In 1997, the General Accounting Office of the Federal Government compiled a list of 1,049 rights and benefits which were related to civil marriage. In 2004 they did an update and found there were 1138 rights. The list includes thirteen categories of rights and benefits, including:

• Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
  
• Veterans' Benefits
  
• Taxation
  
• Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
  
• Employment Benefits and Related Laws
  
• Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
  
• Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
  
• Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

You can view the 1997 GAO report here, which lists the 1049 rights. (480k, PDF format)

Click here to view the list of 1138 rights update

“What About Domestic Partnership and Civil Union?”

While some cities and states offer Domestic Partnership benefits and Vermont’s Civil Unions certainly guarantees more benefits than any other domestic partnership program to date, these systems still fall short of Civil Marriage. Only Civil Marriage can truly give gay and lesbian couples all the protections afforded by the Federal and individual state governments and ensure equality in the eyes of the law.

** Note: when same-sex partners win the right to marry in one state, federal benefits will not be automatic. We will have to overturn restrictions imposed by DOMA before couples achieve federal recognition.

Gerry Studds, the nation's first openly gay congressman, pushed the country to another landmark development when he died Saturday: the federal government for the first time will deny death benefits to a congressman's gay spouse.

Read More: Lowell Sun Article and TowleRoad Article

Making a Family Without a Marriage
The son and daughter of lesbians think of their mothers as a wedded couple. Reminders that they aren't often arise...

THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Divorcing gay couples create new legal issues Alimony, property questions have even lawyers confused.

As of August 1, 2006 there are 5 marriage equality cases pending.

California
Woo v. Lockyer
In March of 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered the San Francisco County Clerk's office to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Lambda Legal, NCLR and the ACLU filed suit arguing that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the California Constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty, privacy and expression for all Californians. There were five other marriage equality cases that were coordinated with Woo v. Lockyer before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer who ruled on March 14, 2005 that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. The case is on appeal.

Iowa
Varnum v. Brien
On December 13, 2005 Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples in Iowa who want to be married. According to Lambda Legal "The lawsuit filed in the Iowa District Court for Polk County argues that under the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa State Constitution it is unlawful to bar same-sex couples from marrying. Since the lawsuit is based on state law, the Iowa Supreme Court will have the final word on the outcome of this case."

New Jersey
Lewis v. Harris
In June 2002 Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit against the State of New Jersey on behalf of seven lesbian and gay couples seeking full marriage rights. Sadly, since the lawsuit was filed one of the plaintiffs Marilyn Maneely, together with her partner Diane Marini, for 14 years, has since died leaving Diane without the survivor's protections and benefits other surviving spouses would have access to. The case is on appeal.

Connecticut
Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health
GLAD filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut Department of Public Health on behalf of seven couples, many of whom have children, and have been together between 10-28 years. According to GLAD the lawsuit "contends that only marriage will provide them with the protections and benefits they need to live securely as a family."

Marlyand
Deane & Polyak vs. Conaway
On July 7, 2004, the ACLU in partnership with Equality Maryland, filed a lawsuit on behalf of nine same-sex couples and a gay survivor, stating that "it is a violation of state constitution to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry and the many family protections that come with marriage." January 20, 2006 a Maryland circuit court ruled that denying same-sex couples the protections provided to different-sex married couples violates the state's constitution. The decision is expected to be appealed.

Massachusetts
On November 18, 2003 the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, that same-sex couples have the right to marry in Massachusetts.

New York
On July 6, 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled 6-3 that the state Constitution does not guarantee same-sex couples equal access to the rights and privileges of marriage. Chief Judge Kaye’s dissent said, "This State has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers. Sadly, the Court today retreats from that proud tradition. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

Washington State
Andersen v. King County
On July 26, 2006, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that civil marriage is not a fundamental right In a dissenting opinion, Washington Supreme Court Associate Justice Bridge wrote “The impact of this case upon the plaintiff couples and their children is both far reaching and deeply saddening. The impact extends to all of Washington's gay and lesbian citizens and to the many fair-minded Washington citizens who hoped for a different result in this case. And, I dare say, the result that we reach today will be remembered more for what it does not do than for what it does.”

This information was brought to you by Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Marriage Equality.

MARRIAGE - AN EVOLVING INSTITUTION

As Americans, we have seen changes within the institution of civil marriage. Throughout world history (including the U.S.), wives were considered the property of a man, no rights to their children’s legal guardianship or property. In Roman society, only the upper one-third had the legal right to marry. Christians thought marriage was a tainted institution and didn’t declare it a sacrament until the 13th century. In the U.S., couples could only seek divorce because of “marital crime” until the mid-19th century.

Some of us have seen more changes to marriage in our lifetimes. The status of women within marriage has changed and continues to evolve to reflect the equality of spouses. The status of ending a marriage has changed with the Supreme Court's recognition that states have to honor each other's divorces. And eligibility to marry, particularly based on race, present the most recent and vivid example of change within marriage.

DISCRIMINATION OR PRESERVATION
Groups of citizens have always been barred from or restricted in marriage by our government. When a government restricts an entire group of adults from marriage, it is establishing a form of ‘social control’.

For instance, slaves were not permitted to marry as they were considered “property.” Asians and Native Americans were not permitted to marry in the early years of the U.S. Interracial couples were not permitted to marry in some states until as late as 1967. Today, same-sex couples, no matter how long they have been together, are unable to enter into civil marriages.

Fear of past changes in marriage laws have brought up age-old predictions of ruination, criminality and worse. Can you guess which groups the following quotes refer to?

• These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America. [click for answer]
  
• During a vote on a proposed law, a New York legislator pleaded, “If any single thing should remain untouched by the hand of the reformer, it was the sacred institution of marriage [which] was about to be destroyed in one thoughtless blow that might
  produce change in all phases of domestic life.” [click for answer]
  
• In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good (in accordance with) the God of nature.” [click for answer]

HISTORICAL CASES
At one point, 40 states in this country forbade the marriage of a white person to a person of color. In other words, people could not marry a person of the "wrong" race. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as "immoral" and "unnatural". Overwhelming numbers of Americans agreed. A Virginia Judge upheld that State's ban on interracial marriages saying, in a language with the same rhetorical tone as used against gay people today:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court led the way in challenging racial discrimination in marriage and became the first state high court to declare unconstitutional a ban on interracial marriage. Perez v. Lippold, 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948). The Court pointed out that races don't marry each other, people do. Restricting who can marry whom based on that characteristic alone was therefore race discrimination. The court decision was controversial, courageous and correct: at that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision.

Loving v. Virginia
In the middle of the night, in 1958, in the bedroom of their Virginia home, newlyweds Richard and Mildred Loving, a European-American man and an African-American woman, awakened to blinding flashlights and police. The couple was arrested. The charge: violating the ban on marriage for interracial couples. Although it was just a generation ago, that kind of law existed in Virginia and in many states.

Facing a felony conviction and the possibility of up to five years in prison, the Lovings originally pled guilty. They received a one-year jail sentence -- suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return together for 25 years. The Lovings appealed their case and, nearly a decade after their arrest, the United States Supreme Court held that "racial hygiene" laws that existed in Virginia and 15 other states unconstitutionally sought to interfere with a person's right to marry the partner of her or his choice.

Pre-Loving, states defended laws against interracial marriage as vital to protect "the natural order of things." Virginia's anti-miscegenation law read: "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process."

