I know this conversation is a million years old now, but I'd like to say thanks again for being reasonable and civil, and, like samoanbiscuit said, not mentioning hitler, nazis, or satan even once! :)
I'd like to respond to some of the questions you had though...
I don't get automatic visitation and am not automatically able to make medical decisions for my partner if she is hospitalized.
In your state, is it possible to rectify this through a power of attorney or similar medical-related document?
I replied earlier with an (admittedly opinionated) story of how this often is far more difficult than it sounds or than it should be. Read about it here
If my spouse loses her job, we are put in federal income tax brackets as if we made twice as much as we actually do (even though I am providing for her).
This is interesting, and I'm not sure I understand it. My understanding of tax law is far from perfect, but as I understand it is possible to claim anyone you want as a dependent, so long as no one is claimed twice. Is that not operable here? Or is this something else?
Well, maybe... but it's not exactly the same. A married couple filing jointly get to take the married standard deduction (double the single SD), and pay taxes in brackets as if they were two individuals making the average of the two incomes (roughly). Say I made 80,000, and my wife lost her job and made 0 for the whole year (totally imaginary, I don't make that much :) If we were married, we'd have maybe $1,000 of income in the 25% tax bracket, while if we file separately, I get $40,000 dollars counted in the 25% tax bracket, if I'm doing the math correctly. Assuming head of household, I'd get a higher standard deduction, which I *think* equals the married filing jointly deduction once you add in the personal exemption for a dependent, but our income would get put in tax brackets like an individual, not a couple... so I think it works out that everything is the same, except $34,000 dollars gets taxed at 25%, instead of about $1,000 at 25%. My head hurts. The real solution is to structure tax law so that this works out the same either way, but that's not the way it works now. One of my very libertarian friends suggested abolishing the welfare system and implementing an equivalent negative income tax, which actually solves the whole marriage tax inequality problem nicely, but it is too early in the morning to argue the merits of that :)
In my state, it is illegal for us to adopt children.
Is it illegal for you to adopt children as an individual? (I recognize that this is an unattractive alternative to a committed couple, but I am not aware of any state where only married couples may legally adopt.)
Florida (the state I live in) prohibits single and joint gay adoption, as far as I know. It sucks. At least one of us could biologically have children, but I'm not sure if the other could adopt them. There's apparently a constitutional ruling on the 1977 law that's being appealed right now, so in the future, who knows...
It costs a great deal of money to put her on my company insurance plan, and everyone else at my company gets it for free.
Is this not something your company, or your insurance company, is willing to address? Or is it illegal for them to do so in your state? Do you feel that additional state intrusion is the best possible approach to this particular problem?
No, I don't think that state intrusion is the best approach, and of *course* it's not *illegal* for them to do so in Florida, but companies tend to follow the lead of the government. If there were no such thing as state sponsored marriage, then they'd have to come up with their own presumptively sane regulations governing insurance coverage, but since there is such a thing they just punt and refer to the state's definition for their guidelines... and thus I'm not counted. Some companies take it upon themselves to extend the state definition, but the eligibility requirements are all over the place. I'm not an expert on the topic though, because I was kinda lying... that was at my *last* job... in my current job, I was, ahem, "downgraded" to a contractor and thus have no company insurance :/
If we bought a house together, my spouse would have to pay inheritance taxes on the house in order to stay in it if I died.
Does your state not recognize joint tenancy with right of survivorship?
As far as I know, she'd have to pay taxes on the deed as a gift when the deed was modified for JTWROS (not necessary for married people). If we both signed the mortgage, then it might be different, but I'm not familiar with whether that's legal or possible (we don't own a house right now). Also, if she had bad credit, it might not be *possible* for her to be on the mortgage.
All in all, I'd actually prefer a system that was marriage neutral, but the reality of the situation today is that being "married but not married" in a culture where marriage is embedded so deeply in the culture is complicated. Even simple things like *renting a car* are a hassle when you have to argue with three different people so that you're not charged double what a heterosexual couple would be charged (sorry, off-topic, just annoyed because it happened to me recently)
Still, it's relevant and you were understandably annoyed. But again--is this really a problem for the government?
No, I don't think that the government should be in the business of controlling car rental rates, but they follow the lead of the government just like insurance companies when it comes to "spouses". Not always, mind you, but it's still unnecessarily difficult.
...assuming you're not gay, could you imagine having sex with another member of the same sex? That's how much of a choice it is. Now, if you believe that homosexuality is not congenitally determined... I'd say that's an axiom that we're probably not going to resolve here.
Right, well, not to mention that even if sexuality isn't congenitally determined, it may still not be much of a choice (due to environmental factors), in addition to the fact that whether it is a choice or not may not have any bearing on whether one has a "right" (e.g. religion is held to be a fundamental right in spite of the fact that it is clearly not congenitally determined).
I was purposefully skipping the complexity of when exactly GLBT traits are determined... as you know, it's... complex. This is a little off topic, but it may actually be very important in the upcoming legal debate on gay marriage whether or not being homosexual is congenitally determined or not. Whether or not a trait is "immutable" is used in the determination of whether or not a class is given strict or intermediate scrutiny vs simple rational basis scrutiny with regards to discrimination. Religion is given strict scrutiny because it is mentioned in the constitution. In comparison, sex, as a quasi-suspect classification is only given intermediate scrutiny. GLBT status will probably not get even intermediate scrutiny at the federal level any time in the near future.
Anyway, it sounds like your basic objection to my actual position (abolish state-sponsored marriage) is that it is too remote, not necessarily because it is too complicated (though it might be that) but because it is politically unlikely--while formal gay marriage is not only in striking distance but actually implemented in some places.
This I think is a coherent response. What troubles me is that it falls prey to the same band-aid-the-bullet-wound approach that is painting our political and economic landscape such a lovely shade of red.
Nevertheless, I've no real objections to your proposal. What pleases me more is that you recognize the existence of a need to discuss the matter. I have a lot of very intelligent friends and family who I doubt will ever see the issue as I see it. They aren't stupid or crazy, and they have reasons for believing as they do, and many of those reasons are completely rational.
Yes! That is very much what I was trying to say, but you said it much more coherently. I agree that, in the *grand* scheme of things, your way is ultimately better, but there is a *lot* that would have to change to make that system work. I honestly think the best way forward would be to nuke the "terminology" argument by making "civil union" the only legally defined status, and using the word "marriage" strictly in a religious/societal sense. Pass a law stating that all national/state/local references to marriage now refer to civil unions, and state that a civil union can be obtained by any two consenting adults. Then, set about dismantling the "civil union" concept until it is no longer necessary.
By the way, to put this whole terminology argument in perspective, remember that polls showed that only 34% of americans strongly favor homosexuals serving in the military, but 51% strongly favor gay men and lesbians serving in the military. Try selling the plan I mentioned to the average American, you'd be "making their marriage illegal"... Sigh.
Nevertheless, I've no real objections to your proposal. What pleases me more is that you recognize the existence of a need to discuss the matter. I have a lot of very intelligent friends and family who I doubt will ever see the issue as I see it. They aren't stupid or crazy, and they have reasons for believing as they do, and many of those reasons are completely rational.
I do think there is a lot to discuss on exactly *how* we make our laws non-discriminatory to GLBT people. I don't think there is a lot to discuss on *whether* we should make those laws non-discriminatory, but I think we're mostly in agreement here.
But I will never convince them of anything if they are constantly told that their views make them "homophobic" or "haters" or crazy or evil or stupid. I have convinced some of them that we should just abolish state-sponsored marriage altogether, but when they don't even feel free to express their views for fear of raging reprisal, it is hard to convince them of anything at all.
No, I don't think that any of the things you've stated make you homophobic or hateful, but you're not the average sort of person engaging in this debate :)
The first thing that everyone on, well, my side of the debate does is try to assess motive. We've all had discussions that start with "well, I just think it's a matter of definition" and end with "I pray you will one day end your sinful lifestyle" and "I won't let you around my children". I've had it happen to me, and it hurts. A lot of the people I know are, well, punch drunk from it. We also live in the bible belt south, though, so YMMV. Allow me to apologize for any of the knee jerk reactions you may have gotten from people on my side of the issue. It's easy for us all to get a little testy after a while ^_^
Anyway, thanks for being civil and understanding about everything. If more people discussed emotionally charged issues like this I think we'd all be a lot better off ^_^