gay marriage v. civil union

The election of 2008 is upon the people of the United States and can be viewed as one of the most important elections during a time of social struggle. Many issues are being debated while the candidates are campaigning across the nation, and one prominent topic is gay marriage. The stereotypically liberal Democrats and the conservative Democrats are blurring their distinct division on the issue of gay marriage and are not split based on partisanship. This controversial issue in the campaigns has raised many questions regarding whether or not to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban gay marriage or to allow states to decide the legality of gay marriage and civil unions. The following dissertation does not focus on the right or wrong of gay marriage but the rights granted and taken away from same-sex couples in states where gay marriage has been deemed illegal or civil unions have been put into place instead of full and equal gay marriage.
Gay marriage laws in the United States, to many, seem to have become prominent in limiting the rights of gay couples and appear to be a return of the idea of “separate but equal”. The controversial issue of gay marriage has been challenged recently by many politicians in deciding whether or not to ban gay marriage as a Constitutional amendment or in the constitutions of separate states, allow civil unions between gay couples, or to permit gay marriage. For the purposes of the written topic, same-sex, homosexual, and gay marriage refer to the same idea of two persons of the same sex to be married. It is extremely important in this study to examine the benefits and disadvantages of each option available to the public to take a stance. The most important aspect to understand is the distinct difference between the definitions of civil union and marriage. Recently, Massachusetts ruled that the only way for gay couples to hold their constitutional rights is through marriage, not civil unions. In their decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wrote: “The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.”
Introduced on May 7, 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) attempted to “define and protect the institution of marriage”. DOMA, set forth by Republicans Bob Barr (GA), Steve Largent (OK), Jim Sensenbrenner (WI), Sue Myrick (NC), Ed Bryant (TN), and Bill Emerson (MO) and Democrats Harold Volkmer (MO), Ike Skelton (MO) proposed that states should decide for themselves the legal status of gay marriages, and to define “marriage” and “spouse” for the purpose of federal law. This act also grants states to deny the recognition of the marriage status if a couple is married in another state and then moves to that state. The DOMA definition of marriage is directly derived from the Washington judicial case of Singer v. Hara in which the court ruled that the denial of a marriage license to two males did not violate the Equal Rights Amendment. The court of Washington stated that “our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children.” Also, even earlier than the 1974, the United States Supreme Court ruled in their decision that the idea of family is one “consisting in and springing from the union for life f one man and one woman in the holy state of matrimony” in the 1885 case of Murphy v. Ramsey. The latter Washington case has been extremely influential in the determination of the rights granted to same-sex couples in the United States. The illegality of gay marriage has been explained partially by the inability for two males to reproduce. The decision made by the court is contradictory, however, for it explains that even though a man or a woman may be infertile, that couple is still allowed to participate in a holy matrimonial ceremony and have a married status recognized by the state and federal government. Washington has not been the only state to outlaw gay marriage and denote “marriage” as the unity between one man and one woman.
Thirty-nine states already prohibit gay marriage with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The states which have passed various gay marriage laws can be separated into distinct regions of the United States. The entirety of the states geographically located in the central United States and southern United States has passed state laws or constitutional amendments barring gay marriage. The western most states, including Washington, Oregon, and California have all passed laws prohibiting gay marriage, but allow for civil unions to take place granting state-level benefits. The same ban on gay marriage and allowance of civil union is prevalent in the northeast. Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut have introduced laws banning gay marriage from occurring, but have implemented civil unions or domestic partnerships, in which same-sex couples register in the state and receive limited state-level benefits. New Jersey and Vermont are the only states in the United States that have passed laws legalizing civil unions and granted all state-level benefits to those same-sex couples united in civil union. The only state to have passed any legislation to allow gay marriage has been Massachusetts enacted May 17, 2004 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. State legislators in Massachusetts later, in November 2006, proposed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, as in the case of several western and northern states, but allowing civil unions. The legislation was shot down by the recess of the state legislature before the bill could be voted on. Even though civil unions seem to be a step forward for the rights of gay Americans, civil unions can also been seen as a step to eliminate the chance for full equal marriage rights granted to those couples granted the rights of the terms “spouse” and “married”.
Civil unions are very different than gay marriages in the respect of the amount and nature of the benefits granted to those couples who have gained a specific status in the view of state governments and the federal governments. After the passage of DOMA in 1996 by Congress and the signing of the bill by President Bill Clinton, the United States General Accounting Office was asked to perform an evaluation as to the “federal laws in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status”. After the Office’s search of all laws with the terms “marr” and “spouse”, one thousand and forty-nine laws were found to be dependent upon marital status. United States General Accounting Office organized the over one thousand laws into thirteen main categories including veterans’ benefits, taxation, crimes and family violence, and Social Security and related programs, housing, and food stamps. According to research done by GLAD in 2006, there are over fourteen hundred state and federal rights granted to couple with a “married” status and little over three hundred state benefits and protections for same-sex couples joined in civil union. There are no federal protections or benefits granted to couples joined by civil unions because states are able to decide whether or not to recognize gay marriage as a legal union.
