Caleb* and Barry* have been in a committed, monogamous relationship longer than me and my husband. They're educated professionals with a mortgage. Barry---now retired---donates time to animal rescue, and Caleb is a teacher. They also both have aging parents who need assistance. About ten years ago, they decided to move from Massachusetts---the only state that recognizes same sex marriage---to Florida to care for their parents.
If they'd had any other choice, they might still have moved to Florida, because they love the warm and sunny state. They like growing orange trees in the backyard, and being near the coast.
They got married nearly four years ago in Canada. Caleb said, "My mother wanted us to be legit. Actually there are lots of legal reasons to sign those papers, mom wanted a ceremony and dinner, so we did it."
Unfortunately, Florida---which has a same sex marriage ban on the ballot this year---may not be as fond of them because they are a same sex couple.
But it's their home, and their options outside of Massachusetts and Canada are fairly limited.
"As we drive across the country, we are recognized as married, in a civil union, no recognized relationship, and unknown - not tested in the courts. I can recall having four different legal statuses in one day as we drove across borders," Caleb said, recounting their trip across the US.
Currently, only four states allow civil unions and five states allow domestic partnerships. That creates challenges and trouble for same sex partners, but it also creates problems for caretakers of aging parents and can cost the state and taxpayers.
Because same sex partners aren't recognized legally, insurers and companies aren't required to provide benefits. For couples with adequate resources, they can care for aging parents on their own dime. For couples who don't have that, they may have to abandon aging parents who need assisted living and medical care to state welfare.
"It took 1/3 of my salary to pay medical bills and nursing care for Barry's parents. That should have been covered under my employer's health insurance - except that we weren't recognized," Caleb said.
He and Barry moved Barry's parents into their home when they became unable to care for themselves, "That lasted 5 years and they moved to a nursing home. Barry's father passed away in January. They were married for 71 years. She is doing pretty well," Caleb said.
However, Caleb and Barry, who was retired, had to decide how to shoulder the many and complex burdens of caring for aged parents who needed special medical attention and assistance---not the least of which was the financial burden.
"Since we are not recognized, and I was the bread winner, everyone else in the house lived in poverty - officially," Caleb said. That meant that the state could assist with the cost of care and could provide care, since Caleb's employer's health insurance didn't cover any of them, and his salary was already nearly maxed out between mortgage, living expenses and health care expenses.
In short, the bias against same sex unions is legalized discrimination that harms a greater spectrum of people than the people it's aimed at. It doesn't do anyone any good.
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage:
"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
The case has been pending for four years, since the mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same sex couples.
According to CNN, "The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees."
The dissenters are too stuck in their own prejudice to see the larger picture. Among other reasons, consider the health care issue that Caleb and Barry face with aging parents and insurance plans that don't cover partners or dependents.
Beyond the fact that, as Chief Justice Ronald George said, marriage is a civil right that all types of couples should be afforded, there are other more practical reasons same sex partnerships should be legally recognized.
"Some states are recognizing unions partly so they won't have to pay for things. We actually had the state deliver charity to the house for Barry's parents, including prepared meals, and a person who would bathe the old folks. The people who came to clean the house of these 'elderly who lived in poverty' really liked to come to our house because we are in a typical middle-class suburban neighborhood. It was a relief compared to the homes that they usually endured. We became quite close to some of those angels," Caleb said.
Marriage is not solely left to the church or other faith-based groups. It is also very much a civil matter, and many of our basic rights depend upon legal status. More people than you might think are affected by this---same sex couples are increasing in number, which means there are more same sex couples than previously accounted for, and which also means more families affected by the lack of equal and fair access to civil rights.
According to the census data analysis of Dr. Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation, Law, and Public Policy at UCLA, "The number of cohabiting same-sex couples in the U.S. grew from nearly 600,000 in 2000 to almost 777,000 in 2005. This is an increase of more than 30%."
Dr. Gates accounts for the increase as simple change in thinking: instead of hiding their status, same sex couples are increasingly honestly reporting it.
Florida, where Caleb and Barry live, is one of the states with the highest sexual minority population. The highest rate of increase is in midwestern states, and intriguingly, in states with same sex marriage bans on the ballot.
The bottom line is that a large number of our population---contributing, ethical, regular people---are in same sex relationships, many of them lasting longer than most marriages.
Like the California Supreme Court, I think it's about time we afforded them the basic civil liberties that I believe the framers of the Constitution intended when they granted us all the freedom and right to pursue happiness.
I also think that the practical benefits to society at large---especially as the largest population of aging and retiring people increases and they begin to need more and more assistance---allowing full legal recognition of same sex couples is the only rational and logical decision to make.
