Same-Sex Politics

On November 6, 2012 voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage. A historic turning point, it is the first time that marriage for gay men and lesbians has been approved at the ballot box. It had been voted down more than 30 times.

In Minnesota, in another first, voters rejected a proposal to amend the State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, a measure that has been enshrined in the constitutions of 30 states. The votes meant that same-sex marriage is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia.

Rights groups said the victories were an important sign that public opinion was changing. Though same-sex marriage remains unpopular in the South, rights campaigners see the potential for legislative gains in Delaware, Hawaii and Illinois.

Same-sex marriage became a reality in the United States in 2004 in the wake of a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that it was required under the equal protection clause of the state’s Constitution. Prior to 2012, same-sex marriage was also legalized in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C. Early in 2012, Washington State and Maryland both approved same-sex marriage laws, but neither took effect immediately and were subject to fall referendums.

In early May, North Carolina voted in large numbers for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, partnerships and civil unions, becoming the 30th state in the country and the last in the South to include a prohibition on gay marriage in the state constitution.

Days later, on May 9, President Obama declared for the first time that he supports same-sex marriage, putting the moral power of his presidency behind a social issue that continues to divide the country. His support ended years of public equivocating over the divisive social issue for the president, who previously said he opposed gay marriage but repeatedly said he was “evolving” on the issue because of contact with friends and others who are gay.

For more than a decade, the issue has been a flashpoint in American politics, setting off waves of competing legislation, lawsuits and ballot initiatives to either legalize or ban the practice and causing rifts within religious groups.

The legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States had been a relatively recent goal of the gay-rights movement, but in the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay-rights organizers have placed it at the center of their agenda, steering money and muscle into dozens of state capitals in an effort to persuade lawmakers. At the same time, conservative groups pushed hard to forestall or reverse other courts through new laws or referendums.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that the institution of marriage is a unique expression of love and commitment and that calling the unions of same-sex couples anything else is a form of second-class citizenship; they also point out that many legal rights are tied to marriage. Those opposed to same-sex marriage agree that marriage is a fundamental bond with ancient roots. But they draw the opposite conclusion, saying that allowing same-sex couples to marry would undermine the institution of marriage itself.

Gay and Lesbian Marriage -- 2012

As of November 7, 2012 gay marriage has been legalized in 9 US States (ME, MA, CT, IA, VT, NH, NY, WA). 31 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. 6 states have laws banning gay marriage. 

According to a new ABC News-Washington Post poll, 51% of Americans support gay marriage. The survey is reportedly the fifth consecutive news organization poll since March 2011 to find that 50% of respondents believe gay marriage should be recognized as legally valid.

The results of the ABC/Washington Post survey also includes some interesting findings about the ages and political leanings. More than 6 in 20 young adults, and 3 out of 5 liberals are in favor of marriage equality, while two-thirds of senior citizens and 81% of “very conservative” respondents oppose gay marriage, according to ABC.

Some pro and con quotes that I found on ProCon.org website sheds light on some of the divided positions actively playing out currently:

Barack Obama, JD, 44th President of the United States, stated during a May 9, 2012 interview for ABC News with Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts: “When I think about members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is gone, because they’re not able to commit themselves in a marriage; at a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married...When I meet gay and lesbian couples, when I see how caring they are, how much love they have in their hearts, how they’re taking care of their kids, when I hear from them the pain they feel that somehow they are still considered less than full citizens when it comes to their legal rights, then, for me, I think it has just tipped the scales in that direction.”

David Blankenhorn, MA, Founder and President of the Institute for American Values, stated in his June 22, 2012 New York Times op-ed titled “How My View on Gay Marriage Changed,” stated: “In my 2007 book, ‘The Future of Marriage,’ and in my 2010 court testimony concerning Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, I took a stand against gay marriage. But as a marriage advocate, the time has come for me to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good it can do...I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.

Mark Osler, JD, Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, wrote in his May 19, 2012 article for CNN.com’s “Belief” blog, titled “My Take: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage: “I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith. What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others...It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage...The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.”

Lamba Legal, the largest legal organization in the US committed to the civil rights of gays and lesbians, wrote the following in the article “Marriage,” available at www.lambdalegal.org (accessed Sept. 12, 3012): “Regardless of how completely their lives are intertwined or how deeply they care for each other, individuals in same-sex relationships frequently are treated like strangers under the law – and none are afforded full equality in this country. This unequal treatment causes concrete and devastating harm. It most deeply affects those with children, those with fewer financial resources, people of color, senior citizens or those with less access to education. In addition, the government’s denial of legal statuses and protections available to different-sex couples brands lesbians and gay men as second class.”

