We only ask for the rights because we’ve already accepted the responsibilities.

Rob Tisinai

November 20th, 2012

This morning I read Chris Geidner’s great article on how we beat back our opposition’s propaganda to sweep five marriage equality battles in the last election. This bit leapt out at me:

Commitment trumps rights, a point made in prior research by Freedom to Marry as well: “Leading with commitment will show the middle that gay people want to join the institution of marriage, not change it.”

We talk a lot about marriage rights, but every one of us in a committed relationship has a commitment story to tell — to lead with, in fact. Use the comments below to craft the one that belongs to you.

I told mine once before when Maggie Gallagher demonstrated her blithe ignorance of what commitment means by saying same-sex partners don’t need employer health benefits: “when both adults are working (as in egalitarian relationships), both partners tend to sustain their own health insurance.” Here it is:

In 2011, my partner Will fractured his wrist. He was back in school as a full-time student, with a full-time job that didn’t offer benefits. I hadn’t realized that schools don’t offer the same health care that I got a couple decades ago, so I hadn’t put him on my employer’s insurance. He ended up with a temporary cast, along with an appointment a couple weeks later and a warning they might have to rebreak his wrist before setting it properly.

We sorted it out, but I was angry for long afterward, and really I was furious with myself. Will didn’t think so, but I had failed him, and as we recounted the ordeal to his parents I could barely look them in the eye. Will is my responsibility, and I am his. His medical bills are my medical bills. If our circumstance changed, and I needed help, Will would quit school and take on three jobs if my health required it. So God help me, when it was over I didn’t fucking say to him, “Sorry, babe, but in an egalitarian relationship both partners sustain their own health insurance.”  No, I got him on my plan because that’s the way relationships work.

Will is my responsibility, and I am his. That’s the short version of the story. Actually that ought to be the first and last line every time I tell it.

People don’t marry just to take care of their kids. They marry to be responsible for each other: Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour / For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

It astonishes me how many of our religious opponents are so quick to forget their own Bible when they claim marriage is all about the kids. Marriage does come with legal rights, but the rights we care most about the ones that help us live up to our responsibilities: the right to be in that hospital room, to provide medical care, to make decisions when your partner cannot, to ensure he can support himself if you are taken, to give your employer an honest reason when you take a personal day for his sake, to live in the same room, the same home, the same country without fearing discrimination or separation.

Because of federal tax penalties, putting Will on my insurance amounts to a $3500 annual pay cut compared to what my married colleagues give up. I can see why someone might think I’m merely greedy when I point that out, concerned for nothing but what I can get from marriage equality. But those rights and benefits for married couples — available with kids or without — were put in place for a reason: to help spouses care for each other. And in a rare show of unanimity the entire political spectrum considers this very long tradition a very good thing. Which brings me to my single-sentence argument for marriage equality, the one I’ll come back to again and again.

We only ask for the rights because we’ve already accepted the responsibilities.

I’ve given you my story. Now tell me yours.

Steve

November 20th, 2012

Straight people generally have no clue how many rights and benefits are attached to marriage. They just take it for granted and pay no attention to it. The ones who take offense at a focus on rights, confuse rights with privileges.

The thing is that you don’t have to get married to show commitment. You can get commitment just by living together.

Hunter

November 20th, 2012

“It astonishes me how many of our religious opponents are so quick to forget their own Bible when they claim marriage is all about the kids.”

Their own Bible? How about their own marriage vows?

jpeckjr

November 20th, 2012

@Hunter. Yes! Exactly! Conservative Christian marriage advice emphasizes that the commitment the parents have to each other must be strong in order for the children to thrive. They say this all the time. They even say when the children are having trouble, the parents should look first at their own relationship to see if something needs attention.

If it’s all about the children, what’s love and commitment got to do with it?

Timothy Kincaid

November 20th, 2012

If it’s all about the children, what’s love and commitment got to do with it?

It’s a second hand emotion

Marcus

November 20th, 2012

Sorry, but it’s sort of depressing that straights apparently need to be reminded that same-sex couples love and commit the same way they do.

Don

November 20th, 2012

My partner of 27 years has AIDS, diabeties, has had a liver transplant and now is on dialysis due to kidney failure from the drugs needed to prevent rejection (not uncommon in some cases). It has never once occured to me to leave him despite the hardships we have had to endure. (Can certain republican politians make the same claim?) Maggie Gallegher thinks gay relationships are only about the sex; we all know that our relationships are no different than straight relationships. I think my commitment thru every illness has shown to his family, to my family, to our neighbors and to our co-workers that gay or straight, partners care for each other; in sickness or in health.

jpeckjr

November 21st, 2012

@Timothy. What’s that supposed to mean, huh? Is that a song reference or something?

You better be good to me, Kincaid. I know where you blog! :-))

(apologies for turning the thread into a Tina Turner comment-off)

Rob’s original post is very powerful and Don’s comment speaks real truth about real commitment. Thanks to both.

Now An Agnostic

November 21st, 2012

Christians like Maggie, of NOM fame (or should it be shame?), say Marriage is not needed. LGBT couples can accomplish the Marriage Contract through existing legal measures–i.e. spending a couple thousand dollars for the services of a good estate lawyer.

My good Lesbian friends did just that. Their assests were significant, but they are far from wealthy. They hired a lawyer to put everything they owned into a trust. They planned to protect each other. Each little change to the trust required another thousand dollars or so for the lawyer’s services. They thought they had everything taken care of.

When Jean died at 67 from pancreatic cancer, after 40 years together, Rose discovered AZ law trumped anything they could have done legally. Rose had no legal custody of her partner’s body–well, as Executor of the estate she would have if there were no blood relatives living. But, the Executor comes at the bottom of the list. Rose had to get legal consent from Jean’s sister for the cremation. In this case, the sister’s children are beneficiaries of the trust so there were no problems.

Just another story for same sex civil marriage. Yes. What it is called DOES mean everything.

Timothy Kincaid

November 21st, 2012

jpeckjr

;)

Timothy Kincaid

November 21st, 2012

NAA,

I’ve been seeing an odd situation emerge – one that I hadn’t predicted. I’m not sure if it holds true in you friends’ example, but here it is:

Repeatedly I’ve seen stories in which a person dies and the remaining partner has to get permission for every detail from a sibling or cousin. But rather than see this as their right as “next of kin”, it infuriates the sibling who loved the couple and now sees the parter put in an unfair and humiliating position.

And then suddenly a new angry straight advocate for equality is created. Who then tells all their straight friends about how unfair and cruel it is to deny rights to gay couples.

I don’t think NOM ever expected that.

It makes me smile.

Donny D.

November 22nd, 2012

Marcus wrote,

Sorry, but it’s sort of depressing that straights apparently need to be reminded that same-sex couples love and commit the same way they do.

Straight people are used to thinking they are the only people who exist, and that everyone else is an insignificant exception. Those who think this way includes many straight people who see themselves as non-homophobic. “How men feel” is always how exclusively-heterosexual men feel, ditto with women; “growing up” is always about straight teens — and “couples” always means opposite sex couples. Straight people are only starting to get used to the idea that in the normal day to day world, gay and bisexual people exist, too.

jpeckjr

November 23rd, 2012

While working on my own living will / health care agent / advanced health care directive, I learned that in my state, the law is “ambiguous” about who is legal next-of-kin. That is, it does not specify which legal or blood relative is responsible for health care decisions. Even my state’s marriage laws (one man, one woman) do not specify that the spouse is the legal next of kin in all cases for health care.

My attorney told me in the absence of a clear health care agent appointment, the hospital / doctor will defer to the spouse / oldest child / oldest sibling. A legal case can be made that those people are “next-of-kin.”

He also thought married same-sex couples should have a copy of their marriage license handy, not that an opposite-sex couple would be asked to prove they are legally married.

He advises all adults — single, married, gay, straight, living alone, living with others — to designate a health care agent and an alternate.

Robert

November 24th, 2012

jpeckjr,

my husband and I have multiple copies of our marriage liscence for just the reason you stated. I also took his last name in case we are out of our equality state. (As often occurs in any relationship, we now bear a striking resemblence to each other) We can say we are “brothers” if we are ever in need in a trip cross country, and it’s a darn shame we have to pretend in order to be able to answer for each other in those times of need. We also have medical directives which we have copies of.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Emphasis Mine

Today In History, 1948: "Homosexual Ring Broken Up" At Mizzou

Today In History, 1960: Daughters of Bilitis Hold First National Convention

Today In History, 1969: "One Profession Frowned Upon In Hollywood"

Today In History, 1993: Russia Decriminalizes Homosexuality

Born On This Day, 1927: Marijane Meaker

House GOP Caucus Heard "Homosexuals Worthy Of Death" Verse Before Spending Bill Vote

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.