Some Reasons GLBT*.* Want Full Equality Under the Law

[Occulus]

Some here at DU have asked why GLBT*.* members are so very committed to our full equality under the law. Some others have insinuated that it's only for the health care benefits.

On the GLBT open thread, WhollyHeretic was kind enough to boldly state (literally, it's in bold and underlined) some- only some- of those reasons. In reality, there are well over a thousand reasons related directly to the titled of "married" that heterosexuals receive as a legal consequence of their marriages, but which GLBT*.*s, even in the states that recognize their relationships, cannot be guaranteed of receiving.

So here is WhollyHeretic's version of "the list". Unlike that other list that some pull out on occasion, this list actually matters.

Joint filing of tax returns

Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children

Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child

Funeral decision making power for deceased partners

Crime victim’s recovery benefits

Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity (gays can be forced to testify against their partners, heterosexuals can't).

Mandatory economic privileges and benefits from employers

Retirement Savings - married spouses can roll 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes while gays pay up to 70% in taxes & penalties even when claimed as a beneficiary.

Home protection - Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell homes to pay for high medical or nursing home bills while gays & lesbians have no protection.

Divorce protections such as community property and child support

Joint filing of customs claims when traveling

---

There are literally hundreds more reasons; this is only a sample. These are reasons with meat on them. These reasons matter. An appointment to a position is fine, trying to end DOMA is fine, all the other things on that "other list" are just as fine as paint. This list, though, actually matters in everyday life. To ordinary people.

Without these things above, ordinary people are destroyed, emotionally, psychologically, financially, and spiritually. Imagine, you heterosexuals who seem to think less of full equality than you ought to (you know who you are). Imagine waking up and no longer being able to remain silent on the witness stand because you can be compelled to testify against your spouse. Imagine having to pay huge taxes on your estate because the State sees it as a gift, and not as a family beneficiary sort of thing. Imagine, for a minute, each of you having to pay the full price for your home or auto insurance. Imagine not being able to file a joint tax return.

Imagine your spouse's family being able to keep you out of his or her hospital room because their family doesn't approve of your relationship. Imagine them swooping in after your spouse is dead and gone, there to take (really, steal) everything because the state doesn't recognize your relationship, and thus, they can, with impunity.

Things like this are much, much more important than DOMA, or a Presidential appointment, or any of the other 'accomplishments' (I use that term advisedly) Obama has made regarding GLBT*.* These things, as I said above, matter every single day to every last one of us. These are the things "marriage" brings you.

These are the things denied to us.

That is why we come across as having a 'thin skin', or as 'constant victims', or whatever other insultingly dismissive phrase you care to use. This is why we're constantly 'complaining'. This is why we're always 'on guard'. This is why we're 'angry'. We are those things because we have every right to be, plenty of provocation for, and not much progress toward.

It never ceases to amaze me how many heterosexuals still don't get it, how many don't know, and how far we still have to go. Hopefully, this (woefully partial) list will shine some light on the 'why' of it all.

We're mad as hell; we have every right to be. On the subject of "full equality", there is no middle ground, there is no respectful disagreement, and it really is a simple, binary choice.

It's up to you to decide upon which side you fall.

[Autumn]

1. Recommended. There can be no middle ground

A good friend of mine was not allowed to be in the hospital room when her partner of 23 years died. It's a matter of human rights.

[Occulus]

28. Exactly.

And a perfectly horrible example, if I may use that phrase, of why this is so important to so many of us.

[bigwillq]

2. K and R

:thumbsup:

[justiceischeap]

3. K & R

Though this sort of post has been posted numerous times before, it's always good to do it occasionally.

[William769]

4. K&R.

Although it will probably fall on deaf ears.

[WhollyHeretic]

5. Thanks for posting this thread. These are people's lives that are affected every day

not some abstract ideal.

My wife came close to dying last year from blood clots. She had to have open heart and lung surgery. It was the worst period of my life. Waiting through the 7 hours of surgery and watching her in so much pain for weeks in the hospitals. I can't imagine if I had been unable to see her or be part of the doctors' consultations. I really would have lost my mind, I came pretty close as it was.

