Lack of Same-Sex Partner Benefits = Financial Disaster

Somewhere, there is a ski lodge that this past weekend lost two customers.

Ordinarily, Robin Hurni and Jeanne Williams would have gone skiing last weekend.

The winter sport is one that the Denton, Md., couple once enjoyed. But because Hurni’s new employer won’t cover Williams’ health care costs, the skis were stowed.

“We’ve held back on doing activities because of the lack of health insurance,” Hurni said. “If she got hurt, what would we do?”

While I am sure the unnamed ski lodge will survive, the situation that Robin Hurni and Jeanne Williams is more serious. Because Hurni's employer does not provide health insurance for her partner (a benefit guaranteed to heterosexual couples), they are in a constant state of emergency.

Hurni, a sonographer, said her job options are limited. And after taking $3,000 out of savings to buy health insurance for Williams last year, additional expenses are not feasible.

The couple is now earnestly searching for a remedy — and hoping that Williams stays healthy in the meantime.

“It’s a precarious position,” Hurni said. “We stand to lose the house if we don’t have benefits and something happens.”

Now, if they were a heterosexual couple, the solution would be simple. Marriage would force Hurni's employer to cover Williams and the couple would continue to be productive citizens, unburdened by insane health care prices.

However, because they are lesbians, they have no recourse. A medical emergency for Williams would incur a financial disaster much greater than missing out on two customers on a popular ski weekend.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no simple way other than marriage to guarantee family rights. Equality Maryland states:

“Marriage Inequality in the State of Maryland” documents that without the ability to secure a marriage license, same-sex couples have no automatic legal right to:

- Take Family and Medical leave to care for a sick partner
- Ride in an ambulance with a partner
- Visit a partner in a nursing home or hospital
- Receive Social Security benefits in the event of the death of a partner
- Sponsor a foreign-born partner to stay in the country
- Inherit jointly owned property without incurring crippling tax penalties
- Roll a partner’s pension into their own
- Make burial decisions
- Have the security of continued insurance coverage after the death of a spouse
- Take advantage of social services provided to help families cope with catastrophe, poverty, homelessness, or abandonment

Add to that list that without marriage, employers are not required to provide benefits such as health insurance to partners, even when they already provide these benefits for heterosexual spouses.

Anything less than legal same-sex marriage is insufficient. Lets hope the court of appeals does the right thing.

Hot Topic of the Day: The Death Penalty

Wonderful news for Maryland: executions in the state have been suspended. I won't go into the decision, mostly because I have very little legal expertise and I am inspired by Stephanie Dray's opinion on the issue. However, if you want a quick legal rundown of the decision, head over to Crablaw.

Mrs. Dray takes the "make the death penalty safe and rare" position, certainly one of the most respectable ones to have in this debate. I agree with Dray on her point that there are some crimes which are so heinous, they should require the death penalty. She mentions John Allen Muhammad, the adult suspect in the DC sniper killings, as an example of such a crime and criminal. Indeed, Mr. Muhammad is a terrible man. He deserves no mercy. Some would say he deserves nothing more than the same death he and Malvo inflicted on their victims. These people may be right, and they are mostly driven by righteous anger.

The problem is, our justice system doesn't run on righteous anger. And though Mr. Muhammad does not deserve our mercy, we would reduce ourselves to his level were we not to give it.

I do not believe, as Dray assumes that many death penalty opponents do, that killing is wrong in every case or instance. Revenge killing by the State IS wrong in every instance, and that is what the death penalty boils down to.

There is no proof that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for violent crime. In fact, States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without it. It is solely reserved for those who murder in ways that revolt us.

In Maryland (and many other states I would assume) the death penalty has been proven to be applied by juries and prosecutors in a racist manner. Black males (particularly those who murder whites), to this day, are still more likely to be sentenced to death than whites in Maryland.

To argue that the death penalty is some sort of "criminal extermination service" is disturbing to me. If it isn't a deterrent, and it isn't revenge (can I assume state sanctioned revenge killing is wrong?), then it must be some sort societal fix. Killing serial killers as if these men are congenitally diseased when they are simply products of severe abuse in their childhood is insanity. Any argument that assumes there is some sort of genetic code or trigger for criminality is bunk anyway, but death penalty supporters continue to use these arguments to this day.

There is also the desire by death penalty proponents to separate society into "the criminals" and "the rest of us". This is a terrible and false dichotomy. Human beings are all capable of barbarity, of anger, of lust. We are all capable of losing control and we are all able to see the error of our ways and make positive changes in our lives. I believe the number one priority of the justice system must first be protection of the innocent. After that however, its next function must not be revenge, but instead rehabilitation.

I am a progressive, and I trust the government to do many things. I would trust them with my health care. I trust them with my defense, with my education (state schools, k-College).
I suppose that I trust the state to tax me equitably. I guess I trust them to not take corporate money in exchange for votes, but not really.

I certainly don't trust the state when it comes to going to war. In fact, if you want the best reason not to support the death penalty, based purely on the fact that it requires the state to carry it out?



As Governor, George W. Bush signed off on 152 executions. Now I ask you, can we really trust the State to kill people "correctly"?

Civil Unions Pass Legislatures in New Jersey

Read the news over at Blue Jersey

While the Maryland Court of Appeals continues to mill over whether to legalize gay marriage, us Free Stater's should pay attention to what happened in New Jersey. If the court's can't come to a decision, this issue could be left to the legislature.

In that case, I feel that they should work to pass a real marriage equality bill, something that allows gay couples to get "married" not just "civil unionized." I don't see the big difference between the two words other than their cultural significance, but as the advertisement I posted a few days ago says, there are differences that make an impact on people's lives.

As one Asm. (Caraballo) remarked:

"There are those who believe we should be using the word marriage. I'm one of those people. We simply do not have the votes today. What we do have is the will to undo centuries of discrimination."

Perhaps the Maryland Court of Appeals will make the right decision and legalize gay marriage. Otherwise, I hope we can count on our Democratic state government to make marriage, not civil unions, available to all the people of Maryland.

Think Equal.

Thats how I hope the Maryland Court of Appeals is thinking. New Jersey is currently dealing with their own Gay Marriage issues and an organization by the name of Blue Jersey has started a media campaign to press the issue:



Check out the Think Equal website.

Also, I really like the Blue Jersey website. I wonder if it would be possible to set up something similar for Maryland? I don't really have the knowhow or the time to run something like that (or whether Marylanders would take advantage of something like that) but its neat to think about. I certainly think a more concentrated liberal/democratic/progressive internet presence in Maryland would be a good thing.

Update: A critical look at the State's argument against Gay Marriage, via The Sun. Hat tip to David Lublin at Maryland Politics Watch.

Advocates for Gay Marriage in Maryland Speak Out

Good for them.

At a press conference at the Maryland chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, representatives of the professional groups stressed there is extensive, consistent scientific evidence showing that children raised by lesbian and gay couples develop as well as children raised by heterosexual couples.

"The evidence is clear: No matter how you measure it, children raised by same-sex couples are no different from their peers raised by opposite-sex couples. In areas such as social development, psychological functioning, cognitive ability, and adjustment, there is no difference when comparing these kids," said Dr. Paul Clavelle, President of the Maryland Psychological Association.

I would be very proud if the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the decision of Judge M. Brook Murdoch. Her reasoning makes a lot sense to me.

"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand constitutional challenge," Murdock wrote in her decision.

"When tradition is the guise under which prejudice or animosity hides, it is not a legitimate state interest," the judgment said.

Indeed.

Update: Republic of T has an interesting take on same-sex marriage and the difficulties of state-by-state legalization.