Marshall Forstein, MD, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard University Medical School was quoted in the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission’s Dec. 10, 2008 final report titled “The Legal, Medical, Economic & Social Consequences of New Jersey’s Civil Union Law” available at www.state.nj

Joseph Ratzinger, DTh, Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of the quote, wrote in the July 3, 2003 report approved by Pope John Paul II “Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, “available at www.vatican.va: “God has willed to give the union of man a woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus he blessed the man and woman with the words ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:28). Therefore, the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage...There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts ‘close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

The American Bar Association’s House of Delegates passed “Resolution 111” by a voice vote with only one person voting against it on Aug. 10, 2010 (available at abanet.org): “The American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry. Many gay and lesbian people seek a committed, lifelong partnership with another adult, and to raise children. ABA policy has kept pace with our society’s evolving understanding that gay and lesbian people are healthy, functioning contributors to our society who face discrimination – both as individuals and as families...This proposed recommendation will signal the ABA’s support for the extension of equal marriage rights to same-sex couples under state, territorial, and tribal law, as consistent with our country’s constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, as well as states’ strong interest in protecting and fostering the family unit...In addition, the denial of these important protections harms the hundreds of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples. Treating same-sex couples differently not only tangibly harms those individuals, couples, and their families, but also stigmatizes them and their children by deeming them unworthy to enjoy fundamental and equal citizenship rights.”

These are just a sampling of current opinions showing a growing number of people addressing and becoming more conscious of the multiple issues facing gays and lesbians. Most importantly, I feel, are the human rights and equality issues. As our country grapples with these concerns, progress is being made state by state as these rights are being reflected in our political system and acknowledged by more and more people. We are becoming a forefront issue in people’s minds. It is an interesting time.

Reparative Therapy

Twenty-two years ago, on May 17, the World Health Assembly removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders when it approved a new version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases.

"Since homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, it does not require a cure. There is no medical indication for changing sexual orientation," said PAHO Director Dr. Mirta Roses Periago. Practices known as "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" represent "a serious threat to the health and well-being, even the lives, of affected people."

PAHO, (Pan American Health Organizaion), which celebrates its 110th anniversary this year, is the oldest public health organization in the world. It works with its member countries to improve the health and the quality of life of the people of the Americas. It also serves as the Regional Office for the Americas of WHO.

Services that purport to "cure" people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people, the Pan American Health Organization said in a position statement launched on May 17, 2012, the International Day against Homophobia. The statement calls on governments, academic institutions, professional associations and the media to expose these practices and to promote respect for diversity.

The PAHO statement notes that there is a professional consensus that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition. However, several United Nations bodies have confirmed the existence of "therapists" and "clinics" that promote treatment intended to change the sexual orientation of non-heterosexual people.

The document notes that no rigorous scientific studies demonstrate any efficacy of efforts to change sexual orientation. However, there are many testimonies about the severe harm to mental and physical health that such "services' can cause. Repression of sexual orientation has been associated with feelings of guilt and shame, depression, anxiety, and even suicide.

As an aggravating factor, there have been a growing number of reports about degrading treatments, and physical and sexual harassment under the guise of such "therapies," which are often provided illicitly. In some cases, adolescents have been subjected to such interventions involuntarily and even deprived of their liberty, sometimes kept in isolation for several months.

"These practices are unjustifiable and should be denounced and subject to sanctions and penalties under national legislation," said Dr. Roses. "These supposed conversion therapies constitute a violation of ethical principles of health care and violate human rights that are protected by international and regional agreements."

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a historic bill that will protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) minors from "reparative" therapies administered by mental health professionals aimed at altering sexual orientation or gender identities and expressions. Senate Bill 1172, which was co-sponsored by the NCLR, Equality California, Gaylesta Courage Campaign, Lambda Legal, and Mental Health America of Northern California, and supported by dozens of organizations, is the first law of its kind in the United States and will become effective on January 1, 2013.

To address the problem, PAHO makes a series of recommendations for governments, academic institutions, professional associations, the media, and civil society, including:

* "Conversion" or "reparative" therapies at the clinics offering them should be denounced and subject to adequate sanctions.

* Public institutions responsible for training health professionals should include courses on human sexuality and sexual health in their curricula, with pathologization rejection, and hate toward non-heterosexual persons accentuated.

