Discrimination straight up, nothing reverse about it

“Reverse discrimination” being an oxymoron typically used by bigots with a sense of entitlement, I expected to read of such a case when I saw this headline: “Prosser couple claims reverse discrimination.”

Turns out, by my lights, Charlene Honeycutt and Charles Weems were discriminated against. They live together and had until 2007 received healthcare benefits through Weems’ employer, Batelle Labs. The couple considered marrying, but that would have cost Honeycutt, a widow, her Social Security benefit from her dead husband. In October 2007, Honeycutt was just finishing up radiation treatments for breast cancer when Batelle informed its employees that it would no longer offer opposite-sex domestic partner benefits.

The discrimination seems pretty clear. It’s too bad that Honeycutt and Weems (and their lawyer) have chosen to call it “reverse discrimination,” implicitly blaming gays for Battelle’s misbehavior (quite the “What’s the Matter With Kansas" moment). There’s nothing reverse about it. It is part of the web of injustice woven by a) our employer-based healthcare (non) system and b) patriarchy (not unrelated systems). They’re being punished for not being married.

Although the modern nuance of offering same-sex partner benefits adds a wrinkle, Battelle is quite clear that marriage is being enforced: “’The company only extends medical benefits to same-sex domestic partners because they "have no other legal way to obtain health care benefits,’ [Battelle spokesperson Staci] West said.” That is, marital status is the proper way to deliver benefits—not, say, as a right of citizenship (or of simple humanity). People should get married, and if they fail to do so, they lose their claim to benefits. Those who can’t get married are a special exception.

There’s also the unsurprising fact that Battelle was looking to save money by denying benefits to anyone it could by law or social code get away with not insuring. That's called capitalism, and it's one of the many reasons delivering healthcare via employers is bankrupt.

None of this is the fault of gays, though the “reverse discrimination” language suggests they’ve hogged an unfair share of some scarce resource. However, the movement for “marriage equality” does bear some blame. It contributed to the social acceptability of Battelle’s behavior by furthering the idea that marriage is the ideal and the proper unit for allocating social rights and benefits. Time was when, instead of demanding their right to the benefits allocated through marriage, gays questioned the institution of marriage altogether—and I for one mourn that earlier incarnation of the movement.

And then there’s the issue of Social Security, a system designed to support the primacy of the male breadwinner and which discriminates against working wives and single women (see my earlier post).

I would agree with marriage equality advocates that the state of Washington’s domestic partnership law, which grants many of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples and opposite sex couples over the age of 62 is no solution. Now, when 40 percent of babies in this country are born to unwed mothers, most women spend most of their lives unmarried, and we are on the brink of overhauling the employer-based healthcare system, is hardly the moment for the state to renew its enforcement of marriage.

Boys been reading Rock the Cradle

Some college kids in California have filed a ballot initiative to do just what I’ve been advocating: get the government out of the marriage business. No surprise, the media are largely getting it wrong, calling it a “gay marriage initiative” and suggesting it’s a joke.

The boys’ initiative would erase “marriage” from the legal books and grant everyone the right to “domestic partnerships,” gay or straight. It’s unclear to me whether the contract would have to be a sexual one, or if you could create a union with your sister, friend, cousin, whatever, for purposes of life partnership, sexual or not.

I first learned of this from a libertarian-leaning blog in my home state, which got the point better than the MSM mostly did, although he did file the post under “gays.” Are other posts tagged “straights”? “Squares”? “Bigots”?

And the initiative sponsors don’t have quite the right analysis of their brilliant idea, calling it a “compromise.” There’s nothing compromising about it. It's a radical departure in the right direction. See my blog post on the subject.

Anyway, way to go, boys.

The right to register at Home Depot?

