Collateral damage: Loss
of benefits and its effect on families could be consequence of proposed
same-sex marriage ban
By Judith Davidoff
Published: February 25, 2006 in the Capitol Times
When Shana and Debra Greane decided to home-school their first child,
they came up with a six-year plan.
Their goal was to fashion a life where Shana would be the primary breadwinner
and Debra would teach their children, Rikaela, now 13, and Aurora, 7.
Because same-sex couples can't get legally married in Wisconsin, the
key to the Greanes' strategy rested with Shana getting a job with domestic
partner benefits. That was crucial because Debra would otherwise need
to get an outside job that offered health insurance and she wouldn't
have time to instruct the kids.
"The home schooling is our highest priority," Debra said
in a recent interview.
Collateral damage
Photo by Michelle Stocker/The Capital Times
Debra and Shana Greane enjoy a piano and violin recital at home by their
daughters Rikaela, 13, and Aurora, 7.
Their strategy worked.
In 2001 Shana was hired as an occupational therapist by the Madison
Metropolitan School District, which has offered domestic partner benefits
since June 1998, and put Debra, Rikaela and Aurora on her health insurance.
Debra cut back her hours at Meriter to every other weekend and put
all her weekday efforts toward home schooling.
Shana stays at home with the children on weekends.
But the couple fear that their carefully crafted life will unravel
if Wisconsin voters in November approve a proposed constitutional ban
on same-sex marriage and civil unions.
The bill faces final legislative action on Tuesday, when the state
Assembly votes on the measure. If passed, as expected, it would then
go on the fall election ballot.
Supporters of the proposed ban say that the amendment would not affect
domestic partner benefits, but that stance is getting harder to defend
as events in other states unfold.
• After Michigan passed its constitutional amendment banning
same-sex marriage in 2004, for instance, the state's attorney general
issued an opinion stating that the measure bars local governments and
similar bodies from offering domestic partner benefits to their employees.
• Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm also cited passage of the amendment
in stripping same-sex domestic partner coverage for state workers under
the new union contracts.
• In Ohio, the University of Toledo pulled domestic partner benefits
off the bargaining table after the state's amendment passed.
Losing these benefits would be a disaster for the Greane family and
thousands of others for whom employer-based health insurance coverage
is an economic necessity.
"I hate even thinking about it," Debra said. "We've
worked so hard for so long to have our family where we're at now.
"Taking away health insurance for myself and at least one of our
children benefits no one at all in the state," she added. "All
it does is cause harm. It's so pointless."
No impact? While even proponents acknowledge the ban would rule out
any sort of same-sex civil union in the future, they argue it won't
affect domestic partner benefits that employers typically offer unmarried
straight couples and their partnered gay employees.
Most often these benefits come in the form of health insurance, access
to family leave and life insurance coverage. Domestic partner benefits
are the few equalizers available to same-sex couples, who are denied
the literally thousands of benefits, privileges and tax advantages that
come automatically with marriage.
Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, lead Senate sponsor of the proposed
ban, said in a recent newspaper guest column that "liberal activists"
were exaggerating the threat to domestic partner benefits.
He said, "The proposed constitutional amendment would not prohibit
state or local governments or a private entity from setting up a legal
construct to provide privileges or benefits such as health insurance
benefits, pension benefits, joint tax return filing or hospital visitation
to same-sex or unmarried couples."
Similarly, Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research
Institute of Wisconsin, the leading advocacy group promoting the same-sex
marriage ban, said domestic partner benefits were not threatened.
She also said that no privately held company or public entity has enough
authority to offer benefits that would render the relationship in question
"similar to" a marriage.
"That's just an absurd argument," she said.
Joshua Freker, spokesman for the anti-amendment group Action Wisconsin,
said proponents of the ban are trying to muster broad support for the
amendment by downplaying the law's potential impact and wide reach.
"That's why we see an effort to simplify the issue," Freker
said.
University of Wisconsin law Professor David Schwartz agrees: "Proponents
of the law have been purposely obscure describing just exactly what
effect it will have on any employees because they know the more aggressive
they are now, the more opposition there will be."
No local control: The proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage has
two distinct sections.
• The first clarifies that marriage in Wisconsin is valid only
between one woman and one man. State law currently defines marriage
between a "husband" and a "wife," but does not spell
out their gender.
