CA Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman on Same-Sex Rights
Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO and 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate in California, has been the subject of numerous recent headlines for her political ambitions in the nation's most populous state. California, still reeling from the effects of Proposition 8 that stopped the state from performing same-sex marriages, will be replacing current Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger vetoed the California legislature's attempts to enact same-sex marriage in the state, citing constitutional issues with the attempt, but also opposed Proposition 8.
Meg Whitman granted two interviews, one with Silicon Valley's Mercury News and one with the Los Angeles Times, to discuss her political positions. Describing her political lean as "moderate to conservative" on social issues, Whitman believes that same-sex couples should be permitted to enter into civil unions and adopt children, but that the word "marriage" should be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Whitman supported Proposition 8, calling it a "matter of personal conscience and my faith." Whitman stood out, however, for her belief that Proposition 8 should not apply retroactively, and that the same-sex marriages legally performed before Proposition 8 should still be recognized and valid in the state.
While Family Fairness takes no position on whether Whitman would be a worthy governor for the state of California, it believes that California voters — especially those who believe strongly in the rights of same-sex couples — should be informed about the candidates' stances toward the LGBT community. For more on Meg Whitman's political positions, consult her Meg Whitman for Governor homepage.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.The Evils of DOMA: COBRA and Health Care
I spoke yesterday about the importance of the word "marriage" and why it was impossible to fight for the rights without also fighting for the word. Many current federal programs and benefits only recognize married partners. While we do not yet know how the federal government will deal will civil unions and domestic partnerships following the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—the statute allowing the federal government to ignore same-sex spouses—it is unlikely that the federal definition of marriage will be expanded to include these other relationships. As a result, despite states like Oregon, Washington, and Nevada offering expanded domestic partnerships with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, only same-sex partners married under the laws of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, or New Hampshire would actually have access to these federal programs.
COBRA is a federal law that allows workers who were laid off by an employer who staffs more than 20 employees to retain their health insurance benefits for themselves and for their spouses and children. Because of DOMA, COBRA does not currently apply to any same-sex couple. This means that the gays and lesbians among the current 30 million unemployed Americans are also being denied affordable healthcare for their families. The repeal of DOMA is necessary, but will still not suffice in the states in which same-sex couples have "won" the rights of marriage but not the word.
While I appreciate to some extent those who say they support civil equality for gays and lesbians but not the conveyance of the word marriage, they must understand that domestic partnerships cannot simulate all of the rights of marriage. Even with the assistance of an attorney and every legal document he could produce, same-sex couples can not be equal until they can marry.
Have a question, comment, or response? 1 person does.Family Fairness thanks Harrah’s for their support of domestic partnerships
News came out yesterday that Harrah's Hotel and Casino penned a letter to Nevada lawmakers urging them to approve the state's domestic partnership bill. Governor Gibbons has already threatened to veto the measure. In the letter, Senior Vice President of Harrah's Jan Jones wrote:
Our state cannot afford to lose any more revenue to other destinations because of a reputation as a place which is not socially or politically the right place to do business or to vacation [. . . .] How can we say to them 'we want your business, but we don't care about your rights'?
In a letter to Harrah's thanking them for their support of our community, Family Fairness member Jacob Howa-Morrow writes:
I just wanted to write and express my thanks for your company's letter to Nevada lawmakers urging them to pass the domestic partnership bill because of the economic ramifications of not doing so. My husband and I have visited Las Vegas over 10 times and plan to go back much more in the future. We usually stay in Harrah's-owned hotels, but will definitely make more of an effort to support Harrah's on our future trips. We truly appreciate what you stand for. Thank you!
Harrah's letter shows the broad range of support the gay and lesbian community has received in our fight for equality. With the voices of not only individuals, but also businesses, legislatures, and leaders, we can know that we are truly making progress. Thank you, Harrah's, for understanding that prejudice should never come before good sense.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Washington group primed to roll-back newly won rights
With Governor Chris Gregoire's signature on Senate Bill 5688 yesterday, Washington now offers every "privilege, immunity, right, benefit, and responsibility" of marriage to registered same-sex domestic partners. However, according to Seattle PI, conservative anti-gay group Washington Values Alliance has already filed Referendum 71, a measure allowing Washington voters to overturn the new domestic partnership bill. The group will have until June 25 to collect the more than 120,000 signatures necessary to place the referendum on the November ballot. Should they succeed, the new law will be suspended until after the vote, affecting 5,395 Washington couples already in a registered domestic partnership.
