Subscribe to Breaking NewsLowenstein: Annie Leibowitz and the consequences of gay inequality
I get pretty upset when people argue against equality, but there is one particular argument that gets me more than most. It goes something like this: since civil unions and marriage are really the same thing with a different name, why can’t LGBT Americans just settle for the former in order to keep from offending those who consider the latter a religious institution?
The incredibly obvious answer is that civil unions and marriage aren’t equal at all. Setting aside the fact that even if civil unions and civil marriage were completely identical institutions the division would still violate our judicial ideal that separate can never be equal, there are very real federal benefits and rights that come along with marriage that same-sex couples can never receive.
In fact, there are over 1,000 benefits that marriage couples receive from the federal government that same-sex couples can’t access, including the ability to save money by filing joint tax returns and receiving access to government pensions and health insurance. (A married lesbian couple in Massachusetts actually filed a lawsuit last week, arguing that they’ve to paid $15,000 more in taxes than a straight couple would have to, since they are forced to file separately each year.)
One additional inequality that comes along with the federal distinction is the difference in inheritance law for married straight couples and same-sex couples who can’t be married under federal law.
This issue has been given a face and a name after The New York Times reported last month that photographer Annie Leibowitz was forced to use her work as collateral in order to secure a loan and resolve her financial difficulties. Queerty and After Ellen have both reported that some of the financial difficulties faced by Leibowitz were likely due to the fact that when her long-time partner Susan Sontag died in 2004, Leibowitz would have had to pay significant taxes on her inheritance– a tax liability that wouldn’t have been incurred if they were a married, opposite-sex couple.
Annie Leibowitz is just one of many to have been hit by these discriminatory regulations, to be sure, but her relatively public case does underscore an important point. Equality is more than a hypothetical ideal, and inequality is not in name only. There are very real consequences to our continued reliance on a system that treats some people different than others, and those differences can be catastrophic.
This whole argument is based on one big logical fallacy–that marriage is the better institution.
If one looks at France and the civil union law they put into place, one finds that an increasing number of heterosexuals are opting for it.
Because we are living in a new century, a new millenium, we have a slightly better idea of how to write laws so that they are superior to the old marriage laws. Civil unions can be better than marriage, and there is no reason why they should not have all the good perks without the bad aspects of marriage laws.
California has it right–do away with marriage as a civil institution, let it be defined in any way individual religions want to (including those who offer it to gay couples) and just have civil unions (domestic partnerships) for everyone.
Marriage is a dead institution anyway–even straight people don’t want it. How about something sensible–better constructed and more suitable for today?
Splenda ain’t sugar. Might do the same thing, might look the same, but it’s not the same. Splenda is made from sugar but isn’t the real thing. Civil unions/ domestic partnerships are made from marital law but aren’t the real thing. Annie Leibowitz had a phenomenal woman in her life, and at the end it’s reduced to technicalities and dry, discriminatory bureaucracy. It comes time to hock your belongings because you aren’t real. To hell with that.
Here is why Civil Unions and Marriages are not equal, the subconscious value of the words themselves. It’s marketing 101; a single word can invoke a visceral emotional response. Examples would be the words gay and fagot, in the wrong place they receive an immediate hate filled response without context beyond their utterance. Marriage is a positive word and in the current English language is considered to be interchangeable with love. It is the ultimate symbol of commitment and even with the negative context of divorce is still a milestone in most people’s lives. Civil Unions is what the gays get, a bone thrown to us from the table. “Here are the rights we give you,” is what Civil Unions say. “This is your right to love,” is what Marriage is. Settling for less sets the precedent of accepting less than our basic rights’ and after that they will come for everything. Just like they said this wasn’t about the Marriages that had happened but the future of Marriage, they have retroactively attacked the Marriages that have already occurred. They will come for more if we do not hold our ground.
Good piece…we have to use people like this renowned photographer to get our story out.
But you left a gaping hole. Yes, separate is not equal, yes, we won’t accept inequality even if in name only. And, yes, there are so many laws that require marriage why make straights change all those laws for little ‘ole us?
But the gaping hole: “keep from offending those who consider the latter a religious institution.”
We can’t let that type of sentiment go unchallenged. Marriage IS NOT a religious institution! In this country it is and always has been civil…a license is granted by the state and must be recorded by the state after by solemnized by an agent of the state (justice of the peace, or someone deputized into doing this service for the state, in many cases a religious figure).
If we give marriage to religion we will NEVER win because religion hates us! Religion is afraid of the truth we speak to, and religion knows if those truths are accepted, their whole fairy tale of lies is exposed.
If anyone brings up religious intolorance, we must tell them that they are welcome to hold their ceremonies in whatever church they want to put a black stain on their marriage. And we must tell them that religion has nothing to do with and no influence over marriage.
We won’t win if we let them run with lies as fact.
Remember: Marriage is a civil institution.
Stop offending people that think marriage is for religion? Is this a joke? They offend themselves out of their taliban approach to the world. LET THEM GET OFFENDED!
These are the same arguments we have been making all along, so none of this is really new(s). However, the reality of the problem continues nonetheless, and putting a well-known face on these issues could help.
But, is anyone out there, non-gay and in a position to actually help make changes, even listening? We hear virtually nothing from our elected officials, local or Federal.
And where is Obama on all the promises he made to us? He spoke giving Federal employees the ability to include spouses on their medical insurance policies. For some of us, though hardly what we ultimately need, this would be quite a benefit, in my case very much so.
“Helping all Americans” weather the terrible economic situation of course doesn’t, at least not on the insurance issue. In a hetero marriage if one spouse loses his/her job that person can be added to the others in a family plan.
It’s just so discouraging. I have high hopes ultimately, but I just want to live long enough to benefit.