• The second sentence reads: "A legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals
shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
It's the second part of the amendment that opponents of the proposed
amendment say provides the legal basis for outlawing civil unions and
domestic partnership benefits.
The amendment's potential effect is more clear-cut for public employers
- such as units of government - than for private ones.
Madison and Dane County officials say they fear the worst.
Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk wrote state senators last year
that the ban "threatens the domestic partner benefits which have
been bargained by our unions and Dane County for many years."
Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz also condemned the measure as an attempt
to "override the will of communities, like Madison, where local
government, under a legitimate exercise of local control authority,
has decided to provide domestic partnership benefits to qualifying employees
regardless of gender."
He also said it was anti-growth and anti-economic development.
"With an unemployment rate now well below 3 percent, my community
competes for qualified workers with communities all over the country,"
Cieslewicz said, and "this legislation sends exactly the wrong
message to these needed workers and entrepreneurs."
Shana Greane agrees.
"It sends a message you're a second-class citizen and you might
even be illegal," she said.
Building a family: Shana and Debra met in Chicago in 1987. At the time,
Debra was working as a commercial photographer and Shana had a job at
a health food store.
In 1989 they decided to move to Madison, a city they saw as safe and
family-friendly.
Debra did not find Madison fertile ground for commercial photography
and, besides, her focus was elsewhere: "I wanted a child more than
I wanted a career," she said.
Both women ended up finding jobs at Meriter Hospital. Shana worked
full time and Debra half time.
When Debra gave birth to Rikaela in 1992, she continued to work part
time because she and Rikaela needed the health insurance.
In 1999 Shana adopted Aurora.
Because it is illegal in Wisconsin for same-sex couples to adopt children
together, the couple has spent thousands of dollars to get legal guardianship
papers - and other legal documents - drafted.
Now Shana has legal guardianship of Rikaela and Debra has legal guardianship
of Aurora.
"We have taken every legal step we can to prove we're a family,"
Debra said, "to make our family as secure as possible."
The Greanes' story is typical of the financial disadvantages that plague
same-sex couples and families.
Though they've owned their own home for years, they reap no tax benefits
from it because they both own it. They are reluctant to have just one
of them on the mortgage because their extended family has opposed their
relationship and they fear a stealth move if one of them were to die.
"We just always felt they would tear our family apart if they
could," Debra said. "We don't want the house just in Shana's
name because her parents could come and take it from me if she dies.
We're just not going to take that chance."
Shana is now working full time and pursuing a master's degree to increase
their household income.
If the family were to lose domestic partner benefits, all their attempts
to make up for the lack of marriage privileges will have been for naught.
"I don't know what we'll do," Debra said.
Debra said she does not think she'd be able to work 20 hours a week
and home-school full time.
"Home schooling really picks up this fall when Rikaela is in high
school," she said.
While the couple initially turned to home schooling to protect their
kids from anti-gay harassment, they are now committed to it in principle.
"We love it," Debra said.
Home schooling, she says, allows them to learn in a fear-free environment
and helps them develop strong self-esteem and become leaders.
Debra and Shana, who count family as their No. 1 priority, say they
value - and genuinely enjoy - the time they spend with their children.
"We planned so long for each of our kids," Debra said. "We
spent a lot of time reading books and making this big decision."
There are no unplanned pregnancies among same-sex couples, she said.
"I wish every child was this well planned for and wanted."
STATUS REPORT
• Process: Any amendment to the state constitution requires approval
by both houses of the state Legislature in consecutive sessions, followed
by a statewide vote.
• Where it stands now: The amendment that would ban gay marriage
passed the Wisconsin Legislature in 2004. The measure was approved again
by the state Senate in December, and will be up for a vote in the Assembly
on Tuesday (Feb. 28, 2006).
• Why a vote in the fall: Opponents say the timing is a calculated
move by Republicans to draw large numbers of religious conservatives
to the polls in order to defeat incumbent Democrats, including Gov.
Jim Doyle and Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager.
Marriage benefits should be for all
A State Journal editorial published February 6, 2006
The cause of equal rights is at the heart of the debate over gay marriage
and a powerful reason for legalizing it.
Under Wisconsin law, a married couple has nearly 200 legal benefits
and protections; under federal law, an additional 1,138, according to
a recent report by Action Wisconsin and the Human Rights Campaign.