Civil rights are never something to be put on the back burner.

[Occulus]

30. Thank YOU for posting these reasons on Skinner's open thread.

A mod made the suggestion a thread be made, and I agreed; this was important and was getting lost on that mammoth dinner show.

I hope I didn't offend you by leapfrogging you the way I did. Next time I'll ask first (I was in a hurry to leave for work or I would have done today).

[WhollyHeretic]

34. I don't mind at all.

I put the list together by combining a couple of other people's lists years ago. I think I first posted it hear maybe 5 years ago after some some flamefest threads on marriage equality. It's kind of depressing that it still needs to be posted on DU.

[frebrd]

6. K&R! n/t

[TriMera]

7. k&r. n/t

[fishwax]

8. k/r

[Blue-Jay]

9. This information is important.

[lightningandsnow]

10. Yes!

But I'd just like to add...equality under the law can only go so far until we have major shifts in how society treats sexual and gender diversity. So I'll take it all....one step at a time. :)

[Occulus]

27. Of course, the converse to that is that society cannot ever completely accept us as equals

until we have full equality under the law.

I'd like to think the two go hand-in-hand, and not that one comes after the other.

[Eyerish]

11. K&R

[hunter]

12. Kick. There is no "middle ground."

There are no compromises to be made.

[midnight]

13. That's the way to say it.... Nothing less than equality....

[Lucian]

14. I support all of those rights 100%.

K&R

[Withywindle]

15. K & R

At this point, I don't know how anyone can NOT at least begin to get it, unless they're willfully resisting getting it. Which I suspect many are.


One reason DOMA does matter is that marriage equality needs to be federal and national and non-negotiable, with none of this bigot-pandering states'-rights bullshit. It is NOT acceptable when a married couple is traveling, and they're protected from horrendous hospital treatment if they have an accident on one side of a state line--but not if happens a mile away on the other side.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Now there is a fucking LIST that needs to appear here OFTEN!

K&R

[Occulus]

41. Feel free to add to it.

Every right and privilege under the law that is enjoyed by heterosexual married couples just because they are married is eligible for addition.

[Dappleganger]

17. k&r

[Octafish]

18. Equal Justice under Law

Equality is a democratic principle.

[LetTimmySmoke]

19. K&R

[nichomachus]

20. When my husband and I went on vacation

to Arizona last month, I had to bring a portfolio with all the pertinent legal documents that would allow us to make decisions for each other, do hospital visitation, etc etc. I also had to bring a copy of our marriage certificate and our declaration of domestic partnership. Just in case something dreadful happened. Do heterosexual couples have to carry around all this documentation? (And, being Arizona, there's a good chance they could just have ignored all the legal documents.)

[csziggy]

25. Hetereo couples don't even have to prove they are legally married

For their relationships to be accepted. Even before hubby and I made our relationship legal, when I was in the hospital the doctors and nurses accepted him as my husband without asking for any proof. In fact the only problem I ever had was after we had been "married" for over five years - I had a concussion and the nurses in the small town emergency room thought I had memory loss when I gave my name and husband's name and they didn't match. I had to explain to them at length that I did not change my name when I got married. Those poor nurses just didn't understand why I would not want to use my husband's name. :wtf:

It is long past time for full equality for all no matter what the sexual preference is. Half measures are not equality.

[Occulus]

31. You know, that story touches on something much much more superficial,

but it kind of bothers me anyway:

I work in a postal distribution center. I see (and actually handle) aaaaaallllll the odious rightwing crap sent out by the Heritage Foundation, FOTF, and others.

(For those trolls who may want to cause me problems at work, I put exactly the same effort into sorting those as I do sorting official Democratic campaign material. It may come as foreign and odd to you that as both a Democrat and a Friend of Dorothy I am willing to put your mailings alongside those from PETA and find them equal as pieces of mail, and equally deserving of my equal attention, but that's what equality means.)