* Professional associations should disseminate documents and resolutions by national and international institutions and agencies that call for the de-psychopathologization of sexual diversity and help identify prevention of interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation.

* In the media, homophobia in any of its manifestations and expressed by any person should not be exposed as a public health problem and a threat to human dignity and human rights.

* Civil society organizations can develop mechanisms of civil vigilance to detect violations of the human rights of non-heterosexual persons and report them to the relevant authorities. They can also help to identify and report people and institutions involved in the administration of "reparative" or "conversion therapies".

Should gay marriage be legal? Some Pros

As of May 10, 2012, gay marriage has been legalized in the following eight states: Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Connecticut (Nov. 23, 3008), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Vermont (Sept. 1. 2009), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (June 24, 2011), Washington (passed Feb. 14, 2012; effective Jan. 1, 2013) Maryland (passed Mar. 1, 2012; effective Jan. 1, 2013) and the District of Columbia (Mar 3, 2010). 31 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional discrimination. Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution. I have gathered together some pros to the question of if gay marriage should be legal:

1) Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples.

2) There is no such thing as traditional marriage prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements.

3) Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974's Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause."

4) Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends that message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.

5) Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.

6) Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children.

7) Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support."

8) Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending.

9) Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. 

10) Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values." A study published on Apr 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that laws permitting same-sex marriage have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, or the percent of children born out of wedlock.

11) Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.

12) If marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country," did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents.

13) Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is 'one of the basic civil rights of man," and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling.

Lesbian Friendships

Everyone knows the stereotype depicted in the joke, "What do lesbians do on their second date?"--"Rent a Uhaul". I have experienced and known many lesbians who have rushed into relationship in this way.

The experience I have wanted to have, but hadn't in my lifetime with other lesbians, is to  just be friends. No emotional enmeshment. No co-dependency. No sex. No partnership. Simply friends.

Most of my life-time closest friends are straight. Some are in relationships and others are single. Their preference has undoubtedly helped me keep the boundaries of friendship secure and protected.

Is the need for lesbians to bond manifested because we have fuzzy boundaries? Is it too difficult for us to be single and not in a relationship? Is our identity only validated by being "with" someone?

Last year I met a lesbian while we were both walking our dogs. She was traveling through Colorado, considering moving here. Over the next month and a half we became friends. When she left we stayed in contact by phone. In July of this year she moved here.

Our friendship has grown as we have spent a lot of time together doing things. We bike. We go to Tai Chi twice a week. Talking over lunches is a regular happening. We both love to go to the mountains. Last Monday we took an all-day road trip through Rocky Mountain National Park. (It was spectacular!)

There has never been any confusion in our friendship about what the relationship is and is not. There are no hidden agendas. There is no sexual tension. In the same way as with my straight friends -- we are friends.

I am grateful that I have a lesbian friend. It is nice to share that way of being in the world with someone who totally understands it. Being lesbians gives us a commonality that feels very comfortable.

I appreciate the absence of pressure I experience in this friendship. It's not complicated. Without the tension that often exists between lesbians to make the relationship into something more, I feel a freedom that is quite satisfying.

It has been a wonderful growing experience for me to develop a solid friendship with another single lesbian. It has strengthened my sense of myself. I am having great fun! I am blessed.

Equality

Lambda Legal has been hard at work on a broad range of issues including immigration, HIV, relationship recognition and workplace equality. With decisions last month in two high-profile cases they have been working with, they are now looking to the U. S. Supreme Court. It is the biggest breakthrough in the largest legal stage in the country ever in our history.

The U. S. Supreme Court has been asked to review two Lambda Legal cases:

The first so-called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is Golinski vs.OPM. Lambda Legal represents Karen Golinski, a lesbian federal employee who had been denied equal health insurance benefits for her spouse. The Department of Justice filed papers seeking Supreme Court review.

Lambda Legal won its case challenging Section 3 (DOMA) in federal district court and is now waiting for the Ninth Circuit Court appeal to make its pending decision. The Department of Justice is also asking the Court to review a separate DOMA challenge, Gill vs.OPM.

Diaz vs.Brewer is Lambda Legals' case defending family health coverage for gay and lesbian employees of the State of Arizona. This case is a matter of equal pay for equal work and protecting medical benefits for the same-sex domestic partners of state employees. The federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled that trying to take away this family health coverage violated the rights of these employees who deserve to be treated the same as other state employees. Governor Jan Brewer and other state officials have now appealed these losses to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Court refuses to hear the case then the preliminary injunction that currently protects state employees will stand and maintain for the case's duration the health coverage they rely on to safeguard their families' health. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, Lambda Legal will defend the lower-court's decisions for the workers and their families.