For instance, married people can:
* Receive the medical records of a spouse.
* Seek worker's compensation claims if a spouse dies.
* Avoid a state fee after transferring real estate between spouses.
* Claim separate personal tax exemptions.
* For eligible state employees, purchase long-term care insurance for
a spouse.
The many benefits and protections married people enjoy extend to most
facets of life. It is discriminatory and demeaning not to offer them
to some of our citizens on the sole basis of sexuality.
Wisconsin should speak up for equality this November by opposing a
constitutional amendment against gay marriage and civil unions if it
makes it onto the ballot.
The proposed amendment defines marriage as strictly between a man and
a woman. State law already limits marriage to a husband and wife. But
amendment supporters want to ensure that the inequality of marriage
rights is cemented into our society.
The state Senate in December passed the amendment, which is now before
the Assembly. If passed, voters may have to decide in a statewide referendum.
The change would make it much tougher for gay marriage to become a
reality in Wisconsin. And it would forbid civil unions, which are supported
by a majority of state residents.
An unmarried couple, whether gay or straight, would not be able to
gain "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that
of a marriage," under the amendment.
Such a ban could even jeopardize domestic-partner benefits, which many
Wisconsin employers offer to be fair and to help their bottom lines
by attracting talented employees.
The government could conceivably sue companies for offering insurance
coverage that gives a gay couple the same protection as a married couple.
The vehemence and finality in the amendment's exclusionary language
is truly disheartening.
It tells the world that, in Wisconsin, some people's rights to health
care, spousal support and tax relief don't matter.
And by including it in this state's constitution, the amendment would
institutionalize inequality.
Wisconsin should not stand for that.
From Newsweek, February 23, 2004: The
Last Word by Anna Quindlan
"Gay couples are being held to a standard the denizons of Vegas
chapels and divorce courts never had to meet to legally come together."
Read the full PDF file.
Separate Church and State in Marriage
Guest editorial appearing in the Wisconsin State Journal. Read the
full PDF File.
Let's face facts: Thousands of children are being
raised by gay couples in strong and nurturing families. We should strengthen
and protect these arrangements in the same way we support all other families.
Wisconsin State Journal (February 1, 2004)
Let's face facts: Thousands of children are being raised by gay couples
in strong and nurturing families. We should strengthen and protect these
arrangements in the same way we support all other families.
Instead, state lawmakers propose amending the Wisconsin Constitution
to prohibit same-sex marriages. The move could guarantee the Legislature's
divorcees another three or four years' worth of opportunities to hypocritically
hype family values. The proposed amendment would have to pass consecutive
two-year sessions of the Legislature and then be approved in a statewide
vote.
What we really need is a law against the political stalking of gay
men and lesbians. Gov. Jim Doyle previously vetoed state legislation
to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman, and lawmakers
failed to override his veto. But some lawmakers can't believe it's over,
and they're back at work blaming gay couples for threatening the institution
of marriage.
We agree that stable, successful families form the foundation of society.
So why deny gay men and lesbians - especially those with children -
the same social and legal status as the rest of America's families?
Allowing gay marriage, not banning it, is an important step up the
path to equality. Lawmakers should reject the proposed constitutional
amendment, along with the argument that same-sex couples, by their very
existence, somehow undermine traditional families.
Once a leader, Wisconsin now lags on gay rights
By Christopher Ott
Op-Ed Appearing in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April 26, 2003
When it comes to gay rights issues, two fair-minded leaders represent
Wisconsin in Washington.
Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl have both sponsored the Employment
Nondiscrimination Act and neither is the least bit prone to launching
anti-gay attacks like their colleague, Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican
from Pennsylvania.
In a re-enactment of last December's debacle, when Senate Majority
Leader Trent Lott stepped down after getting nostalgic about racial
segregation, Santorum is under fire for comparing homosexuality to bigamy,
polygamy, incest and adultery.
At first, it might seem that another high-ranking Republican scuffle
in Washington doesn't have much to do with Wisconsin - but it does.
While we're lucky to have Feingold and Kohl in the Senate, it's a different
story when we look at our own statehouse in Madison.
Wisconsin pioneered the first statewide gay rights law in 1982, which
was signed by a Republican governor, Lee Dreyfus. Since then, however,
progress toward full equality for gay people has been held back by Wisconsin's
own Santorums.