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws across the country and declared that the "freedom to marry" belongs to all Americans. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). The Court described marriage as one of our "vital personal rights" which is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people". Click here for the Loving v. Virginia decision.

Zablocki v. Redhail
In 1978, the United States Supreme Court declared marriage to be "of fundamental importance to all individuals". The court described marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" and "the most important relation in life." The court also noted that "the right to marry is part of the fundamental 'right to privacy'" in the U.S. Constitution.

Baker v. Nelson
Considered by some to be "the first" same-sex marriage case, a gay male couple argued that the absence of sex-specific language in the Minnesota statute was evidence of the legislature's intent to authorize same-sex marriages. The couple also claimed that prohibiting them from marrying was a denial of their due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution. The court simply stated "we do not find support for [these arguments] in any decision of the United States Supreme Court."

Turner v. Safley
Over time, restrictions on marriage have become more and more suspect. IN 1987, the last time the Unites States Supreme Court considered the claim of a group of Americans about restriction on their right to marry, the Court articulated four attributes of marriage common to this group and all other Americans. These attributes are:

1. expression of emotional support and public commitment;
   
2. spiritual significance, and for some the exercise of a religious faith;
   
3. the expectation that for most, the marriage will be consummated; and
   
4. the receipt of tangible benefits, including government benefits and property rights.

Looking at these attributes of marriage, the Court decided that these Americans - incarcerated prisoners - shared with other Americans the freedom to marry. Because prisoners, too, can enter into a marriage with these characteristics, the Court invalidated Missouri's' virtually complete ban on marriages of prison inmates. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 (1987).

The analogies are clear. Restricting who can marry whom based on their sex and sexual orientation is also discrimination. Creating a civil institution which is available to all committed adults -- even if they are incarcerated prisoners -- is essential for the happiness of everyone, including same-sex couples. Perhaps that is why civil rights leaders like Coretta Scott King and now-United States Representative John Lewis of Georgia have endorsed the right to civil marriage for same-sex couples.

IMMIGRATION LAWS & SAME-SEX COUPLES

Many of the saddest personal stories we hear at Marriage Equality are from binational couples. Same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are sometimes faced with the prospect of deportation because of the absence of legal marriage rights. Often times both partners leave family and friends for countries that will accept gay couples. Marriage matters because American citizens have the right to fall in love with someone from another country. But in the case of gay people, our government is essentially telling us NOT to fall in love, to accept our second-class position, and allow our loved one to leave, never to return.

U.S. immigration is largely based on the principle of family unification, which allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their spouses (and other family members) for immigration purposes. Same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, however, are not considered "spouses" and are hence excluded from family-based immigration rights. Thousands of lesbian and gay binational couples are kept apart, torn apart or forced to live in fear of being separated.

Currently, lesbian, gay men, bisexual and transgender Americans in relationships with foreign nationals have no legal way to bring their partners into the United States. The foreign partner would have to qualify independently, usually by demonstrating some special skill that is needed by employers in the United States. This is very difficult to do, as many people lack the specific skills sought by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Even if they possess these skills, they would still be subjected to the strict quota limits on legal immigration. U.S. immigration law would also tear apart a foreign same-sex couple if one of them were to get a job in the United States. Under current law, the spouse of a married heterosexual person would be permitted into the country, but the partner of a gay man or lesbian would have to be left behind.

The situation has been further exacerbated by the passage of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. This ensures that for federal purposes including immigration, marriage is defined as between a man and woman. Thus, even if one state recognizes same-sex marriages in the future, these couples would not be recognized as ‘married’ for relationship purposes. Also couples who have legally married in The Netherlands, the only country a same-sex couple can legally marry, cannot immigrate together to the U.S. even when one of the spouses is an American citizen. Go to www.loveexiles.org for more information.

Some couples try to enter into ‘green card’ marriages with an American man or woman willing to provide them with the ‘cover’ needed to maintain their relationship. Not only does this create tremendous hardship for all involved, it can also lead prosecution by the INS where the accomplice, partner and immigrant can all face jail terms, hefty fines and deportation (for the immigrant).

Some gay and lesbian Americans have chosen to relocate with their partners to a more welcoming country – often Canada. Bruce MacDonald and Suratin "Jeng" Rianpracha are one such couple. MacDonald says: "I’m upset and angry that I have to leave my country to live with the man I love. This experience has alienated me from the U.S. political system. On the other hand, every individual American I know has been very supportive. My straight friends and colleagues are incredibly upset. I think the vast majority of people in this country are way ahead of the politicians on this issue."

Today the United States is the only industrialized English-speaking country that does not grant same-sex partners immigration preferences. Legalizing same-sex marriages in the United States would eliminate the immigration hurdle facing binational same-sex couples, but there are other mechanisms through which this goal could be achieved.

The United States should not stand alone among the industrialized English-speaking world in continuing this discriminatory practice against gay and lesbian families.

Congress should require the INS to establish a registry for same-sex couples so they may immigrate together as a family. As examples of how this might work, Congress could look to the policies enacted by the countries discussed in this Note, or to the domestic partner ordinances enacted in numerous municipalities throughout the United States, or to the framework established by some state courts.

PERMANENT PARTNERS BILL
Introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

Marriage Equality USA is proud to have publicly endorsed the Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2000. Although our work is focused solely on marriage equality, we felt this bill is necessary so that bi-national couples can receive federal protection until marriage becomes a reality. We ask all our members to support this very crucial bill.

Because same-sex couples are barred from legal marriage, more than 1,138 Federal rights which are triggered by this legal status are also denied. Among them is the right to sponsor a same-sex spouse or partner, who is not American, for citizenship. By denial of the most basic right of legal marriage, American citizens, who have a same-sex partner, often find their family ripped apart when visas run out, and the foreign partner must leave the country. Or their foreign partner is not allowed to legally work to help support their family.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) described the current U.S. policy of forced separation of binational same-sex couples as "Not only a question of equality and rights. It’s also a question of gratuitous cruelty."

Nadler came up with a solution to this denial of access to the immigration process. On February 14 (Valentine’s day) 2000, he filed a bill to allow a U.S. citizen with a same-sex foreign partner to sponsor their foreign partner for immigration. The bill (HR3650) was named "Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2000."

The bill has since been reintroduced several times. The most recent bill, now known as "Uniting American Families Act" (UAFA) was introduced on June 21, 2005.

Rationale in Support of the Immigration Bill

U.S. Immigration policy purports to support and promote family unity. Because same-sex couples are family, these policies should include the families of same-sex couples.

There are currently 16 major world countries which allow the sponsoring of a same-sex partner for immigration. These are:

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Iceland
Israel
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
South Africa
Sweden
United Kingdom

The United States should be in the forefront of recognizing basic human rights for its own citizens. Economist Alan Greenspan has testified that increasing immigration is key to keeping our economy booming. Greenspan also favors increasing the number of "H1B cap" work permits allowing foreigners to work here for a specific time. Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced a bill to increase the H1B cap for the next several years. Because a great number of same-sex partners are here using this type of permit, allowing them access under the UAFA would free up additional H1B work permits.

Current Status of the Immigration Bill

To send a message to your representative in the House, you may use the House’s Web site: Write Your Representative www.house.gov/writerep

IMMIGRATION RESOURCES

If you or someone you know is faced with this situation, please tell them to contact one of the following organizations.