Lambda Legal is also involved in two other cutting edge cases. One champions the legal interests of people with HIV and has the potential to save the lives of many people living with HIV and end the AIDS crisis in this county by expanding Medicaid in all states so most low-income people, especially those with HIV, can get the health care they need.

Lambda Legal is also involved in a friend-of-the-court brief in the constitutional challenge to Arizona's discriminatory anti-immigration law. The lawyers of Lambda Law are making a strong case for equality. Equality for gays and lesbians is moving history forward at an astonishing speed. All of these issues are going to be watched closely by the gay and lesbian community as our human rights move closer and closer toward equality.

Companies and Products Boycotted for Supporting LGBT Rights

Oreo's support of Pride Month may have been applauded by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights advocates after the popular brand released an image of a rainbow-stuffed cookie on its Facebook page, but not everyone was as ecstatic after the now-iconic shot vent viral on a number of social media platforms.

As a result, a number of different Facebook groups have sprung up denouncing the controversial image. The founder of one writes, "Kraft foods and Oreo cookies have decided to toss the morals that formed our great nation right out the window and literally toss them right down our throat! Boycott Oreo cookies and hit them where it hurts...in the wallet."

Still, a Kraft Foods spokesperson defended the Oreo image. "As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the Oreo ad is a fun reflection of our values."

Of course, the brand is not the first to experience a backlash of conservative consumers after publicly supporting LGBT rights.

Other companies have been boycotted by conservatives in recent years until as the groups say they "stop going down the Path of Destruction".

The following is a list of companies who have supported LGBT and have been boycotted because of it:

Betty Crocker

Levis

Cheerios and General Mills Products

American Apperal

Walt Disney World Resort

Starbucks

Wheaties

Tide - Proctor and Gamble

Microsoft

Home Depot

Pampers Diapers

Pepsi

Safeway

Crest

Old Navy

Girl Scouts

Macys

Target

JC Penney

Pillsbury

Walgreens

Ford 

Gap

Green Giant

The conservative anti-gay group behind this spring's scrapped JCPenney boycott is now targeting Oreos for the cookie brand's controversial endorsement of Pride month. In a post titled "Oreo -- No Longer Favorite Cookie," members of One Million Moms are condemning a now-iconic image which showed the cookie filled with rainbow-colored cream. The image, which was praised by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights advocates, was unveiled last weekend on Oreo's offical Facebook page and quickly went viral on a number of social media platforms after its release.

"The cookie maker is quick to point out that the picture is simply an ad, and doesn't depict a true product," the group notes on its website. "But it announced to American consumers where it stands on the controversial "gay" marriage issue. Homosexuals are weighing in, hoping Oreo makes the fake cookie real."

"There are plenty of cookies on the market for moms to buy for their families that do not support liberal causes," the group's rant continues. "We have a choice. Kraft's brands include Oreo, Cadbury, Maxwell House, and Nabisco."

One Million Moms' assessment, unfortunately, is shared by a number of vocal consumers, as evidenced by a number of different Facebook groups which have sprung up denouncing the controversial image. The latest tiraid comes just weeks after One Million Moms members condemned DC Comics and Marvel Superheroes for their inclusion of gay characters. The group is perhaps best know, however, for threatening to boycott JCPenney, after the retail group hired Ellen DeGeneres, who is openly gay, as its spokeswoman. Members of the group also blasted JCPenney in May, after the Texas-based chain included a lesbian couple as models in its Mother's Day shopping catalog, and yet again in June after a gay male couple was featured in the Father's Day edition. 

Gay issues continue to become more and more visible and this rainbow-stuffed Oreo add has done a lot to bring awareness to us and our need for human rights and equality. It will be interesting to watch the LGBT journey unfold!

Marriage Equality

President Obama has made history by endorsing marriage equality for gays and lesbians. “I want everyone treated fairly in this country. We have never gone wrong when we’ve extended rights and responsibilities to everybody,” he said. “That doesn’t weaken families, that strengthens families.”

Obama’s announcement came two days after Republican rival Mitt Romney gave a commencement address at the evangelical Liberty University in Virginia, where he made social issues a main theme of his remarks and touched on the marriage storyline.