While I was out in the woods last week, I missed the remarkable Connecticut decision on gay marriage. And it is something. Not only did the state supreme court rule that gays have a right to marriage; it went further and said that civil unions are no substitute. The court ruled that both a law restricting marriage to heterosexuals and civil unions intended to provide all the benefits of marriage to same sex couples are unconstitutional because these laws violate the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

I think the Connecticut Supremes took the only coherent position possible, and the decision, couched as it was in comparisons to the civil rights and women’s movements, was inspiring, and nearly choked me up.

Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.

And then, reading down the New York Times article on the ruling, I was deflated by this, from one of the plaintiffs who’d sought the right to marry: “For 28 years we have been engaged. We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for marriage.”

Home Depot? This is what the great struggle is about?

I return to what I said in an earlier post: if the state grants marriage to any, it must grant it to all. But let’s get the state out of this bogus business altogether.

Boston marriages revived?

I’m glad to see Broadsheet picking up on a topic I’ve discussed previously: the need to recognize other forms of partnership besides either heterosexual or gay ones. Although Carol Price’s post didn’t make the connection with the debate over gay marriage, she did pose the question, “Isn’t it time to legally recognize the bonds of friendship?” She cited others asking the question, noting articles on the subject in the Boston Globe and The New York Times.

No one in the articles or the blog post suggested the kind of systematic revision of the tax code I do, and several experts quoted seemed to miss the point altogether, dismissing the idea of giving friendships legal standing as typical American over-legislation. But Laura Rosenbury, a law professor at Washington University quoted by the Boston Globe, gets it:

"If the law decides to support some relationships, why not others that similarly involve care and support? What is it about marriage or marriage-like relationships - that is, relationships that are assumed to have sex in them?"

Jane Gross in the New York Times focuses on those who are single and childless and their need for support in old age. But this isn’t only an issue that should concern single women. It’s past due time for women to consider that most of us will spend less than half our lives married to a man (see my old article in Salon on this topic). I’ve already considered that my spouse is likely to die many years before me (sorry, sweetie) and that my friends will be the support of my old age.

Why I’m not for gay marriage

Before you decide I’m a homophobe, let me be clear: In a society where the government sanctifies heterosexual partnership under the name of marriage, I regard the denial of that sanctification to same-sex couples as a violation of basic rights. If the government grants anyone that right, it must grant it to all.

But instead, let the government stop granting marriage to anyone.

But I am married, so what gives?

There you get to the heart of why I’ve been thinking so much about this issue, but have taken so long to post on it. I have always been skeptical of marriage, and I used to have nightmares about finding myself in a white dress walking down an aisle. (Eek! How did I get here?) But after I had been with the man I’m now married to for a few years and realized I planned to create a lifelong partnership with him, I came to see refusing to accept the label of marriage as largely irrelevant and pointless. We had a wedding—I wore red, not white—and against all my expectation I enjoyed it. A woman rabbi married us, our families were there, and I, who am an only child and the daughter of a single mother, was delighted to be embraced in a new family. Warm and loving as that family would have been to me if we had decided not to get married, there’s no denying that that ceremony gave me a new status in the family. I now belong in a deeply comforting way. I gained a privilege that gays have traditionally been denied and that must change.

I also gained the 300-some dubious legal benefits of marriage. I say dubious, because many of these benefits are gains for my family unit but they have the effect of disempowering me. Our family unit may gain economically from the marriage—we can file a joint tax return, and my husband can claim for the family the right to Social Security based on 150 percent of his income, instead of 100 percent. But as a wife, I will face significant disincentives on my paid work. Because of joint filing, my earnings are taxed at a much steeper marginal rate than they were when I was single. (Ann Crittenden explains this well, although she doesn’t emphasize that this is a different problem from the more commonly known “marriage penalty”—the problem remains even if the couple as a unit doesn't pay any more than the total the two would pay separately. For a more technical explanation, see Siv Gustafsson’s scholarly paper [PDF]. For a full-length book on the subject, check out Edward McCaffery's terrific Taxing Women. )

Many women in this situation elect to drop out of the paid workforce, basing their decision only on a comparison of current costs and benefits. Yet dropping out of the workforce results in major long-term costs, including big hits to my lifetime earnings, my savings (including government-encouraged, tax-free savings under a 401K), and my accrual of Social Security. Social Security is designed to allow me to receive benefits under my husband’s umbrella, but my marriage had better survive for more than 10 years or I get nothing. If the marriage survives and I do take paid work, I likely will get no return on the Social Security taxes I pay on my earnings; that is, a non-wage-earning wife will get the same Social Security benefits I do, despite all the additional taxes I pay in.