In fact, Wisconsin used to lead the way on gay rights issues, but today,
we don't even follow.
Other states now offer health insurance coverage to the same-sex partners
of state employees. So do more than 75 of Wisconsin's private employers
- companies like Miller Brewing, Marshall Field's and General Motors.
In 2000, Vermont became the first state to legally recognize same-sex
"civil unions," and California, Hawaii and Connecticut now
offer some form of state recognition and rights to same-sex couples,
as well. Not so in Wisconsin.
In the last two sessions of the Wisconsin Legislature, innovative bills
to allow domestic partner coverage for state employees and create a
statewide domestic partner registry couldn't even get a hearing. Even
worse, anti-gay legislators have wasted the public's time, session after
session, by pushing to ban gay marriages, which are already a legal
impossibility. There's a strong chance that they'll do it again this
year, despite the state budget crisis and other pressing issues.
There is even Santorum-style invective in Wisconsin. Two years ago,
a fellow legislator referred to state Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee)
as a "queer" in an e-mail circulated at the Capitol, and newly
elected state Sen. Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis) makes no secret of his
anti-gay views.
However, just as Lott found out that the country does not hold fond
memories of segregation, Santorum and his Wisconsin counterparts might
soon be surprised that the country no longer tolerates their intolerance.
In parallel with findings in other parts of the country, a statewide
poll conducted in 2001 by an independent marketing and research firm
found 76% of Wisconsinites support "equal treatment under the law"
for gays and lesbians. The same poll found 58% support domestic-partner
health insurance coverage, as well as a slight leading edge of support
for domestic partnerships with "the same rights, benefits, and
responsibilities as an opposite-sex marriage."
Smart politicians have caught on to this change. In a pre-election
survey last fall, Action Wisconsin - the state lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender civil rights organization - found strong support for
gay equality among every major gubernatorial candidate except defeated
governor Scott McCallum.
Anti-gay views are out of step with the mainstream, and recent calls
for Santorum's resignation show that they are an increasing political
liability.
This change, however, is not just about politics. It's about a change
in people's understanding of basic issues such as fairness.
Santorum has said that he does not object to homosexuals, merely "homosexual
acts." More and more people, however, already see through this
doublespeak. They understand what's going on when politicians claim
to support equality for everyone, while simultaneously working to keep
a whole category of people as second-class citizens.
Anti-gay politicians like Santorum also condemn gay people in the name
of "morality," but the public is ahead of them on this issue,
as well. There is a moral principle at stake, but it's not what Santorum
thinks: It's the principle of equal treatment under the law.
Christopher Ott is the executive director of Action Wisconsin,
the state's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization.
Let Gay Couples Marry (August
10, 2003)
Wisconsin State Journal :: OPINION :: B3
Sunday, August 10, 2003
There's absolutely no doubt: Certain segments of our society endanger
the very future of marriage. Divorce is rampant as adultery, abuse and
plain selfishness hew many unions. More and more, cohabiting couples
shack up without a visit to an altar or a judge. Young folks are having
kids out of wedlock in droves, creating social and tax burdens and driving
up the number of single-parent households.
Clearly, the institution of marriage is under dire threat from many
quarters. The gay community, however, is not one of them. In fact, some
gay couples want to get married.
But that request has been met with shock and dismay by the Vatican,
our president and a host of Wisconsin lawmakers. Opponents argue that
letting gay couples marry would destroy marriage and family as we know
them today. That view is based on misinformation, ignorance and plain
bigotry.
What is marriage really for?
Opponents of gay marriage would like you to believe that marriage is
a sacred, static, time-honored custom. Messing with it would imperil
the very foundation of our society, they say. This would be a powerful
argument if it weren't nonsense.
In fact, the concept and practice of marriage has been redefined to
suit different times, attitudes and cultures. For example, marriage
once represented a union between a man and his property -- until the
property, women, rebelled and demanded more rights. Until relatively
recently, interracial marriage was banned in parts of this country.
In some other countries, parents still arrange marriages; love and commitment
aren't considerations. Polygamy is the norm in some cultures today --
while others protect the institution of marriage by stoning people to
death if they commit adultery. Not here, fortunately, as the justice
system would quickly run out of rocks.
Nevertheless, in our culture, many people -- not just conservatives
-- believe that stable, successful families form the foundation of society.