Immigration Equality
Seeks equal application of U.S. immigration law toward lesbian and gay couples; resource and support network for bi-national relationships. Also advocates for persons facing HIV/AIDS discrimination and for those seeking asylum based on sexual orientation.

www.immigrationequality.org

International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission / Asylum Project
Supports claims for asylum made by those who fear persecution because of sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status. They document human rights abuses perpetrated against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, the transgendered, and people with HIV/AIDS.

asylum@iglhrc.org
www.iglhrc.org

U.S. STATUS OF MARRIAGE

As of May 2004, in the United States of America a same-sex couple can legally marry only in Massachusetts. Please contact us if you would like to Start a Chapter and tell our opponents that Marriage Matters!

See where your state is in the fight for equal rights:

"Civil Unions":
Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey

Domestic Partnerships:
California (most rights), Hawaii, and Maine (a few rights)

Constitutional Amendments Banning Marriage Equality:
(This means that state courts cannot rule marriage discrimination unconstitutional because the right to discriminate has been written into constitutional law. These bans cannot be undone by vote of the people in favor of marriage equality or a policy change by the legislature. Only the U.S. Supreme Court could strike down these bans.)
AK, AR, GA, KY, LA, MI, MO, MS, MT, NB, ND, NV, OH, OK, OR, TX, UT (17)

Amendments Banning Marriage Equality on the Ballots in 2006:
AL, AZ, CA, TN, WI

Federal "Defense of Marriage Act"
The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) passed by the House of Representatives (7/12/96) and the Senate (9/10/96), was signed into law by President Clinton under cover of darkness September 21. DOMA does not ban marriages by same-sex couples, but it does bar federal recognition of those marriages once they become legal in any state.

• DOMA violates the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause that requires that official acts and proceedings of each state be recognized by other states. Congress does not have the constitutional power to decide when, or which, state acts get interstate respect or when people are stripped of those rights as they travel through the country.
  
• DOMA violates the constitutional principles of federalism, non-discrimination, and respect for lawful marriages and is, in the words of the New York Times, "constitution bashing."
  
• DOMA violates constitutional protections that forbid the Government from discriminating by creating second-class citizens and second-class marriages.
  
• DOMA gives Congress the power to punish disfavored marriages by denying them federal protections and benefits such as Social security, federal pensions for surviving spouses, and family unification in Immigration.
  
• DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves the power for the states, by inserting the federal government for the first time in history into the definition of marriage.

Where is same-sex Marriage Legal?

Around the Globe

Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Spain, Massachusetts.

South Africa. Same-sex couples will be allowed to marry by December 1, 2006.

Countries That offer Legal Protections That Fall Short of Marriage

Australia. Surviving partners from same-sex couples are able to claim tax-free pension benefits from deceased partners. Same-sex partners of members of the Australian Defense Force are granted the same benefits as spouses of married soldiers.

Denmark. Denmark was the first country, in 1989, to allow same-sex couples to form "registered partnerships," giving them a status and benefits similar to marriage. Registered couples in Denmark are not permitted to adopt children, however.

Finland. Same-sex partnerships have become legally binding in Finland. The law, however, does not allow gay couples to adopt children or use the same surname. The legislation says Finns who are at least 18 can register a same-sex union in a civil ceremony comparable to marriage. It also gives gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples when inheriting each other's property and in cases of divorce.

France. In 1998, the French government approved of "PACS" (Pacte Civil De Solidarité) which allows cohabiting couples to receive certain tax exemptions, make gifts to each other without tax consequences (after 2 years), receive joint taxation benefits (after 3 years), receive health benefits through their partner, and make contracts regarding financial and property arrangements and agreements in the event of death or break-up.

Germany. Passed in 2001, Germany's new law allows lesbians and gays who register their relationships to have the same inheritance rights as heterosexuals, share a common surname, and their foreign partners will be allowed to join them in Germany. The law does not accord lesbian and gay couples the tax advantages granted to heterosexual married pairs or the right to adopt children. The relationships are not officially called "marriages" but "registered life partnerships."

Greenland. The Danish law extends to same-sex couples in Greenland. (Greenland is a territory of Denmark.)

Hungary. Same-sex couples are covered by the nation's common law marriage rules, which carry some of the same rights—particularly regarding inheritance rights. Same-sex couples do not, however, have the right to register under Hungary's marriage law.

Iceland. Iceland's law is similar to Denmark's, allowing same-sex couples to register their partnerships in order to receive many of the rights of marriage, but registered couples cannot adopt children.

Israel. Since 1994, Israel has allowed common law marriage, which grants some spousal marriage rights, between same-sex couples. In January of 2005, a supreme court ruling made it possible for a partner to legally adopt a same-sex partner's biological child.

Italy. Pisa and Florence allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners.

New Zealand. Since April of 2005, civil unions, which confer all the rights and privileges of marriage, are available.

Norway. Registered partnerships are available.

Sweden. Sweden's law is similar to Denmark's, allowing same-sex couples to register their partnerships in order to receive many of the rights of marriage, but registered couples cannot adopt children. Additionally, many of these countries have signed treaties agreeing to recognize each other's registered partnership laws.

Switzerland. Voters in the canton of Zurich voted 63 to 37 to give same-sex couples the same legal rights as married opposite-sex couples. This includes tax, inheritance, and social security benefits. These rights are only given to same-sex couples who live in Zurich canton and who register with the government, promising to live together and support each other for six months.

United Kingdom. Civil partnerships between same-sex couples became legal in December of 2005, conveying all rights of marriage.

Other countries considering legislation that would offer some protection at the national level include Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Switzerland.

THE CHILDREN
Legal Obstacles and Children: Without civil marriage for same-sex couples, family laws to protect children of gay parents is erratic at best, and children do not receive proper protection. Only civil marriage can ensure laws are applied fairly in the instances of adoption, visitation rights, custody battles and estate rights. Currently, children (and parents) are at the mercy of county judges who often have the final say on what is best for the child. Many judges, however, have biases towards gay people and sometimes rulings are discretionary and based on homophobia, not law.

Second Parent Adoption: Without second-parent adoption laws, only one adult is legally recognized as the parent and has the legal right to make decisions about a child's health, education and well-being, or is obligated to support the child. In the event the "legal parent" becomes ill or dies, the surviving partner may lose all rights to be the child's guardian, and the child is left without a legal guardian.

Judicial Decisions: A county judge makes the ultimate decision about whether to grant an adoption based on what he or she determines to be the "best interest" of the child, and judges have different opinions on this score, not only from one state to another but sometimes from one county to another (unless, as in New Jersey, a state policy or law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.)

If you or a friend or family member need more information on parenting and children, please contact the following organizations:

Resources:
ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
212.549.2627
lethimstay@aclu.org

COLAGE
Children of Lesbians & Gays Everywhere
3543 18th St. #17
San Francisco, CA 94110
415.861.5437
colage@colage.org

Center Kids / Terry Boggis, Director
LGBT Community Center
208 W. 13th Street
212.620.7310
terry@gaycenter.org

Child Welfare League of America
440 First St., N.W.3rd Floor
Washington, DC 20001-2085
Tel: 202/638-2952
www.cwla.org

THE GOLDEN YEARS
No matter how many years together, a gay or lesbian elderly couple faces special challenges, above and beyond and opposite-sex elderly couple. Often times, when both partners reach the age in which nursing home care is necessary, relatives have the final say, separating the couple by putting them in different elderly care facilities.

This tragedy brings to light the special vulnerability of older gay Americans. At the age when they are least able to protect themselves, gay retirees are cruelly victimized by discriminatory attitudes, regulations and laws. Moreover, older gay people, fearing neglect or outright abuse at the hands of hostile nursing home personnel, often find themselves retreating into the closet after living openly for much of their lives. In fact, a 1994 New York state survey found that gay elders were not welcome at 46 percent of senior centers.

"Outing Age" magazine documented some of this rampant discrimination: A resident of one home wasn't bathed because no one wanted "to touch the lesbian." A social worker at another reported, "We don't allow partners of the same sex into the home. (It's) part of the admission requirement."

Here are other injustices gay elderly people are suffering:

Social Security The surviving gay partner of a retiree receives no Social Security survivor benefits. That contrasts with the more than $5,000 per year that widows and widowers draw, on average, in survivor benefits.

Medicaid: When a gay elder needs Medicaid-financed nursing home care, his or her partner can lose a jointly owned home because gay couples aren't covered by rules protecting the assets of nursing home residents' spouses.

Medical Treatment and Hospital Visitation: Absent a written directive, doctors generally defer to a patient’s spouse regarding medical treatment, and the spouse is allowed to visit a patient in preference to all others. There are many rights for the spouse as automatic next of kin, including priority in making medical decisions in event of illness or disability of their spouse. Gay and lesbian partners are treated as legal strangers, often having to fight through the court to see their partner in the hospital—and unnecessary stress.

Employee Benefits for Families: The right to take sick leave to care for a spouse or child is an employer-provided benefit, along with a host of other employer-provided benefits like bereavement leave (paid or unpaid), access to health insurance, and pension. Often times, same-sex couples must pay the penalty of risking time off from work, or worse, losing their job for family sick leave.

Economic Certainty: With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit to file joint tax returns (and pay marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home & auto insurance policies. Not so with same-sex couples.

Tax Benefits: Married couples are entitled to many income and estate tax benefits, such as joint filing of income taxes, the ability to inherit property from one’s spouse free from certain estate taxes, and the ability to transfer property between spouses without gift tax or transfer tax consequences. Same-sex couples are not entitled to any tax benefits.

Inheritance: The law provides certain automatic rights to a person’s spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists. Same-sex couples do not enjoy this advantage.

Paying for your Medical Bills
Important note: Medicaid is not the answer! Especially for same sex couples under the current laws. For all practical purposes, in the U.S. the only "insurance" plan for long-term institutional care is Medicaid. Lacking access to alternatives such as private insurance or Medicare, most people pay out of their own pockets for long-term care until they become eligible for Medicaid. Although their names are confusing, Medicaid and Medicare are quite different programs. For one thing, all retirees who receive Social Security benefits also receive Medicare as their health insurance. Medicare is an "entitlement" program. Medicaid, however, is a form of welfare. Eligibility for Medicaid: you must become "impoverished" under the program's guidelines.

The Medicaid law provides special protections for the spouse of a nursing home resident to make sure he or she has minimum support needed to continue to live in the community. The so-called "spousal protections" work this way: if the Medicaid applicant is married, the countable assets of both the community spouse and the institutionalized spouse are totaled as of the date of "institutionalization," the day on which the ill spouse enters either a hospital or a long-term care facility in which he or she then stays for at least 30 days.

Careful planning, whether in advance or in response to an unanticipated need for care, can help protect your estate, whether for your spouse or for your children. This can be done by purchasing long-term care insurance or by making sure you receive the benefits to which you are entitled under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Veterans may also seek benefits from the Veterans Administration.

Medicare Part A covers up to 100 days of "skilled nursing" care per spell of illness. However, the definition of "skilled nursing" and the other conditions for obtaining this coverage are quite stringent, meaning that few nursing home residents receive the full 100 days of coverage. As a result, Medicare pays for only about 9 percent of nursing home care in the U.S.

IRAs & Retirement Plans: Married couples enjoy spousal continuation of IRA’s and Retirement plans. After one of the spouses dies, pension payout continues after death. Spousal approval is needed to change beneficiaries. Not so with unmarried couples and often times beneficiaries are disputed. Pension plans are not required by law to pay out to surviving partners the same way as spouses.

For information on senior assistance, please contact:

Senior Action in a Gay Environment (SAGE)
National Office
sageusa@aol.com
(212) 741-2247
www.sageusa.org

Pride Senior Network
132 West 22nd St., 4th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: (212) 675-1936
Fax: (646) 336-6685

ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
212.549.2627

FINANCIAL ISSUES
Financial issues are complex and challenging, no matter the couple. And when children, home ownership and other assets are a part of the equation, planning for the present and especially the future is even more critical for greater security. When a same-sex couple begins to plan, the inability to enter into a civil marriage has many implications.

Gifts: Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other. Same-sex couples are restricted in giving; a partner is not permitted to give more than the annual exclusion of $11,000 per year (as of 2002, indexed to increase over time) per donee, otherwise, gift tax issues arise. When people start a life together, they want to share assets – married couples can share everything; same-sex couples are restricted in how much they are able to share because restrictions on gift giving.

Unlimited Marital Deduction: A married couple can use the unlimited marital deduction to avoid estate taxes on the first spouse’s death. Same-sex couples do not have access to the unlimited marital deduction. This makes estate planning harder and more costly.

Estate tax forms have presumptions that are a hard burden to overcome: The IRS presumes that the deceased partner owned the property and placed the property into joint names in order to avoid probate. The tax consequence is that the joint property is 100% includible in the deceased partner’s estate, thereby increasing the amount subject to estate tax. In order to overcome the presumption, same-sex couples are required to document their contribution to property that is held jointly – from inception. Married couples do not have this burden.

Retirement Planning: Some retirement plans restrict beneficiary designations to a spouse. The person participating in the plan will be able to benefit from the pension plan for life, but when s/he dies, the surviving partner will suffer a reduction in household income. Then what?

Marital home: The law presumes that a married couple with both of their names on the title to their home (without any further designation) owns the property as “tenants by the entirety.”

Creditor protection: A married couple, by statute, has creditor protection regarding their marital home. Same-sex couples do not have the same protection.

No access to the new tax credit for IRAs: Married couples pay less for IRA contributions than same-sex couples. Taxpayers who contribute to an IRA or make elective pension deferrals could be eligible for a nonrefundable federal tax credit.

New estate tax laws give spouses an additional $3 Million tax break: In the year 2010, married couples will be permitted a $3 Million “additional spousal property carryover basis” for property owned by a spouse at the time of death that transfers to the surviving spouse. Same-sex couples will be restricted to a carryover basis amount of $1.3 Million for transfers to the surviving partner, thereby triggering additional tax consequences on property that has appreciated over time.

How Unfairly are Gay Men, Lesbian and Transgender People Treated Because They are not Allowed Access to Civil Marriage?

• Our life partner has no automatic right against our estate if we die without a will AND if she or he does win ownership, the estate, known in legalese as "gifts" or "bequests", is subject to taxes. Gifts and requests to married spouses are not taxed.
• If we own a home before we meet our new life partner and later decide to transfer half to our partner, it is a gift which may be taxable.
• Our compensation package, when the value of fringe benefits is added in, is less than the compensation of a married person doing the same job, working the same hours, and receiving the same nominal pay. We have to pay income taxes on the value of the employer benefit to our partner, which a spouse avoids.
• Our life partner may have to fight to establish his/her right to buy insurance on our life, if the insurance company challenges the partner's insurable interest. The reason why partners might have to buy life insurance on the life of each other is because the estate is taxable and the survivor needs to have a source to pay those taxes without depleting the assets off of which the survivor must continue to live.
• We can be kicked out of our jointly owned home if a creditor of only one of us goes after the property, while the married spouse's interest in the property protects the home for the couple. This is a tax problem to the extent that we cannot make a transfer of the property to our life partner to avoid a possible creditor claim, because the transfer would be subject to a gift tax, while a similar transfer between spouses is not subject to a gift tax.
• We cannot use family limited partnerships to shield our assets the way every married family can. The family limited partnership works because the spouse is able to receive the income and pay taxes on the partnership income without having the income flow through the hands of the risk creator. If an unmarried gay person made a limited partnership with his/her life partner, the creation might result in a gift tax and the accrual of income would be taxable to the risk creator. If the life partner received the distributions, and paid the income tax, since it would be the tax liability of the risk creator, the payment would constitute a gift, which might be taxable.
• The deductible expenses of the one cannot shelter the income of the other.
• When our partner dies, we have to prove our ownership of every item in the household or we can face a tax bill and even total loss of the items to the partner's family. The deductible expenses of the one cannot shelter the income of the other.
• Gay men and lesbians pay federal taxes for military personnel but, under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy, are refused enlistment or discharged if the military should find out.
• Gay people pay into the state tax system for benefits such as child welfare even though in many states they are prevented from having custody of children, becoming a foster parent, or adopting children.

Other Economic Disadvantages Affecting Lesbians and Gay Men

• We cannot claim Social Security benefits through our partner's employment.
  
• If the owner of the homestead has to move permanently into a nursing home, the non-owning partner may have to leave the domicile they shared for decades to meet Medicaid's claims.
• We often have to pay more for ordinary transactions, such as renting a car or buying umbrella risk insurance.
• We cannot rollover our partner's retirement account into our own but must start drawing it down when a surviving spouse can wait until his or her own retirement age.
• When our partner dies, we receive no death benefit or continuation of the decedent's pension.

About the "Marriage Penalty" Tax
Increasingly seen as an unconscionable attack on marriage and the family, the "marriage penalty" tax is imposed on heterosexual couples who choose to marry. These couples are pushed into income brackets for which the benefits of marriage are reduced.

Although approximately 40% of married couples pay less tax than they would as separate individuals (through bonuses in the tax code), there are certain families hurt by the tax, namely, those where low and moderate-income spouses work. Two-earner families where both partners earn approximately the same amount and low-income families receiving housing benefits, food stamps and tax credits currently suffer from the "marriage penalty" tax.

In 2000, Both President Clinton and the Republican majority proposed legislation that would attempt to address this problem:
# President Clinton's plan would have focused on raising the standard deduction for two-earner families, who suffer most from the marriage penalty, thus providing a tax cut of approximately $300 to $600, depending on the tax bracket.

# The House (and Republican party as a whole) supported giving a big tax cut to all married couples--even those who are benefiting from the existing tax code and not suffering at all from the "marriage penalty."

Neither proposals took care of the problem of individuals who receive housing benefits/food stamps and decide to marry. The facts on President Bush's proposal will be highlighted when they are reported.)

Why We're Demanding Access to Civil Marriage
If the marriage penalty is eased, we will likely, through discrimination in marriage, pay an even greater portion of taxes. If couples are getting tax breaks, those who file as singles (us) will have to pay an even greater disproportionate share. Even by paying more taxes, married couples still benefit from access to civil marriage in a myriad of ways such as social security, family protection, etc., etc. These benefits and privileges significantly outweigh the tax burdens that accompany legalized marriage. Same-sex couples deserve the opportunity to have equal access to perks as well as penalties.

Marriage Equality thanks Dennis Mack, Esq. of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for his help in compiling this information.

The debate over the freedom to marry is about the right to enter into the state-created institution of civil marriage only. After all, marriage is a civil right and two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the institution if they so choose.

Unlike some religious definitions, civil definitions of marriage do not usually mention childbearing, sexual relations, living arrangements, or religious belief/observance.

When clergy or congregations marry couples it is a religious rite, not a civil ceremony, though the government may recognize it. Clergy and congregations choose whom they marry. They aren't compelled to accept the state's marriage definition, and indeed, many religious institutions don't accept it. Many religious institutions are more restrictive than the state, rejecting interfaith marriages or remarriages after divorce. And some have a broader definition, blessing the unions of same-gender couples. (Marriage Equality would like to thank Interfaith Working Group for this passage)

In the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a marriage license. That is why many opposite-sex couples can go to a judge or any other public officiant and need not go to a church, synagogue or mosque. However, our government has made the process simpler by allowing priests, ministers, rabbis and other religious folk, to perform a couple's desire for a religious ceremony AND act as an officiant. This convenience does not mean that a purely religious ceremony would be legal. Each religious cleric must sign the license before witnesses and the couple. In Europe, couples MUST go before a public official to marry. A religious ceremony is 'secondary' and only needed if the couple wishes to have a church ceremony.

This fact is important to note because many same-sex couples are simply interested in the government's acknowledgement of their relationship. We are not asking for any religion to accept our marriages, although, many churches already do throughout our country.

• Civil and religious marriage are not the same thing. Many churches and faiths already recognize religious unions or marriages between same-sex couples, even though such unions are not recognized by the government.
  
• Individual congregations of Reform Jews, American Baptists, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarian Universalists, Methodists, the Society of Friends and members of the United Church of Christ have performed marriages for same-sex couples.
  
• Even after civil marriage becomes available to same-sex couples, churches will retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage, just as they already do for every couple. No court decision or legislative enactment can change the basic tenets of religious faith. For example, some religions will not marry someone who has already been divorced, although the person is free to marry civilly. We respect the right of a faith to decide for itself what marriages it will embrace.

Furthermore, there are many Christians and Jews alike who support same-sex marriage. For a conservative biblical perspective on marriage, please go to: The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance.

Please visit these sites for more religious persepectives and support for marriage equality:

The Religious Coalition for the Freedom To Marry
http://www.rcfm.org

Interfaith Working Group
http://www.iwgonline.org

Here is an EXCELLENT article entitled, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage" on a site called Musings On that refutes conservative Christians' belief that civil marriage for same-sex couples should not be recognized.

In March of 2000, the Central Conference of American Rabbis voted to support ceremonies for same-sex couples. (Ten years ago, the group voted to support the ordination of gays and lesbians.) No reform rabbi is required to perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple; however, if a rabbi wishes to, they may perform any ceremony they see fitting and call it anything they want, including a "wedding." The approved resolution says that "the relationship of a Jewish same-gender couple is worthy of affirmation through Jewish ritual." Below is the full text of the resolution.