If I am among the working poor, and I stay in the paid workforce once I marry, I will likely lose all or most of the Earned Income Credit, subjecting my earnings to whopping effective rates higher than the rich paid under the New Deal.

When a couple has a child, these disincentives to the wife’s paid work kick into overdrive. Rather than treating childcare as a business expense (as it clearly is) and allowing full deduction of it, let alone offering major tax credits or a full system of government-funded childcare, we get a token credit on a small fraction of the enormous cost of childcare. So lots of women drop out of the paid workforce when they have a child and even more do so when they face the cost of childcare for two or more children. Yet earnings are power, so this means they lose power, both within the marriage and in the larger world.

Marriage as a government-backed institution, whatever the privileges that come with it, remains a raw deal for women.

A majority of Americans now support domestic partnerships, but are uncomfortable with gay marriage. To which I think the solution is the abolition of marriage—as a government-backed institution. Which is not to say that marriage should be abolished altogether. Just get the government out of it. Let rabbis, priests, imams, and gurus and their associated communities provide the sanctification people want and need and let them call it what they want. Meanwhile the government would offer only domestic partnerships. And while we’re at it, let’s extend the right to enter these partnerships not just to gay and straight couples, but to any pair of consenting adults who want to live together and share living expenses, property, and, perhaps, responsibilities for children. Which is to say, junk the link between sex and partnership. Friends, sisters, cousins could become domestic partners if they liked.

When an unmarried acquaintance of mine faced a terminal illness, she knew she’d be turning to Medicaid to cover the high costs of dying, but Medicaid required her to spend down all her assets first. Her only asset was a condominium she occupied with her sister and wanted to pass on to her. If the sister had been her husband, she could have done so, without jeopardizing Medicaid coverage. Why should the government treat this relationship with her sister as any less significant than marriage to a man? Why should the government treat any life partnership between two adults less seriously than a sexual one between a man and a woman? Gays have raised this question, but we should take it far deeper and broader. This is both a practical matter and a matter of liberty and human flourishing, especially for women. Let us create less rigid and more expansive notions of family.

We should abolish joint filing and jettison the system that grants social benefits—from Social Security to health care—on the basis of marital status, in favor of granting them as rights of citizenship, or better yet as human rights.

Gays: not all galloping down the aisle

Just when I was beginning to worry that the gay community had gone all square on us:

The New York Times’ article on gays who married in Massachusetts started off peddling the soothing line that gays are no threat to conventional marriage. (They’re just like us! They get divorced. They can’t get their boyfriends to commit. They dream about their wedding outfits.) I began getting depressed.

They saved the good stuff for after the jump. There we get Eric Erbelding and Michael Peck, whose “rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.” Most married gay couples Erbelding knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.” Phew.

And after I was embarrassed by the statistic that two-thirds of same-sex weddings in Massachusetts have been lesbian marriages—see, every woman’s life goal really is that white wedding dress—I read of Joyce Kauffman, who aims at a more creative definition of family and considers marriage a patriarchal institution that “politically makes me kind of queasy.” Thank you, sister.

Weddings tend to make me kind of queasy, too—so smug, they are—and I always felt the air lightened by knowing gay folks looked at them askance too. The gay subculture provided alternative models for living that expanded the sense of the possible in intimate life. Much as I agreed that it was a matter of human rights that if straights had the right to marry, gays should too, the world felt narrowed when gays began clamoring for marriage.

But this conversation isn’t over, not among gays and not among straights.