“Culture matters. As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate,” Romney said. “So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”

While the full political implications of the president’s same-sex marriage remarks remain to be seen, Gallup released a poll showing 51% of Americans approve of Obama’s support for gay couples to marry. A further breakdown of the numbers shows a significant gender gap: Fifty-six percent of women say couples of the same gender should be legally allowed to marry, while 42% of men feel the same way.

The issue became prime political fodder, with several high-profile Republicans pouncing on the president’s remarks.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he “wasn’t sure that (Obama’s) views on marriage could get any gayer,” sparking laughs among his audience at an event held by Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus also made headlines when he said that same-sex marriage was not a “matter of civil rights.”

“I think it’s just a matter of whether or not we’re going to adhere to something that’s been historical and religious and legal in this country for many, many years,” Priebus said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” I mean, marriage has to have a definition, and we just happen to believe it’s between a man and woman.”

We live in an interesting and important time. Will history be made or will we be set back and forced to wait for equality, our human rights and our freedom?

Marriage vs. Civil Unions

Possibly the most controversial issue facing lesbians today is the establishment of laws for our partnerships. We are making progress in having our relationships acknowledged but have a long way to go before equality between heterosexual and same-sex relationships is met. To make headway toward this equality some states have tried to put into place civil unions. I thought it would be interesting to do a quick comparison between marriage and civil unions. This does not even begin to scratch the surface of the differences but hopefully will get us thinking about the inequalities that are so glaringly present in today's world.

What is marriage?

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.

Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities such as:
     Social security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
     Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member.
     Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job when one spouse is laid
off.
     Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one souse is laid off.
     ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse.
     Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers.
     Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance.
     The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.

What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Portability;
     Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

Federal Benefits:  
     According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family
     Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling Out Forms:
     Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate and Unequal--Second Class Status:
     Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws it is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Ending a Civil Union:
     If you are married, you can get divorced in any sate in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.

The challenges lesbian couples face today are overwhelming and blatantly unfair. The federal government is opposed to giving us the same equal rights as heterosexuals with their many protections. We must stay diligent and look forward to the day when our relationships can be marriages and not civil unions or no acknowledgment at all. I will be very happy when we can have the equality others take for granted and enjoy.

Homophobic Bigotry and the Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church has been in progressively more and more trouble as the growing numbers of sexual abuse cases have come forward into public awareness. These acts of violence against children (for the most part) are as disturbing as the covering up of them by the Church.

It seems almost ironic, (when they are in trouble over a sexual matter), that they would ‘come out’ with such a strong stand against same-sex couples. Granted, the Church’s position about the meaning of “marriage” has been rigidly set for centuries. It has been loosened in the past twenty-five years with the growth of the numbers of couples who have gotten divorced. Still, its position is set. The statement that came out of the Vatican about same-sex marriages was done with such hatred that it came as a blow in spite of the fact it was not a surprise.

National Public Radio and The Washington Post reported this month that Pope Benedict XVI delivered an address at the Vatican to a delegation of visiting bishops from the United States. In it, he forcefully denounced the “powerful” push to grant same-sex couples the freedom to marry in the United States.

From the NPR article:

The 84-year-old pope acknowledged his comments might sound anachronistic or “countercultural,” particularly to the young. But he told bishops to not back down in the face of “powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage.”

“Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage,” he said…

Benedict said a weakened appreciation for traditional marriage … had led to “grave social problems bearing an immense human and economic cost.”

The visiting delegation included bishops from Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota. It was led by Twin Cities Archbishop John Nienstedt, who has inserted himself more deeply into the battle over civil marriage than perhaps any other Catholic bishop across the country. Nienstedt is the same priest who injected a prayer for marriage discrimination into the Catholic Mass, turning the Eucharist—which is sacred to Catholics—into a weapon with which to marginalize and exclude LGBT people. He told the priests of his diocese that if any of them dared to oppose the Church’s efforts to write its discriminatory teachings on marriage into the state constitution, they had better keep their mouths shut.

Pope Benedict’s words, delivered to a group of bishops headed by one of the most notoriously anti-gay figures in the American Catholic Church, amount to nothing less than an official endorsement of the United States’ Catholic Bishops’ all-out campaign of spiritual bullying and forceful political lobbying against American lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, couples, and families.

It is difficult to even imagine the leader of a religion cloaking anti-gay hatred with the mantle of faith to such an unprecedented degree. His address explicitly endorses malicious religion-based bigotry. At a time when the Roman Catholic Church is in such a publicly controversial position it is almost surprising that such statements would be made. Almost…