The Marriage Question

Dateline: 11/27/98

I was all set to upload a happy, uplifting, "All I Want For Christmas" feature today, I had even written it a couple of days ago. Then, just the other morning I was reading the Los Angeles Times and scanning the Letters to the Editor when I came upon a letter entitled "Marriage for Gays."

In light of the recent election results in Alaska and Hawaii, and the California DOMA proposition ready to hit the ballot in the year 2000, I was ready to read either a right-wing assault on our right to marry or a stiring letter, advocating that right from one of us and our many non-G/L supporters.

Imagine my surprise when it was neither --- instead it was a letter from two lesbians, who shall remain nameless, who explained why they believe that they are already married and are planning to vote yes to ban gay marriage in the California 2000 election.

Now, I know that not all gays and lesbians agree that the Right to Marry is an important or should be our most current fight, and some are willing to accept half measures, I think this is the first time I have seen a gay or lesbian person actively work against our right to marry.

I'm going to share some their letter, and respond to it here:

Them:
We don't need any additional goverment sanction or approval for us to be married to each other anywhere in the US; we are already legally married here in California, and, if, we did the same thing elsewhere, we could do it legally in all 50 states. Here's how this is possible:

Me:
(Let's look at each of their points one by one)

• We own our home jointly
  Which means they had to find a lender willing to make them a loan based upon their "joint" credit. Not always that easy without the legal bond of marriage.
• Joint banking
  Not all banks are willing to establish joint accounts for non-married people; also, in those cities and towns without legal protection against discrimination, people aren't going to necessarily be willing to establish a joint account. No married person has these considerations to worry about.
• Power of Attorney financially and medically over each other
  While "binding" ... if a family wants to contest the documents, they will, and it is a rare doctor who isn't going to sit back and let the courts decide. Married people don't have that problem.
• Joint ownership of vehicles
  That problem of finding a lender who will use both incomes raises its head again.
• Both wills have each other as beneficiaries
  Wills are hardly free. Good wills are rarely inexpensive. Also, the more one has, the more a properly drafted will can cost.
• Including our insurance policies
  Insurers required an "insurable interest" before one can name a beneficiary. While joint ownership in a house will often be considered an insurable interest, where does that leave those of us who only have each other? Yes, we can change beneficiaries after we've bought the policy. And family can fight about the policy charging "undue influence" or "fraud."
• Jointly owned investments
  It's wonder that they've opened joint investment accounts. What if they want to dissolve their marriage? It does happen. When it happens to/with married people, there are laws that outline how property is to be divided. These women don't have that. Instead they'll be facing thousands upon thousands in legal bills fighting over their assets - well beyond the costs that a married couple would incur.
• Joint legal custody of our six children
  This was some trick, and frankly, I'm not sure how they did it. Did their children have fathers who willingly gave up their parental rights? Did they spend the thousand or so per for "co-parent" adoption in additions to thousands for each donor insemination? New Jersey is the only state which allows a gay or lesbian couple to adopt jointly, and these women live in California. Their joint custody did not come without great cost

As you can see, we are legally married to each other in every important way, with many benefits, and possible domestic partner health benefits coming in the future. Any other identified marriage benefit, excluding taxes, are usually social, and not very important to us.

No. I don't see it. They're still missing a plethora of benefits beyond those noted above. In fact, the San Francisco Examiner analyzed just some of the benefits of marriage and found a very substantial finanicial difference after factoring in items such as pensions and social security benefits.

True, we had to do more paperwork to become married, but most of it is free, and it is just as binding as a marriage certificate.

Free? Surely not the wills and other legal documents above. And the costs of fighting relatives when one of the partners dies and the costs of dissolving the relationship, are hardly negligible.

We personally are going to vote yes on the gay marriage ban initiative in March 2000.

I don't mind that these women don't want a legally recognized marriage, although they are deluding themselves that they have the "same thing" with what they do have. They may have a emotionally (and religiously) binding marriage, but the governmental institute portion of marriage is an institute for the societal and especially the financial benefits and protections.

They don't have these.

And I don't quite understand why they would deny it to me just because they don't want it.

Please share your thoughts on this letter and my response on our Bulletin Board.

In Pride,
Deborah