Anyhow, there's something very odd and vaguely disturbing I've noticed about the addressing of the mailings. Democratic mailings, or politically neutral mailings (like advertising and bills) is, in the main, addressed to the person: Mr Crimea, Mrs. Sommers, Ms. Ghallager, etc. The conservative (and especially religious) mailings however, invariably have Mr. Sommers, but mail addressed to his wife is very often addressed to Mrs. Richard Sommers. In other words, the mailings are addressed to "Mrs. Him."

The message I'm getting from that- a very vague impression, at that- is that conservative men tend to see their wives as extensions of themselves, rather than separate entities with different views of the world and possibly very different ideas. Once again, an open inequality honestly felt to be "proper" by social conservatives.

What you did would give a conservative man an embolism.

[a2liberal]

35. And what's wrong with that?

Isn't this thread promoting equal treatment (and more importantly equal consideration) for all sorts of relationships? If a conservative couple happens to prefer the more traditional form of doing something why do you have to criticize that? And don't tell me it's forced on the women either. I have a friend who is very willful/independent and yet she strongly believes in the husband being the head of the household. That's her _choice_.

[Luminous Animal]

37. No independent woman accepts another, in a personal relationship, as her "head".

Accepting such is the antithesis of independent.

I camped in an ancient graveyard in Portugal. All the women were identified as "esposa". I can ridicule the wiping out of a woman's identity (or lament it when I saw the anonymous "esposa") while granting her the right to her personal decision to do so. That personal decision has zero to do with equal rights under the law.

[a2liberal]

38. So it's ok to ridicule other kinds of relationships that don't fit your preferred mold?

As long as they have equal legal rights? And are you honestly contending that someone can't independently decide to commit to following the direction of others? For example, are soldiers sheep? Or people who work for a boss?

[Occulus]

40. Judgmental, aren't you?

I was speaking from more of a psychological angle there.

The practice really does deliver that impression, especially when it comes from groups that consistently belittle the importance and equality of women in general.

[a2liberal]

42. How was I being judgemental?

I was just trying to point out that you were giving other groups the same lack of consideration that you were complaining about yourself. I unknowingly do that sometimes too, and I appreciate it when someone points it out to me. Sorry if I offended you.

[Occulus]

43. You're confusing personal opinion and observation, I think.

I observe that socially conservative print media sources tend to address to "Mrs. Him". I infer socially conservative men or the groups the couple belong to tend to classify their female spouses as subservient, and opine that social conservatives don't treat women very well at all.

edit: As I stated before, the whole thing is very superficial in the first place.

It is consistent, though.

[a2liberal]

44. I still disagree but I'll leave it at that

You are expressing a negative opinion and ridicule about a lifestyle different from your own (one that is not violating anyone's rights). Anyways, my intent was not to stir up a debate but just to point something out to you in case you hadn't noticed it. What you do with that is up to you and I have no problem if you disagree. :)

[csziggy]

36. Thirty three years ago it was an uphill battle just to keep my name

You wouldn't think such a little thing would cause so many problems, but it did. Unnoticed by me, our tax preparer screwed up our names. Since I had the main income, I put myself down as head of household (which has been fact in our house for all these years). He switched them, but did not switch the Social Security numbers AND he tacked hubby's last name onto mine. So we get a letter (actually hubby did as nominal "head of household") wanting the correct SSNs. I sent them the correct SSNs and my correct name.

Then I (as my name + hubby's last name) got a letter from the Social Security Administration wanting to know why I had not notified of my name change. I wrote back and told them I had NOT changed my name and that I would be keeping the name I had used all my life. It took three more letters before they finally were convinced.

For legal documents, I STILL to this day have to allow the attorneys to put not only my name, but AKA my name + hubby's last name, even though I have NEVER used that variation.

We both still have relatives that address stuff to Mr. & Mrs. Hubby, or to my first name and his last name when they are trying to write to just me. If those are invitations or announcements, they often go unanswered. If after over thirty damn years they cannot be bothered to get my name correct, I am damned if I will send graduation presents to their child that I have never met.

Most credit companies tend to treat me as an extension of hubby, even though I am still the one with the primary income. One company which will soon be losing our business (as soon as we finish paying them off) will not let me talk to them about errors on the account or anything else. I've got news for them - I am the one that makes sure the payments get made. If they don't want to talk to me, I don't need to do business with them.