The federal benefits described are not granted to same-sex couples with domestic partnership or civil union status in the United States. Social Security is one of the many programs in which the terms “husband” and “wife” are defined. The Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program determines whether one is eligible for Social Security payments and the amount of the payments by the marital status of the seeking couple. If one “spouse” in the marriage becomes a widow or widower or a divorced spouse, the right to payments is based upon marriage, not personal earnings. The Social Security Act also includes in the Supplemental Security Income program for those citizens aged, blind, and disabled. The amount of benefits awarded to each individual is conditional upon the eligibility of the applicant’s spouse. “SSI [Supplemental Security Income] defines ‘eligible spouse’ as an aged, blind, or disabled individual who is the husband or wife of another aged, blind, or disabled individual.” Social Security and other related programs are largely independent of the variations within the definitions of the terms related to marital status. Veterans’ benefits are coded for in the United States Code evaluate by the Accounting Office, as well. Pensions, indemnity compensation, medical care, nursing home care, right to burial, educational assistance, and housing are guaranteed by the “virtue of the marital relationship”. Once again, the term “spouse” is used in determining the recipient of monthly dependency and indemnity compensation payments, either when the veteran’s death was service or non-service related. Spouses of veterans are also entitled to medical care provided by government-funded facilities, and may receive National Service Life Insurance. The “spouse”, in the case of the United States Code, is defined as a person of the opposite sex in a married state. Therefore, same-sex couples cannot receive any benefits provided from serving in the armed services if one person in the couple passes away.
One of the largest categories identified by the United States Accounting Office is taxation, recognized with almost one hundred and eighty provisions. Tax law, however, does not define the terms associated with marriage such as “husband” and “wife”, but marital status is employed in federal tax law in the option to taxpayers to file jointly or separately. In another document written by the United States Accounting Office, Tax Administration: Income Tax Treatment of Married and Single Individuals, they recognized fifty-nine provisions in the income tax law dependent upon the taxpayer being married or single. In being married, there is a bonus to filing income tax returns in that a married couple may claim additional deductions and credits, as well as, substantial tax breaks for increased household earnings or shared income. Gifts from one “spouse” to another are deductible on tax returns and gifts from “spouses” to a third party are seen to be from both “spouses” equally. In this aspect more tax deductions are granted to the party that is filing jointly. Over two-hundred and seventy provisions within the United States Code are categorized in federal, civilian, and military service benefits dealing with current and retired personnel in federal service and their families. Yet again, the definition of “spouse” is applied to laws governing federal employees and officers. Without a “spouse” or the distinction of being married, there is no payment of final paychecks and life insurance benefits of employees who are deceased without designating a beneficiary and no rights for the current or former spouse to a retirement annuity after the spouse is deceased.
In contrast, there are many ways in which the title of marriage and “spouse” are used against a person trying to seek more perquisites from the federal government and have no impact on those advantages of the United States Code. Another major federal program that is reliant on definitions of the marital status and “family” of the applicant is housing assistance for low-income families. The definition of families provided by the program does not require any marital relationship, but rather two or more individuals with disabilities living together. The Food Stamp Program shows a non-reliance on the marital status of the individual(s), but rather defines “households” to include not only spouses living together, but in addition groups of people who are living together and regularly need to purchase food. Spouses are sometimes excluded from the benefits available to employees under various laws. The National Labor Relations Act states that “an individual working for his or her spouse does not come within the definition of ‘employee’, and therefore does not have the right, available under the Act to other employees, to organize or to engage in collective bargaining”. In businesses formed by spouses can sometimes be harmful for regulation by the federal government because the business created is not subject to the regulation of wages and hours of the Far Labor Standards Act of 1938 and can present problems with employees. Not only are federal laws granted to couples who do not have the marital status, but states who have granted the right to civil union between same-sex couples have provided the couples with state-level benefits.
Since states have been given the ability to determine the legality of gay marriage, state-level advantages are shared by both same-sex couples who have been joined in civil union and those joined in holy matrimony. In terms of filing tax returns for the individual state in which the same-sex couple has residence, the same-sex couples who have participated in civil unions can file state tax returns jointly, sharing the benefits of joint filing at the degree of the state, not federal, government. Many rights are granted to same-sex couples in Vermont, the first state to allow civil unions. For example, same-sex couples have the right to adoption and are protected under adoption law and procedure just as heterosexual couples are. Victim’s compensation rights and worker’s compensation benefits are also available to those same-sex couples who have taken the step to have a civil union. If a person in the union were to become deceased, the living partner has the “homestead rights of a living spouse and homestead property tax allowances” (Benefits of Civil Unions). In addition, group insurance is available to state employees who have a partner through civil union, through the state only. The issue of divorce and amending the state of their legal relationship is also addressed in the benefits to same-sex couples. According to Vermont state law, “Parties to a civil union can modify the terms, conditions, or effects of their legal relationship in the same manner and to the same extent as married people can through premarital and other agreements recognized and enforceable under the Vermont law” (Benefits of Civil Unions). Benefits of heterosexual marriage have been outlined very distinctly, and some of these benefits are shared by same-sex couples who have had civil unions in those states where it is permitted.