WHEREAS, justice and human dignity are cherished Jewish values, and WHEREAS, in March of 1999 the Women's Rabbinic Network passed a resolution urging the Central Conference of American Rabbis to bring the issue of honoring ceremonies between two Jews of the same gender to the floor of the convention plenum, and WHEREAS, the institutions of Reform Judaism have a long history of support for civil and equal rights for gays and lesbians, and WHEREAS, North American organizations of the Reform Movement have passed resolutions in support of civil marriage for gays and lesbians, therefore WE DO HEREBY RESOLVE, that the relationship of a Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recognize the diversity of opinions within our ranks on this issue. We support the decision of those who choose to officiate at rituals of union for same-gender couples, and we support the decision of those who do not, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon the CCAR to support all colleagues in their choices in this matter, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we also call upon the CCAR to develop both educational and liturgical resources in this area.

The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and the Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.

The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender unions with terminology restrictions.

The United Methodist Church forbids blessing same-sex unions, which has inspired ecclesiastical disobedience, church trials and much debate.

Recommended Reading:

• Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
  by John Boswell
  Available at Amazon.com
  
• "In God's Image: Christian Witness to the Need for Gay/Lesbian Equality in the Eyes of the Church"
  by Fr. Robert Warren Cromey, Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church, San Francisco, CA
  Published by Alamo Square Press, San Francisco, CA
  Available for $12.00 tax and postage included from Trinity Episcopal Church,
  1668 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109. 415-775-1117
  
• " Theological Arguments for Equality of Marriage"
  by The Most Rev. Mark Shirilau, Ph.D., Archbishop and Primate, The Ecumenical Catholic Church
  Available at: http://ecchurch.org/marriageequality.htm

This information was provided by Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Marriage Equality as well as Interfaith Working Group.

The debate over the freedom to marry is about the right to enter into the state-created institution of civil marriage only. After all, marriage is a civil right and two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the institution if they so choose.

Unlike some religious definitions, civil definitions of marriage do not usually mention childbearing, sexual relations, living arrangements, or religious belief/observance.

When clergy or congregations marry couples it is a religious rite, not a civil ceremony, though the government may recognize it. Clergy and congregations choose whom they marry. They aren't compelled to accept the state's marriage definition, and indeed, many religious institutions don't accept it. Many religious institutions are more restrictive than the state, rejecting interfaith marriages or remarriages after divorce. And some have a broader definition, blessing the unions of same-gender couples. (Marriage Equality would like to thank Interfaith Working Group for this passage)

In the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a marriage license. That is why many opposite-sex couples can go to a judge or any other public officiant and need not go to a church, synagogue or mosque. However, our government has made the process simpler by allowing priests, ministers, rabbis and other religious folk, to perform a couple's desire for a religious ceremony AND act as an officiant. This convenience does not mean that a purely religious ceremony would be legal. Each religious cleric must sign the license before witnesses and the couple. In Europe, couples MUST go before a public official to marry. A religious ceremony is 'secondary' and only needed if the couple wishes to have a church ceremony.

This fact is important to note because many same-sex couples are simply interested in the government's acknowledgement of their relationship. We are not asking for any religion to accept our marriages, although, many churches already do throughout our country.

• Civil and religious marriage are not the same thing. Many churches and faiths already recognize religious unions or marriages between same-sex couples, even though such unions are not recognized by the government.
  
• Individual congregations of Reform Jews, American Baptists, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarian Universalists, Methodists, the Society of Friends and members of the United Church of Christ have performed marriages for same-sex couples.
  
• Even after civil marriage becomes available to same-sex couples, churches will retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage, just as they already do for every couple. No court decision or legislative enactment can change the basic tenets of religious faith. For example, some religions will not marry someone who has already been divorced, although the person is free to marry civilly. We respect the right of a faith to decide for itself what marriages it will embrace.

Furthermore, there are many Christians and Jews alike who support same-sex marriage. For a conservative biblical perspective on marriage, please go to: The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance.

Please visit these sites for more religious persepectives and support for marriage equality:

The Religious Coalition for the Freedom To Marry
http://www.rcfm.org

Interfaith Working Group
http://www.iwgonline.org

Here is an EXCELLENT article entitled, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage" on a site called Musings On that refutes conservative Christians' belief that civil marriage for same-sex couples should not be recognized.

In March of 2000, the Central Conference of American Rabbis voted to support ceremonies for same-sex couples. (Ten years ago, the group voted to support the ordination of gays and lesbians.) No reform rabbi is required to perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple; however, if a rabbi wishes to, they may perform any ceremony they see fitting and call it anything they want, including a "wedding." The approved resolution says that "the relationship of a Jewish same-gender couple is worthy of affirmation through Jewish ritual." Below is the full text of the resolution.

WHEREAS, justice and human dignity are cherished Jewish values, and WHEREAS, in March of 1999 the Women's Rabbinic Network passed a resolution urging the Central Conference of American Rabbis to bring the issue of honoring ceremonies between two Jews of the same gender to the floor of the convention plenum, and WHEREAS, the institutions of Reform Judaism have a long history of support for civil and equal rights for gays and lesbians, and WHEREAS, North American organizations of the Reform Movement have passed resolutions in support of civil marriage for gays and lesbians, therefore WE DO HEREBY RESOLVE, that the relationship of a Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recognize the diversity of opinions within our ranks on this issue. We support the decision of those who choose to officiate at rituals of union for same-gender couples, and we support the decision of those who do not, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon the CCAR to support all colleagues in their choices in this matter, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we also call upon the CCAR to develop both educational and liturgical resources in this area.

The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and the Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.

The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender unions with terminology restrictions.

The United Methodist Church forbids blessing same-sex unions, which has inspired ecclesiastical disobedience, church trials and much debate.

Recommended Reading:

• Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
  by John Boswell
  Available at Amazon.com
  
• "In God's Image: Christian Witness to the Need for Gay/Lesbian Equality in the Eyes of the Church"
  by Fr. Robert Warren Cromey, Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church, San Francisco, CA
  Published by Alamo Square Press, San Francisco, CA
  Available for $12.00 tax and postage included from Trinity Episcopal Church,
  1668 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109. 415-775-1117
  
• " Theological Arguments for Equality of Marriage"
  by The Most Rev. Mark Shirilau, Ph.D., Archbishop and Primate, The Ecumenical Catholic Church
  Available at: http://ecchurch.org/marriageequality.htm

This information was provided by Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Marriage Equality as well as Interfaith Working Group.

Often, we hear arguments against same-sex couples' freedom to marry. But because there are never any coherent arguments presented (because none exist), the responses to our opponents are logical and well-thought out. Here are many of the arguments we refute much of the time, and we urge you to understand and learn them when you find yourself wanting to educate those who don't understand why marriage matters to the LGBT community.

"We must protect traditional marriage and the traditional family."

Possible answers:

" Protect it from what? Same-sex marriage could not cause harm to someone's marriage and family. No documentation exists which gives credence to this myth. In fact, European countries which have given massive legal recognition to same-sex relationships have reported no harm to opposite-sex couples and their families. Please articulate your concern."

" Like you, we recognize that marriage is steeped in tradition. Our aim is to preserve the best of those traditions while changing those not so admirable. At times in our social evolution, marriage was defined as only unions of the same race an religion and wives were property of their husband."

" The state shouldn't sanction homosexuality. No government of mine should force someone like me to support a relationship that offends me."

Possible answers:

" It's not the government's job to sanction heterosexuality or homosexuality. Nor is it in a position to judge the marriages of its citizens. Once the government does this, where does it stop? Taxpayers are forced to pay for things that they are opposed or are offended by. For instance, some do not support military force but still must pay into the military's budget. It's not the government's job to tap dance around the religious concerns of Americans; it is the government's job to enforce the constitution. The Constitution says everyone gets 'equality under the law.'"

"The majority doesn't support it."

Possible answers:

" The most important argument disputing this is our country's history. Women's right to vote, integration of the military and interracial marriages were all unpopular at one time. But our country is a democracy in which the minority is entitled to a voice and where historically the government was instrumental in changing the majority's mind in changing civil rights. Recent polls suggest that people's understanding of the issue is beginning to take hold with an average of approximately 40% saying "no" to discrimination and "yes" to equality."

"Gay couples should have the same benefits but not call it marriage."

Possible answers:

" This is a political ploy for those who fear the 'M' word and one that clearly promotes separate and unequal status for one group of citizens. Civil marriage is an intricate web of legal, economic and practical protections and responsibilities from sharing club memberships to the adoption of children to tax issues to immigration. Who will make the decisions on which rights same-sex couples should have? Nationwide domestic partnership programs or any larger form of them will not suffice. Nor will they give same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples. To call it by any other name is simply not Marriage and is unacceptable."

"Why should gay people want marriage when it is a tool of patriarchy used to oppress women?"

Possible answers:

" Marriage, as we have seen, has evolved throughout history. While it is true that women were once seen as the property of their husbands, that is no longer the norm due to the women's rights movement."

"It is only when the union between a same-sex couple is recognized that marriage is no longer viewed as a means for reproduction, or oppression, but becomes a true partnership with or without children. One that says the couple loves each other and wants to be responsible for each other. One that says the couple chooses to be a family."

"Marriage is what it always was."

Possible answers:

" Right-wing moralizing to the contrary, "marriage" and "family" are not very traditional at all. For instance, Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings, sharing a father. Jewish law once required childless husbands to marry a second time, with or without divorcing the first wife. Only the upper one-third of empire Romans had the legal right to marry; everyone else lived together outside the law. For its first five hundred to a thousand years, the early Christian church considered marriage a tainted, earthly institution, something rendered unto Caesar, and didn't officially declare marriage a sacrament until 1215. In English and American law, women did not have the right to be their children's guardians until the 19th century. While American states were battling for nearly 150 years over whether to recognize each others' divorces, Protestant denominations were roiled by the question of whether it was sinful to remarry divorced people whose ex-spouses were still alive. Marriage has always been a social battleground, its rules and borders shifting to suit each economy, each era, each class." (submitted by author E.J. Graff)

"Why would gay people want to enter into a flawed institution, especially when so many straight people are miserable?"

Possible answers:

"Although marriage has had an imperfect history and many marriages have failed, same-sex couples deserve the support that only marriage can give a committed couple. No one is saying all gay people should marry. Everyone's relationship is different and just entering a legal contract does not mean it is doomed."

"If we allow gay marriage, what's next? Are we going to allow marriage between 3 (or more) people?

Possible answers:

When the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that laws barring black people from marrying white people were invalid and unconstitutional, opponents insisted that marriage by definition was for partners of the same race and argued the court's decision would lead to polygamy. That was not the case. The question of who can marry is a different question from how many can marry.

We are asking the government to grant same-sex couples the same rights they grant opposite-sex couples. Since the gov't has chosen to involve itself in the relationship of two individuals, for it to choose which couples get marriage rights is discrimination. We are not asking the gov't to change marriage, but to remember a group of people that were forgotten.

" What about the effects on children?"

Possible answers:

" In the instance of children, if it takes a village, one hopes it is a village which believes in full equality for all its people. When children are subjected to systematic prejudice on a daily basis, such as the children of gay families, it poses far-reaching problems. Marriage protects children. And since many lesbians and gay men do have children, they are denied the right to raise them within a marital relationship. Also, studies done in the last 20 years show that children from gay parents are very well-adjusted and happy. Studies also show that kids do not necessarily need just one mother and one father so much as they need good nurturers and positive role models. It should also be noted that gay and lesbian couples can adopt in New Jersey and California and a recent Stanford University study reported that there are 140,000 children in California with a gay or lesbian parent."

"The Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman; it is a religious institution."

Possible answers:

"Civil marriage is a government institution that grants hundreds of state rights and over 1,000 federal rights. When a couple goes to the County Clerk's office for a marriage license, religion plays no role. The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of the bible or any other religious text. There is no clear definition of exactly what constitutes marriage -- for example, at least in the Old Testament, polygamy is permitted, since several of the biblical figures had multiple wives. Although gay people have had religious wedding ceremonies performed, many in the freedom to marry movement are not asking for religions to accept same-sex couples' vows.

"Wouldn't recognition of same-sex marriages cost businesses a lot more money?"

Possible answers:

The main benefit many employers provide for their employees which might be affected by recognition of all marriages would be health care benefits. Currently, many gay people cannot obtain this benefit. The additional cost would be minimal and no one would even ask this question if a company happened to have all heterosexual people working with the expectation they would all be married. Business often offer gay couples benefits already as it is in their best interest to attract the best employees and retain them. Studies suggest the impact on business of recognizing same-sex couples would be minimal.

"Wouldn't gay marriage mean the further breakdown of the family?"

Possible answers:

The breakdown of the family is our concern, too. Many including gay people, believe that families are important for society and although many marriage end in divorce, marriage fulfills an important role in supporting families and the communities around us. Families are (and should) be made of love, respect, sacrifice and commitment. The same values that led us to recognize and respect marriages between opposite-sex couples, should inspire us to recognize and respect marriages of same-sex couples. Recognition of same-sex couples and their families would be a positive addition to the diversity in our communities.

"We should just abolish marriage completely! That's what we should be fighting for."

Possible answers:

Currently, our system of government is set up so that married couples receive a cadre of benefits and legal protections. And although you might disagree with that, why should the institution be abolished just because same-sex couples want to have legal recognition? While many may agree with you, we are saying that since it exists in its present form, gay people should be allowed to participate. If you would like to start a movement to rid our society of marriage, perhaps you would be successful. Meanwhile, that is not our issue.

"One of the major beliefs underlying anti-gay attitudes is that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. "

Possible answers:

In fact, according to animal experts, homosexuality is perfectly natural, normal behavior seen throughout the animal kingdom. Being gay is like being "left-handed" sexually - it doesn't mean there is anything "unnatural" it is just part of the natural spectrum of human sexuality that we see reflected in humans and other animals. Click here to read more on this topic from CBS news.

So often when people discuss marriage for gay and lesbian couples, there is very little truth. The truth is gay and lesbian couples are forming relationships, sharing homes and having children. To deny these families dignity, respect and legal recognition

• Millions of gay men and lesbians throughout the country (more than 50%) have already formed commitments
  
• The U.S. 2000 census shows that gay and lesbian couples are everywhere—99% of the country’s counties have at least one same-sex household
  
• A recent Gallup poll indicates that 48% favor laws that would allow same-sex couples to formalize their unions
  
• A Kaiser Family Foundation national survey found 47% of all Americans supported legally-sanctioned same-sex unions
  
• Of the numerous studies in the last three decades specifically looking at gay parents and their children not one has shown negative impact on children because of the parents’ sexual orientation.
  
• An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, taken in November 1999, confirms that 66% of the country believes marriage for same-sex couples will become legal in the early part of this century
  
• A growing number of cities in the U.S. recognize gay couples and offer some domestic partnership benefits
  
• Over 100 daily newspapers throughout the U.S. are publishing same-sex union announcements, including The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Charlotte Observer and Orange County Register. (provided by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)
  
• "Traditional" definitions of marriage are not good reasons for laws that discriminate against lesbians and gay men -- just as laws no longer ban marriages between people of different races or define wives as the property of their husbands. Likewise, divorce laws have changed, and now all states recognize divorce without forcing couples to "go to Reno" to legally end their marriages.
  
• Allowing same-sex relationships to share in civil marriage would not threaten or detract from non-gay marriages. Since much damage has already been done to the institution (and that was allowing heterosexual people to marry), that argument does not hold. Neither does the morality argument since what could be "moral" than allowing committed couples to share in the responsibilities and protections their families need? Many would agree that marriage promotes healthier and happier lives for couples and families and fulfills an important role in supporting and stabilizing the communities around us.

The FOREVER FAMILY Finally home: A white gay couple wanting a family. Five children of color needing a home. A San Francisco church seeking a minister. Done.
Click here to read the full story.

So often when people discuss marriage for gay and lesbian couples, there is very little truth. The truth is gay and lesbian couples are forming relationships, sharing homes and having children. To deny these families dignity, respect and legal recognition

• Millions of gay men and lesbians throughout the country (more than 50%) have already formed commitments
  
• The U.S. 2000 census shows that gay and lesbian couples are everywhere—99% of the country’s counties have at least one same-sex household
  
• A recent Gallup poll indicates that 48% favor laws that would allow same-sex couples to formalize their unions
  
• A Kaiser Family Foundation national survey found 47% of all Americans supported legally-sanctioned same-sex unions
  
• Of the numerous studies in the last three decades specifically looking at gay parents and their children not one has shown negative impact on children because of the parents’ sexual orientation.
  
• An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, taken in November 1999, confirms that 66% of the country believes marriage for same-sex couples will become legal in the early part of this century
  
• A growing number of cities in the U.S. recognize gay couples and offer some domestic partnership benefits
  
• Over 100 daily newspapers throughout the U.S. are publishing same-sex union announcements, including The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Charlotte Observer and Orange County Register. (provided by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)
  
• "Traditional" definitions of marriage are not good reasons for laws that discriminate against lesbians and gay men -- just as laws no longer ban marriages between people of different races or define wives as the property of their husbands. Likewise, divorce laws have changed, and now all states recognize divorce without forcing couples to "go to Reno" to legally end their marriages.
  
• Allowing same-sex relationships to share in civil marriage would not threaten or detract from non-gay marriages. Since much damage has already been done to the institution (and that was allowing heterosexual people to marry), that argument does not hold. Neither does the morality argument since what could be "moral" than allowing committed couples to share in the responsibilities and protections their families need? Many would agree that marriage promotes healthier and happier lives for couples and families and fulfills an important role in supporting and stabilizing the communities around us.

The FOREVER FAMILY Finally home: A white gay couple wanting a family. Five children of color needing a home. A San Francisco church seeking a minister. Done.
Click here to read the full story.

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS MARRIAGE?

For anyone reading this that is already married, think back to the day your spouse asked you to share his or her life with you. How special your wedding day was! Friends and family gathered around ensuring all was perfect – and for the most part, it was.

Rice and cake aside, had you any idea what marriage meant? Did you know the legal rights you, as husband and wife, would gain? Or how your family was protected?

Marriage Is

• Ultimately, civil marriage is a basic civil right as well as a private and public commitment of love and support by adult couples.
  
• In personal terms, marriage is a celebration of love and commitment.
  
• It means others can recognize the commitment the couple has made to one another.
  
• The choice of whether or not to marry is a personal decision.

Yet civil marriage also provides a gateway to over 1,000 federal protections, responsibilities and benefits as well as many more provided by your state. It lets a spouse make decisions about the medical care of a partner who is disabled. It enables the couple to organize their financial affairs as a single unit for economic, tax and insurance purposes.

Marriage Isn’t

* Marriage is not about procreation. Millions of couples choose not to or are unable to have children.
* Marriage is not an institution chosen by every couple.
* Marriage is not a religious institution, but a civil one. Although churches and synagogues do perform religious ceremonies, the government distinguishes the religious from the civil by requiring the signing of a marriage certificate, if that is what the couple chooses to do.

Religious and Civil Marriage: The Difference

In the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a marriage license. That is why many couples can go to a judge or any other public officiant and need not go to a church, synagogue or mosque. However, our government has made the process simpler by allowing priests, ministers, rabbis and other religious folk, to perform a couple's desire for a religious ceremony AND act as an officiant. This convenience does not mean that a purely religious ceremony would be legal. Each religious cleric must sign the license before witnesses and the couple. In Europe, couples MUST go before a public official to marry. A religious ceremony is 'secondary' and only needed if the couple wishes to have a church ceremony.

Moreover, churches retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage, just as they already do for every couple. No court decision or legislative enactment can change the basic tenets of religious faith. For example, some religions will not marry someone who has already been divorced, although the person is free to marry civilly.

Without legal marriage rights, couples face challenges that are overwhelming.

• If you were unable to visit your spouse in the hospital
• Knowing your child’s doctor bills may not be covered
• Unable to share social security in your later years
• Spending thousands of extra dollars because you cannot claim joint deductions
• The possibility of losing your home if something tragic happened to your spouse
• Not having legal guardianship over the children you’ve helped raise for years
• Even after 20 years together, your spouse is called your “friend” at parties and family gatherings
• Even after 30 years together, you have to check "single" as your marital status on every single form you complete
• These are just a fraction of the challenges faced daily by same-sex couples

Why Society Should Allow Same-Sex Couples to Marry

• If society cares about all its children, gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to protect them in a way that ONLY civil marriage allows.
• September 11th proved that the inability to enter into a civil marriage can cause greater grief in a time of tragedy. More than one year later, grieving partners are still battling for property and insurance claims just because they could not marry.
• The marriage of two adults of the same sex who seek to make a lifetime commitment to one another takes nothing away from the marriages of anyone else.
• Legal marriage strengthens commitment—commitment is what makes a marriage
• Supported couples make better contributions to society
• The movement for marriage equality of same-sex couples is actually a recognition of the importance and power of marriage
• Because it is fair: Requiring equality condones equality. Remember, you don’t have to be gay to support a same-sex couple’s right to marriage equality.

“What About Domestic Partnership and Civil Union?”

While some cities and states offer Domestic Partnership benefits and Vermont’s Civil Unions certainly guarantees more benefits than any other domestic partnership program to date, these systems still fall short of Civil Marriage. Only Civil Marriage can truly give gay and lesbian couples all the protections afforded by the Federal and individual state governments and ensure equality in the eyes of the law.

Note: when same-sex partners win the right to marry in one state, federal benefits will not be automatic. We will have to overturn restrictions imposed by DOMA before couples achieve federal recognition.

Gerry Studds, the nation's first openly gay congressman, pushed the country to another landmark development when he died Saturday: the federal government for the first time will deny death benefits to a congressman's gay spouse.
Read More: Lowell Sun Article and TowleRoad Article

Making a Family Without a Marriage
The son and daughter of lesbians think of their mothers as a wedded couple. Reminders that they aren't often arise...

THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Divorcing gay couples create new legal issues Alimony, property questions have even lawyers confused.