We must encourage marriage to create these families and confer legal
protection to them.
Allowing gay marriage doesn't defeat this objective: It promotes it.
Today, gay men and lesbians -- especially those with children -- should
no longer be denied the same social and legal status as the rest of
America's families. Allowing gay marriage is an important step up the
path to equality.
Reconciling church and state
Religious principles have often impelled human rights advances, but
in the case of gay marriage, the moral compass of some religious leaders
has skewed away from fairness and equality.
Reasonable people wouldn't sanction discrimination against divorcees,
single parents, unmarried couples or teen-age mothers just because the
way they live contradicts some citizens' religious views. So why do
we tolerate discrimination against gay men and lesbians because of attitudes
based on religious teachings?
Same-sex couples appear ready to accept the full range of legal obligations
and moral demands of marriage with equal or greater commitment as opposite-sex
pairings. The argument that same-sex marriage will somehow undermine
traditional families doesn't hold up.
Legal gay marriage wouldn't infringe on religious freedom. No one need
abandon their deepest-held religious beliefs about homosexuals, no matter
how bigoted. No minister need marry a gay couple if his church forbids
it.
Achieving legal parity
To promote marriage, special legal rights and protections have been
established for married couples in areas such as inheritance, health
benefits, taxes and child custody.
These advantages are denied to the nearly 600,000 same-sex couples
who identified themselves on the 2000 census (and many more who probably
kept their union a secret from census counters). Thousands of children
are being raised by gay couples who cannot share the financial security
and legal sanctuary enjoyed by married couples with kids. We should
strengthen and protect these families in the same way we support all
other types of families.
The critics are right that gay couples want more than a piece of paper
from the state. The "homosexual agenda," as scaremongers like
to call it, calls for nothing less than equality in the aspects of everyday
married life taken for granted by straight couples.
Politics vs. reality
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that marriage is a fundamental
freedom, and states cannot keep a mixed-race couple from marrying. So
why don't gay couples enjoy the same basic privilege of our free society?
The answer rests mostly in fear and ignorance of gay lifestyles, which
anti-gay propagandists seek to equate with incest and pedophilia. Lately,
politicians who buy this defamatory bunkum have been saying that the
nation must change its Constitution to limit marriage to the union of
a man and a woman.
Aside from the fact that government has no business defining marriage
in a religious context, the drive for a constitutional amendment puts
social conservatives in the contradictory posture of promoting marriage
for some people while trying to outlaw it for others.
In any case, laws governing marriage ought to remain the responsibility
of state governments -- and we believe Wisconsin ought to be among the
first to update its laws to offer equality in marriage to gay men and
lesbians.
Why not settle for civil unions?
Meaning well, some lawmakers plan to forward a bill for a statewide
domestic partner registry that would help formalize same-sex unions.
But the bill drafted by Rep. Frank Boyle, D-Superior, creates a structure
-- "separate but equal" -- that ultimately enshrines second-class
status for gays and lesbians.
The Democrats, always confused and compromised, see their drive for
same-sex civil unions as a way to avoid a losing debate over redefining
marriage. This strategy is doomed from the start -- because anti-gay
factions want to make political hay with a marriage debate.
The Legislature is more likely to pass a "marriage defense act"
that excludes same-sex unions from the definition of marriage. Perhaps
duped by inflammatory rhetoric, more than a third of the state's lawmakers
have signed on to this ill-conceived bill.
What must be done instead
The Wisconsin State Journal editorial board has traditionally opposed
government meddling in private lives; obstacles to strong families;
and unequal protection under the law. State and national "marriage
defense" measures deserve defeat on all those counts.
But it's important to do more than simply oppose legislation that would
inflict these wrongs on a minority. Denying gay couples the right to
marry condemns them to second-class citizenship and discriminates on
the basis of sexual orientation. This is plainly wrong.
If gay couples want to try marriage, bring 'em on. Maybe by applying
a queer eye to the straight marriage, we can still save this essential
but fading rite from history's dustbin. Given the zeal with which some
gay couples are pursuing the right to marry, they may set a new standard
for commitment.
The campaign for gay marriage has a long way to go. More than changing
laws, it involves changing minds. But Wisconsin, led by a Republican
governor, passed the nation's first gay rights law in 1982. We could
once again show our nation the right path. The cause awaits courageous
political leadership.
|
