Death and taxes

In Go Forth and Multiply I looked at the reasons why marriage laws exist. I discovered that the personal qualities assessed by authorities to determine whether a couple is qualified to be married do little to ensure the integrity of the nuclear family unit, despite proponents of traditional marriage claiming that this is the purpose of these laws. The real point seems to be to ensure that the individuals entering into the marriage are actually capable of making the decision to marry and that no one is being coerced or taken advantage of through the union.

There is another important qualification that I failed to mention – that neither of the individuals is married to anyone else. This is actually a mandate from the federal government, rather than the state. From what I gather, this is the only marriage law regulated at the federal level and it originates in the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in 1862. This made it a criminal offense to have more than one spouse at the same time. However, the logic behind this decision wasn’t based on a moral standing or designed to protect children; it was in response to the growing property portfolio and power of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as a result of pluralist marriages (the law also placed a financial limit on church and non-profit ownership).

So...is the government’s interest in marriage actually more about regulating power and money than it is about imposing traditional moral objectives?

Let’s take a look at exactly what same-sex couples are actually being excluded from by examining the aspects of civil marriage.

Civil marriage is a single legal contract that instantaneously confers a number of benefits, rights and privileges between spouses. After DOMA passed, The United States Government Accountability Office identified 1,049 federal benefits, rights and privileges that are contingent on marital status. By 2004 this number had increased to 1,138. This is further compounded at the state level where, for example, Illinois has a further 648 benefits, rights and privileges that are contingent on marital status.

Feel free to read through them all in detail, especially if you are having trouble sleeping. Alternatively, you can trust me in saying that they pretty much all whittle down to death and taxes by:

·         defining how the couple is treated with regards to employment benefits and taxation (including 179 provisions at the federal level alone) while they are married;

·         establishing rights and responsibilities for dissolving the marriage, including obligations for child and spousal support; and

·         defaulting the surviving spouse as next of kin upon being widowed, which means they are entitled to receive financial benefits (e.g. pensions), transfer of property, etc.

Some of the federal laws defer to the state definition of marriage, so if the state government legally recognises same-sex marriage then the couple will receive equal legal rights and protection. However, it is important to recognise that only 5 states and the District of Columbia are currently marriage-equal. Other states that recognise ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’ present a complex legal landscape that still significantly limits rights and protections for same-sex couples.

Some of the provisions can be accessed through other routes. For example, most provisions relating to criminal issues (e.g. domestic violence and sexual assault) include the terminology ‘spouse or intimate partner’, recognising the reality that alternative forms of family exist. Provisions relating to employment can be supplement where employers implement their own policies to extend benefits to same-sex couples. Many private companies choose to do this even though they are not legally obligated because they recognise and value staff diversity.

In spite of all that, there are still some incredibly disparaging issues. I take particular offence to these:

·         Federal health and welfare programmes – these are primarily designed to assist disadvantaged individuals and families. Marital status is normally significant in determining whether a family qualifies for support and what level of support they receive. This excludes disadvantaged same-sex couples from receiving adequate levels of support and all same-sex couples from receiving benefits in the event of their partners’ death.

·         Child and spousal support – these laws exist to ensure children receive adequate support in the event of divorce by obliging absent parents to provide appropriate funds to the spouse with whom the child lives. A partner left to raise children after a same-sex relationship has broken up has no legal recourse to seek child support. Equally, a parent can be left without legal recourse to gain access to a child.

Obama extended federal benefits to same-sex couples last year and, with the repeal of DADT, this will likely be extend to include military personnel and veterans. However, immigration remains exclusive as a direct result of the definition of marriage in DOMA.

The reason I can’t come home with my partner comes down to how marriage is defined...by DOMA.

If you asked 100 married couples to define marriage, I guarantee you will get 200 different answers. Ask them again in 10 years and you’ll get another 200 answers, all different from the first. What makes a marriage is unique to the individuals in it; how they conduct their relationship depends on their needs and circumstances which are constantly changing.

Marriage laws and the legal provisions extended to married couples have nothing to do with how marriage is defined to individuals and everything to do with legally defining the couple as a financially interdependent unit. The evidence required to prove the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes underlines this, by requiring couples to submit documentation showing joint ownership or property and/or documentation showing the co-mingling of financial resources.

Watch this.

I absolutely love the point Cynthia Nixon makes here, so I’m going to say it again:

Marriage equality will not re-define marriage any more than allowing women the right to vote in 1920 re-defined ‘voting’ or integrating diners in the 1960s re-defined ‘eating out.’ It will simply mean everyone has a right to sit at the same table.

The more I watch the debates on same-sex marriage and speak with people about this issue, the more I realise how little most Americans know about how and why the government regulates marriage. This realisation is what compelled me to write this blog in the first place and the comments I have received here and through private communications have confirmed this message needs to get out...

Lie to me

When I got home from work on Wednesday I was flooded with news of Obama signing DADT into law and immediately got on YouTube to watch the full video for myself. It was validating to hear my President recognising that sexual orientation is not a character flaw so significant that it undermines a person’s potential to demonstrate courage and valour and to see him sign those sentiments into law.

It’s staggering to think that 14,000 people were discharged from service for being gay. I welled up when Obama spoke of Captain Jonathan Hopkins being discharged only to receive emails from his soldiers saying they had always known he was gay and thought he was the best commander they ever had. He was removed from service because of his sexuality and not his leadership qualities. In spite of everything he worked for and the achievements he made, his country told him that he was not worthy of service because of who he was.