I hope our politicians up for election hear this, and read the real numbers, instead of only listening to the loud and emotional decriers.
Note: An interesting article to read is one the Los Angeles Times published, "Same-sex marriage: What different states allow." It breaks down the states that officially recognize same sex unions, those that have bans, and states with same sex union issues on the ballot this year.
* I changed their names, for obvious reasons.
Julie Pippert Uses Her Words and Speaks Up. Often. She also has an itchy voting finger and isn't afraid to use it.
"I think it's about time we afforded them the basic civil liberties that I believe the framers of the Constitution intended when they granted us all the freedom and right to pursue happiness." So do I, and I'm glad I live in California right now.
Your post looks at this issue from an angle I haven't seen discussed much, but is potentially a big issue: not all gay (and straight) couples will raise kids, but just about all have aging parents to be concerned about.
Posted by: Florinda | May 16, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Thank you for raising an aspect of this issue that I've not seen discussed before (how it affects more than just the same sex couple). And thank you (and Barry and Caleb) for sharing their story.
Allowing legal status to same sex couples does not take away my own rights as a married woman. It doesn't affect my family. It doesn't hurt anyone. I can understand why some religious people don't approve, but if they aren't the ones getting married, who cares? If this makes God angry, he can take it up with us in the afterlife. In this life, I want to see all of our law abiding citizens treated with love, compassion and respect.
Posted by: Donna | May 16, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Wonderfully said Julie, and a testament to the loving and genuine family values Caleb and Barry live every day. Their devotion to each other and their aging parents is moving.
Senator Obama said in a speech commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that "'the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.' And it bends that way because we all put our hands on it to make it bend that way."
This is how I understand slavery ended, this is how former slaves and suffragettes got the franchise, this is how anything great in our country gets accomplished. And abolition, universal suffrage, even interracial marriage started as alien notions and against the grain of their times. We have these things now because others put their hands on history and bent it toward justice.
So full legal recognition of same-sex unions across the U.S.: yes. And though its supporters may be in the minority now, every person--every straight person who is an ally--who stands up for same-sex marriage publicly is someone saying, "I'd like to put my hand with yours on the arc of history."
Posted by: cynematic | May 16, 2008 at 06:19 PM
Julie, you DO use your words! "Life-style" for same-sex couples is much the same as it is for hetero couples. Jobs, expenses, friends, health, parents. The big difference (statistically) is kids. That will change too. Kids without the protection of family law... eeesh <- one of my words. It's hard enough to take your mother-not-in-law to the hospital, and wonder if they'll make you wait outside since you aren't related.
Love the "hands on the arc of history" - pull hard!
-C
Posted by: Colin | May 17, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Thanks to all!
Florinda, I agree that the caring for parents is a real issue, and probably a gateway one at that.
We're looking at people who are already here and in families. That's not going to change. Withholding basic civil rights is flat out discrimination.
So Donna, I agree: the argument about how it affects my marriage is a red herring. It's time to take about the real and the tangible, such as cost for caring for aging parents.
Cynematic, that Obama quote is spot on. As is your spin on it!
Colin, so true---it is life, and it is pretty much the same.
Posted by: Julie Pippert | May 17, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Great post, babe! I had never thought about it from this perspective before, but it's so true.
Sooner or later the full faith & credit/equal protection issue is going to end up before the Supreme Court. I think it's unconstitutional for a state to refuse to recognize a marriage made in another state. Can you imagine a state doing that with a hetero couple? I just hope we've got some more Democrats in the Supreme Court before it happens.
Posted by: Lawyer Mama | May 18, 2008 at 08:23 AM
Hi
What a great article. it's about time. So glad to hear things are turning in the right direction.
You are great people to make such a committement to your family.
Congrats
Posted by: Sheila Archibald | May 18, 2008 at 09:14 AM
Well said!!! I am a Canadian living in Georgia. We have been here for 4.5 years. This topic is one that my husband and I find the most confusing in this country. Isn't the United States all about freedom?!?!? How is telling someone that they cannot be married free?!?!
Not to mention how could a place that has a 50% divorce rate say no to same sex marriage?!?!?! Better yet...how can people who own guns and are willing to hurt (or kill) others think that same sex marriage is 'not allowed'!
I could go on for days...
Posted by: Helen | May 20, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Hey, a teeny ray of hope here in California: a recent nonpartisan poll says a slim majority of registered voters (51%) think gay marriages are ok. Take a look: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/28/california_voters_favor_samese_1/
We know there'll be a ballot initiative trying to make an end-run around the CA Supreme Court's ruling and tyring to use the referendum system to make gay marriages illegal. But I'm hoping with some hard work and GOTV we 51% can defeat this.
Posted by: cynematic | May 28, 2008 at 09:48 AM