Some in the state's legislature have indicated interest in sponsoring a legislative push for full marriage equality, and Governor Gregoire herself has been quoted as saying that she "want[s] to see a bill on [her] desk." However, given Washington's preference for a slower, incremental approach to gay rights, it is likely that the state's leaders are waiting to see the results of Referendum 71 before seriously considering such a bill.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Adult Adoptions: Can/Should Same-Sex Couples Adopt Each Other?
Adult adoption of ones same-sex partner has been a technique employed by many same-sex couples over the past few decades as a way to receive some of the rights of marriage. The idea is believed to have started with Jack Baker, who was adopted by his partner James McConnell in 1971. In jurisdictions in which same-sex marriage is illegal or not recognized, adult adoption is the only way to create a bona fide legal family relationship, and may be the alternative of choice for some couples.
However, there are some advantages and disadvantages to such a setup that gay and lesbian couples should consider before deciding to adopt. As always, you should consult an attorney who can better assess your individual situation to determine if adult adoption is for you. These tips should be used as a starting point only.
Advantages
- Most states allow it - Unlike same-sex marriage, which is performed in only 5 states in the country, adult adoption of ones same-sex partner is allowed in almost every state. Though Florida bars gay and lesbian individuals from adopting, the remaining 49 states have no such restriction. As you will be adopting your partner as a single person, statutes prohibiting joint same-sex adoption are also inapplicable. Some states, however, may have certain restrictions, such as requiring that the adopter be 10 or more years older than the adoptee, which may create complications.
- You can create a legal family relationship - In addition to the greater feeling of commitment same-sex couples have when entering into a legal relationship, adult adoption also provides some legal perks, particularly for those couples wishing to have children. Since many states bar joint and second-parent adoptions by same-sex couples, adult adoption of your partner may be the only way to ensure that your child has a legal relationship with both of you. This means inheritance, custody, healthcare decision-making, and other parental rights can be shared by both parents (though one partner would technically legally be the child's grandparent).
- You may inherit from each other at death - Though it is possible to draft a will that gives all of your personal property to your partner, wills are sometimes successfully challenged by family members who disagree with your lifestyle or simply desire a greater inheritance. An adult adoption means that both your and your partner's families will not have standing to challenge your will. Additionally, should you die without a will, all of your property will pass automatically through a process called 'intestacy' to your partner. Be warned, though, that family members may still attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your adoption.
- You are legally next-of-kin - Next-of-kin status essentially provides a same-sex couple with all of the rights a durable power of attorney would without the additional legal paperwork. This means that you and your partner will be able to make medical and legal decisions for one another in the event of incapacitation.
- You may share in your partner's benefits - Health insurance policies and employee benefits are often limited only to family members, and an adult adoption may permit you to share these benefits with your partner. Additionally, life insurance policies, which are frequently challenged by the family of the deceased gay or lesbian individual, gain additional protection when the named beneficiary is a legal family member.
Disadvantages
- You may not undo the adoption - Once you or your partner has completed the adult adoption process, there is no way to undo it. There is nothing analogous to a divorce when it comes to adult adoption. For this reason, same-sex couples should be incredibly cautious before entering an adoption agreement, as there is no way to legally sever your relationship.
- Even if technically permitted, a court may still deny your application - One case in particular, In re the Adoption of Robert Paul P., 471 N.E.2d 424 (1984), denied the petition of a 57-year-old man to adopt his 50-year-old partner. The New York Court of Appeals viewed the adoption application as a way to circumvent anti-gay marriage laws and denied permission to adopt on public policy grounds. However, other courts have permitted such adoptions, and so it is impossible to predict the outcome of your particular petition. As your adoption will be respected nationwide, most couples elect to apply in California, which has been fairly liberal with the approval of adult adoptions between same-sex partners.
- The adoptee loses inheritance rights with his or her natural parents - In many jurisdictions, adoption legally severs the adoptee from his or her former parents. This means that the individual is no longer able to inherit from their natural parents unless there is a will explicitly providing for them. Typically this problem is solved by choosing as the adopter the individual whose parents have already died or who stands to inherit the most in the event of death.
- You may be prosecuted for incest - Though no same-sex couple who has opted for adult adoption has been prosecuted for incest to my knowledge, many states' laws criminalizing incest will apply to you. It is unclear how the law will apply — it is even possible that the Court would invalidate incest laws under a Lawrence v. Texas precedent — but this is a consideration that must be made.
- Your options for marriage may be limited - Again, a case involving this particular scenario has not yet come up, but the same incest laws that prohibit a parent from marrying his or her child would apply to you and your partner. And because adoptions are irrevocable, it may never be possible for you to legally wed your partner unless you can successfully challenge the law in court.
Ultimately, the decision to file for an adult adoption of your same-sex partner is an intensely personal one. This avenue to rights is not appropriate for everyone, but may be suitable in certain cases. If you believe an adult adoption might be right for you an your partner, you should consult an attorney who can better advise you as to the advantages and disadvantages given your particular situation.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Professor Geoffrey Stone on Civil Unions and Religious Freedom
Illinois will soon begin to discuss the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, a bill with the dual purpose of providing legal recognition for same-sex couples and permitting religious organizations to choose not to solemnize or officiate civil union ceremonies. The bill would also recognize marriages and other legal relationships between members of the same-sex performed in other jurisdictions as civil unions. Illinois currently offers no recognition for gay and lesbian couples.
Professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, like 60% of Americans according to recent polls, supports the legislation and wrote a very interesting opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune. He opines:
There has been a transformation in our thinking on this issue over the past half-century. What would once have been regarded as nothing short of weird now seems perfectly sensible. This is the American story. It is, in part, what makes us great. Over time, we have gradually recognized the common humanity of blacks, women, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Catholics and gays, all of whom have been the victims of cruel discrimination.
The rights for each of these groups have come incrementally. For instance, women won suffrage in 1920, employment nondiscrimination in 1964, and school nondiscrimination in 1972. Professor Stone believes the incremental approach to legalized same-sex marriage is appropriate as well, saying, "it is a reasonable compromise at this time in our history."
I disagree. 'Reasonable compromises' are what have led many people to believe that the fight for women's equality ended in 1970 with the Equal Pay Act when, in reality, women today are still paid 15-40 percent less than their male colleagues. By taking an incremental approach and settling for civil unions, we run the risk of fostering a perception that the problem has been fixed by a separate-but-equal institution. So why not go straight for full marriage equality? Professor Stone points to fears of losing religious liberty:
The most obvious tension arises out of the fact that some religious people believe same-sex relationships are inherently sinful and immoral. They therefore insist that the state should not legitimate such relationships. The problem, though, is that in a society that values the separation of church and state, religious doctrine cannot be the source of our secular law. The framers of our Constitution certainly embraced this principle. It is not a violation of religious liberty for the state not to impose one group's religious beliefs on other citizens who do not share them.
I agree with Professor Stone on this point and I believe he has articulated it beautifully. However, we diverge in opinion on the appropriateness of the "Religious Freedom Protection" part of the Act. While he regards the language as "a respectful and very substantial acknowledgment of legitimate religious liberty interests," I see it as a merely symbolic and unnecessary inclusion simply for political appeasement.
The case that has spawned the fervor over religious liberty took place in New Jersey, where a religious organization refused to allow a lesbian couple to use a pavilion it owned. As a result of their decision, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection took away a tax break given to the organization for opening the pavilion to public use. This was a case involving not religious freedom, but a bland and straightforward taxation principle: you may not receive a public accommodation tax exemption on a location that is not actually accommodating the public.
I do not believe that the Illinois provision would have affected this outcome. Section 15 provides only that the law does not "interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body" and that an organization "is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union." However, this is already the state of the law in all 50 jurisdictions; no religious institution is forced to recognize any marriage it does not want to. Many Catholic churches, for instance, do not perform marriage ceremonies for divorcees, while Orthodox Jewish temples may refuse to join a jew and a gentile. No provision of law could be read to force religious organizations to conduct same-sex civil union ceremonies.
What an organization cannot do, however — and what they still cannot do even with Illinois's provision — is accept a public accommodations tax credit for a building that is not a public accommodation.
We are left, then, with a component of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act that is superfluous and merely symbolic. I do not assert that religious organizations should be denied the ability to observe whatever tenants it wishes, I simply do not believe that Section 15 is necessary to achieve this end. I also fear what the law may be implying. If the legislature specifically exempts organizations from being forced to perform civil union ceremonies, is the implication that they can be required to perform marriages between divorcees or between jew and gentile? Why codify only a single exception while leaving other exceptions up to mere 'common understanding'?
Finally, I believe Section 15 reinforces the misunderstanding that civil rights are zero sum. The truth is that we can make one group — gays and lesbians — equal without making a second group — the religious — unequal. Equality is not a limited resource, but rather something we all can and should share.
In the end, both Professor Stone and I support the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, albeit I with less gusto. I believe the Act is a step above nothing and is certainly a welcome relief for Illinoisan same-sex couples, but is absolutely not where Illinois should stop. A "compromise," as Professor Stone calls this bill, is not equality; equality is equality.
Have a question, comment, or response? 3 people do.