This echoed with a video I watched recently about Jane Castor, the Tampa Police Chief. She says she fundamentally wants to be remembered as a good police chief, but at the same time recognises the significance of her position as the first female chief (and as a lesbian). These aspects of her self make her significantly more vulnerable to criticism. She says “If a male in this position fails, then he fails as an individual. If I fail, I fail for all women.” She can’t change her gender or her sexuality (although she could have chosen to keep it hidden). Regardless of how she defines herself, she will be judged by how others may ultimately define her.

Discrimination is unfair treatment based on prejudice. The particular trait identified for prejudice can include almost anything, as demonstrated by Jane Elliott’s “blue-eyed/brown-eyed” experiment. If you haven’t seen this before, I recommend you watch it. It clearly demonstrates just how easy it is to discriminate; we all do it and some believe it is an innate human trait. It is for this very reason that protecting everyone against institutionalised discrimination is of particular relevance to humanity.

Take some time to consider this:

How do you identify yourself? How do you prioritise your unique genetic traits, personality characteristics, educational and/or professional achievements or your relationships to other people to define who you are?

How to you portray this identity to others? In what ways do you express yourself through your appearance or the way you speak, etc.?

Do any of your identifying traits limit what you can do in certain situations? If so, have you ever changed the way you portray yourself or hidden certain aspects of yourself in order to reduce conflict or achieve an objective?

Is that lying?

Growing up, I ignored so many aspects of my self because I somehow knew they were wrong. I don’t ever remember anyone sitting me down and directly saying GAY IS BAD, but I inherently felt ashamed of the feelings I had and my attraction toward women. I knew that what I felt was ‘different’ and so I buried it away, out of reach from everyone, including myself. I wasn’t lying; I was simply adapting to my situation in the way I felt was most appropriate to ensure my own ‘survival’. By changing that situation (i.e. studying abroad in Australia) I was able to express those hidden aspects and it fundamentally changed how I looked, spoke and interacted with people. I liked who I was in that situation and I did what I needed to do to ensure I could be that person most of the time.

We all adapt to our context in some way. When I go to work I wear office attire, I am confident, making eye contact with everyone, speaking clearly and directly and ensuring my body language is welcoming and professional. At parties I like to drink myself merry and usually end up dancing badly and/or singing loudly. At home I lounge around in sweatpants and eat my dinner off my lap in front of back-to-back episodes of Man v Food. All of these are me, and yet not one of them completely defines who I am.

So adapting to a situation is normal and healthy; BUT, there is a threshold of acceptability with regard to asking people to sacrifice their integrity. It is not healthy or right to force someone to portray something other than who they are for a long period of time. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) made a poignant observation in the 2 December DADT hearings: DADT undermines the fundamental principles of the military, namely honesty, integrity and trust, and forced gay and lesbian soldiers into a situation of “I don’t want to lie, but you won’t let me tell the truth”.  

This is almost word-for-word how C describes how she feels going through border control in the USA. Immigration officers at every airport assess the potential risk of each entrant based on the information given to them. If they feel any individual is trying to undermine the system in any way, including trying to enter the USA deceitfully, they can refuse that person entry.

In particular, officers try to assess if a person’s situation is such that they are at risk of overstaying their visa. C’s ESTA visa is valid for 2 years and she is entitled to multiple entries, provided she stays for no longer than 90 days at a time. If an immigration officer interpreted the fact that C is the same-sex partner of an American citizen as a potential risk factor, she could be turned away at any time. This isn’t as big a risk as being discharged from the military, but the principle is exactly the same.

C only travels to the USA with me once or twice a year and we only ever stay for short periods of time, so I think we’re safely under the radar. We have evidence of our lives in the UK and can demonstrate that we are not intending to live in the USA, so it is unlikely that an immigration officer could find suitable grounds to refuse her entry. Yet we still adapt ourselves to reduce any risk every time we enter the country.

In October 2009, the immigration officer at O’Hare asked C the purpose of her trip. If she had been completely forthcoming she would have said “I’m here because my mother-in-law has sustained a critical head injury. She’s in intensive care and my partner is beside herself with grief. I’m here because I want to help look after the people I love”. Instead, she responded: “I’m here for a shopping trip.”

I don’t want to lie to you...

My brother asked me recently why I hate America. I answered him honestly – I don’t. I just find it impossible to respect a country that doesn’t respect me. From the moment our plane touches down in the USA, we are forced to lie about who we are. This is the exact same principle as DADT; it is unfair and wrong. We may not be soldiers sacrificing our lives in the name of the USA, but we are both human beings (and I am an American citizen).

When we return to the UK, bleary-eyed at Heathrow, I stand in the Non-EU passport line while C breezes through the EU/British passport line. When I get up to the counter, I hand over my foreign-national identity card that clearly states I have definite leave to remain as the spouse of a UK citizen. The immigration officer scans my card, asks me how my trip was and I cross the border to my adopted home country, integrity intact.

I will never suffer anxiety about trying to get across the UK border because my rights here are validated. My love here is validated. My status as a human being here is validated. These are the basic principles of life – not special privileges. We are expected to assume the same responsibilities as everyone else, so are we therefore not deserving of the same respect entitled everyone else?

References:

White House video of Obama signing DADT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS26CciE0VQ

Jane Castor video: http://vodpod.com/watch/5088563-jane-castor-tampa-chief-of-police-out-lesbian

Rachel Maddow’s summary of the DADT hearings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Be72P9Y0eM&feature=related

Jane Elliott A Class Divided http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCjDxAwfXV0