you not only get hospital visitation rights, you are also responsible for the expenses not covered by insurance.

Fidelity. As sexual mavericks who cannot legally marry, gay people have often crafted their relationships on their own terms. Some opt for traditional monogamy, while others prefer something more “open,” where sex outside of the relationship is permitted. Still others may even have a more communal arrangement, with three or more people involved. When someone breaks the rules the relationship may end, but it’s usually not much more complicated than picking up the pieces and going their separate ways. With legal marriage, however, things become much more complicated. Tricking with that hot number down the street can cost a lot more than a broken heart. Divorce can be messy and expensive, and if the guilty party is the primary breadwinner or there is considerable disparity in income, he or she can even be required to pay alimony.

These are just a few of the responsibilities that come with legal marriage. Am I suggesting that gays should not marry? Not at all. What I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for. Marriage equality will eventually be the law of the land, but marriage is more than a fancy wedding and Happily Ever After. It is a legally binding contract that we should not take lightly or rush into, just because it’s suddenly available. Know what you’re getting into before you say, “I do.”

Popularity: -0% [?]