The benefits, however, as previously stated, only are available within the boundaries of the state in which the laws have been passed to allow civil unions to occur. Recognition of the civil union performed in a state allowing such a union is not guaranteed when moving or traveling outside of that state in which the civil union was carried out. As stated as a tax advantage for heterosexual couples, large gifts and transfer of funds from one spouse to another are not subject to tax; however, same-sex couples in civil union are subject to a federal tax. Moreover, federal tax returns must be filed individually. Also, inheritance from the deceased spouse or partner is subject to federal taxation, whereas inheritance of the government defined “spouse” is neither taxed at the state or federal level. There aren’t any federal Social Security benefits guaranteed to same-sex couples who have no marital status or are in a civil union, and no veteran death benefits are available for either of the two cases of marital status. Immigration laws also do not apply to same-sex couples, whereas heterosexual couples who have been married and follow the strict definition of “spouse” can sponsor their spouse and other family members for immigration. The eleven hundred plus benefits denied to same-sex couples are crucial in allowing for the equal treatment and destroying the second-class status imposed upon same-sex couples.
The sources identified in this comparison of marriage and civil union must be analyzed for their bias in presenting the evidence for and against the institution of civil unions, as related to the unequal benefits provided by state governments and the federal government. In obtaining the laws passed by each of the fifty states in regards to the Defense of Marriage Act and related laws, the source used was provided by the Catholic University of America as part of their protection of marriage project. This project is aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and is riddled with articles of instances in which the attempt to allow gay marriage was defeated. This particular source presents a bias towards the religious views held by the majority of the American population in which the Bible denotes homosexuality as a major sin. Another source particularly influential in the conclusion made regarding the stated question was the documentation of the findings by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) as to the federal laws affected by the passage of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. This document seemed to be the least biased of the sources used due to its evaluation of the laws affected and not affected by the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” in DOMA. The GAO is designed to make sure the laws passed by Congress are coherent with the constitutional rights granted to citizens of the United States. The head of the GAO is supposed to be a non-partisan official in the United States government; however, the Comptroller General of the United States, the head of the GAO, is appointed by the president and reviewed by the Senate which causes influence as to the partisanship of the appointing president. The Comptroller General residing over the evaluation the Defense of Marriage Act was Charles A. Bowsher, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican president. According to those who called for the evaluation, specifically, Representative Steve Gunderson the document presented did not evaluate the intended issues, but rather generalized each specific law and did not demonstrate how it affected the rights of same-sex couples. Several comparisons were also employed by various sources in order to identify the benefits of civil union as opposed to gay marriage and the questioned unequal nature of civil unions. The chart entitled “What’s the Difference?” was produced by GLAD, an organization devoted to gay and lesbian advocates and defenders in order to improve the status of homosexuals in the United States. Inherently, this source will have a bias arguing for the complete approval of gay marriage in the United States. GLAD also views civil union as a regression for equal rights because it provides laws allowing politicians and other individuals to feel as though something is being done, but in the long run, the same equal rights will be denied in appeals to the civil union amendments. The denial of appeals will arise from the lack of challenge possible because the federal government already does not recognize same-sex marriages and only states can change the laws set forth. Politics always has its innate bias for the betterment of the party making the decisions and the desire to become reelected and continue holding positions of power.
Easily said, marriages and civil unions remain two completely different ideas, both in practice and belief. Facing the evidence for the rights and benefits to couples with various marital statuses leads to a very conclusive answer to the posed question. Is the institution of civil union a reversion to another “separate but equal”? The establishment of civil unions in the United States may seem to be a large step in the right direction for equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, but is absolutely bringing back the constitutional conflicting idea of “separate but equal”. The number of benefits and advantages provided by the federal government are innumerable when it comes to the effect on the lives of over ten percent of the population. Social Security is extremely important in providing for the ability to support oneself in the later stages of life and is denied to same-sex couples who have been joined in civil union or have no marital status at all, but there are hundreds of acts passed by Congress that use the definitions of terms related to marriage in which the rights stated are denied to same-sex couples. This step in the right direction, known as civil union, has caused the legal refusal of all federal rights, benefits, and protections by the federal government of the United States. Congress, the Supreme Court, but mostly the United States public needs to look at the error of establishing racial “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson and see the extreme similarities to the ongoing imposition of another, sexual “separate but equal” by the United States government.