And you are right - the Progressive and Democratic political organizations treat each individual as an independent being and do not send stuff to "Mrs. Him"!

[Occulus]

39. Holy crap.

You could write a book. That's absurdly dickish.

Knowing bureaucrats, I believe every word of it.

[csziggy]

46. I left out the four years of tax audits

That I am convinced were precipitated by the screw up with the names & SSNs. By then we had a new accountant who happened to have just retired from the IRS. Four years of audits, not changes, no penalties. They stopped after the nice tax lady came out to the farm to check on the operation to make sure we were not just using it as a write off.

I was the only person here, no employees, taking care of 20+ horses. It was this time of year, hot and humid and I was shoveling out stalls. The nice lady and my accountant were in office attire, he in a suit, she in dress, heels, hose. I'm sweaty, dirty, smell like what I had been shoveling. We did not shake hands.

On the way back to the office, my accountant later told me, the nice tax lady told him we would not be audited again. Her comment was, "No one would do that just to get a write off!" :rofl:

[a2liberal]

45. One minor nitpick

Don't mean to argue, but are you sure that credit card is not in only your husband's name? If that is the case, I would say it's expected behavior and is more in line with treating everyone as an individual. It actually bothers me, but companies will generally not let a husband/wife access each other's account info if the accounts are in individual names. If I'm guessing correctly about what the situation is (I acknowledge this is just a guess) and the account is in his name, then it has nothing to do with gender and they wouldn't give him info on an account that was only in your name either.

I apologize if my guess is wrong and the account is in your name or both your names, in which case I agree it's ridiculous if they won't let you talk to them about the account.

[csziggy]

49. It was originally in his name, but he gave permission for them to share

Information with me. They still will not. They will not let him add me as co-signer on the card, for whatever reason. Apparently that company with that kind of card only allows one person as the "responsible party" per card.

Some of the accounts were originally opened in his name, some originally in mine. Only one company refuses to allow either of us to discuss the account with them even though we have given permission to all of them to share information.

That's OK, they need our business far more than we need their card. We will just put the card away, same as we do for all our fully paid cards. We keep one out for purchases where we do not want to use our debit cards. The rest stay locked away. This one will go on the bottom of the pile.

[Lorien]

21. K&R! None of us are truly free unless all have equal rights and protections

under the law.

[Luminous Animal]

22. But... but... but... we can create a separate but equal system! (Thanks for this excellent post.)

[ChoppinBroccoli]

23. I Have A Better Reason Than All Of Those

BECAUSE THEY'RE HUMAN AND THEY'RE ENTITLED TO IT.

[csziggy]

26. +100000000000000000000

[Occulus]

29. Well, yes.

It helps to have actual, concrete examples, though. Many of these things are items heterosexuals never ever even consider, such as the rights regarding testifying against one's spouse. It's just not something legally married heterosexuals ever have to face, so it doesn't even occur to them.

I can forgive that, actually, because it's such a no-brainer for most people that it just never crosses their minds.

[myrna minx]

24. K&R n/t

[Scottybeamer70]

32. When my partner of 27 years was admitted to the hospital

for a possible heart attack ( it wasn't ), the nurses would not allow me to go into his room. I waited until the nurses changed
shifts, and told the new shift I was his cousin. That was the only way I could see him. People who think it doesn't happen, are
not seriously living in reality or just don't care.....not sure which.
He's now my ex........but still.........until ALL have equality, it is not equal.

[Kurmudgeon]

33. I've got no problem with any of these, but joint filing may be a problem.

I just can't see the government giving up any of it's revenue stream without a fight.
Good luck with that one, with all of them really.

[Withywindle]

47. And I think Obama should really take into account the REAL cost of incremental "state by state" BS

If he'd been born in Virginia instead of Hawaii, in 1961, he would have legally been illegitimate, because his own parents' marriage would not have been recognized. In fact, they could have been hauled out of bed and arrested just for claiming to be married, as Mr. and Mrs. Loving were.

[Ignis]

48. K&R

Thanks for posting this. :thumbsup: