Last week, the Supreme Court of the USA struck down a key provision of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (the provision which prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by certain states and districts) in United States vs. Windsor and denied the proponents of California’s anti-same-sex marriage amendment standing to defend their proposition (which a lower court had made an injunction against) Hollingsworth vs. Perry.
This is indeed good news for same-sex couples, who can now marry in California, the most populous state, and will have federal recognition of their legal state marriages (in those 10+ states/districts where it is currently legal), receiving all the previously witheld federal benefits. Moreover, married same-sex couples previously endured second class marriages, in which they were recognized by states, but considered “unmarried” by the federal government. Now, having the “second class” stigma removed reframes those same-sex marriages as completely legitimate relationships, which is an important cultural signifier that will help us move towards full equality.
Also, although, unlike Lesbian and Gay folks, some Bisexual and Trans folks were previously able to take advantage of full marriage benefits (depending on their partner and current legal sex), this helps to removes any gender bias that might restrict their choices (at least, in those 10+ states/districts in which it is legal). I believe this will help us move towards more open same-sex relationships and [trans/queer]gender expression, which is definitely a good thing for me. 🙂
However, while I totally support same-sex marriage (because marriage benefits shouldn’t be exclusive to opposite-sex couples and for reasons stated above and elsewhere in this blog), I wonder that we’re missing a few significant points:
- People keep forgetting, there is no national protection for LGBT folk in terms of employment, housing or other matters. Yes, some states (I <heart> MA) do have significant LGBT protections, but many, many do not. Even some of those which have sexual orientation protections (and may also allow same-sex civil unions or marriage) do not protect in terms of gender expression, so the T and gender-nonconforming folks are left out in the cold. We really need ENDA (employment non-discrimination act with protections for trans people / gender expression) to pass, not only for self-identified LGBT folks, but also to push us further along the path to sexual equality, by which I mean the end of institutionalized misogyny.
- These 1,000+ federal benefits are great for LGBT folks to have access to in their relationships, but wouldn’t it be even more great if most of those benefits were available to all relationships, and not exclusive to marriage (see also my previous post)?
- I just finished reading American Savage, which I loved. Dan, as usual, made many wonderful points, especially about health care, religious bigotry and marriage equality. However, one thing he tried to hammer home at the end (and I have heard many times from other pro-equality folks) struck me as problematic:
“We’re not taking anything away [from straight couples]”.
That’s mostly true. Gay marriage takes absolutely nothing away from straight married couples. Who it does take away from is those who are unmarried – that is because the tax loopholes, ahem, “benefits” for married couples shift more of the overall tax burden onto the unmarried, onto us.
- Sad though it is to think about, more married people who receive their partner’s social security benefits (or military pension), who inherit multi-millions of dollars of property tax free, or file taxes at a “discount” rate (yes, I know, this only applies if there’s a significant discrepancy in their income) means less overall government revenue, which means (barring a tax increase) even deeper cuts to government programs than we would’ve had otherwise.
- That is not to suggest that I think straight couples should have these benefits while gay couples sit out in the dark, just that we should have a serious conversation about why we privilege certain classes of people with tax benefits and if those reasons still apply in the more equitable and empowered 21st century.
All that said and done, I’m still fantastically pleased at the giant strides forward our country took last week at the behest of our flawed, but sometimes fabulous Supreme Court. Yay!
Dan Savage wrote an interesting post about this on the Stranger:
I Can Die Now: Here’s what I don’t have to worry about now that the Supreme Court overturned DOMA