Vermonters say gay marriage would be better than civil unions in Connecticut

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Complete marriage rights for homosexuals may be a better choice for Connecticut, say Vermont gay rights advocates who have been living with civil unions for five years.

Although the civil union system Connecticut legislators are considering would extend all state rights and responsibilities for married heterosexual couples to gays and lesbians, same-sex couples still could not get married.

And that’s the problem, said Beth Robinson, one of the attorneys who argued on behalf of same-sex couples in a 2000 lawsuit that resulted in Vermont becoming the first state to recognize civil unions.

“There’s no question that law creates a separate box for same-sex couples. It sends a message that says you’re not quite equal, you’re not quite worthy,” she said. “That affects our kids. That affects our families. That affects the couples.” (source)

Separate and somewhat less than equal. Yeah, that’s something we should all strive for. Second best.

I guess this is why I find the whole idea of civil unions so repugnant. Ever since Vermont put civil unions in place five years ago, there has been no push in the state of Vermont towards full marriage for gay couples. Will the same hold try for Connecticut? I guess time will tell, because it looks as if we are heading towards the same conclusion as Vermont.

Do we hold out hope that someday we will have full civil marriage, or do we strive to push the Federal Government to honor civil unions from the states that allow them? Of course, I feel that we should go for civil marriage and dump civil unions altogether. That’s my preference.

Whatever we go for, we need to understand that until the Federal Government honors our relationships and our families, the BIG TICKET ITEMS are at the federal level, such as access to your partner’s Social Security benefits should one of you die, access to 401K funds without taxation, joint tax returns, and all the rest. Here are just a few...

Retirement
When a husband or wife dies, the surviving spouse can move money from the deceased’s retirement plan into his or her own plan without taxation or limitations. But because same-sex couples are treated as strangers under the tax code, a same-sex surviving partner incurs significant penalties and restrictions when transferring a deceased’s retirement plan.

Two retirement options in which many American businesses and employees invest are 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, or IRAs. In both cases, a federal law called the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) allows a surviving spouse to roll over, or transfer, the deceased’s IRA or 401(k) plan into his or her own plan. The plan, then, continues to grow without being taxed.

Surviving same-sex partners, however, are unable to roll over their partners’ plans into their own and are heavily taxed on the money they receive. This is because same-sex partners are typically restricted to receiving the benefits in lump-sum payments, which has considerable disadvantages.

Continued Health Insurance
When a married heterosexual employee loses or leaves a job, employers are required to offer the employee - and his or her spouse - the opportunity to pay for continued health coverage for up to 18 months, under a federal law called the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, or COBRA.

But when a gay or lesbian employee loses or leaves a job, federal law does not guarantee the employee the opportunity to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner, even if the employer-sponsored plan originally covered that partner. This is true even though it is the former employee, not the employer, who pays the premium for this temporary coverage.

Social Security Survivor Benefits
Although gay and lesbian Americans contribute to Social Security throughout their working lives, their families are denied the same benefits heterosexual Americans receive upon the death of a spouse. Specifically:

* Partners who are Retired or Disabled are denied surviving spouse benefits because they were denied the right to marry.

* Partners raising children are denied Social Security surviving parent benefits because they were previously denied the right to legally marry.

* Children may also be denied Social Security surviving child benefits if the deceased parent was barred from securing a legal relationship to his or her child through second-parent adoption.

This loss of income can be substantial. For example, surviving partners who are 60 years old will lose an average of $9,780 a year - or approximately $166,000 if they live to the average life expectancy of 77. (Based on Social Security Administration calculations that Social Security survivor benefits averaged $815 per month in 2002.)

If there are surviving children, the loss of income is potentially even greater. For example, when a working parent was denied the opportunity to establish a legal relationship to his or her child through second-parent adoption, that child will also be denied the right to Social Security survivor benefits upon that parent’s death. This could translate to a loss of $900 per month, or $10,000 per year, for a child whose parent worked for at least 10 years and earned at least $50,000 in the last year of his or her life.

Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits
As a growing number of employers offer domestic partner benefits, gays and lesbians are discovering a hitch - domestic partner benefits, unlike health benefits provided to married heterosexual couples, are taxed as income. As a result, gay and lesbian employees take home relatively less income than their married heterosexual co-workers who perform exactly the same job.

For example, a gay or lesbian employee earning $40,000 a year and receiving domestic partner health insurance benefits toward which the employer contributes $250 a month would owe income and payroll taxes on a total of $43,000 in income at the end of the year.

A married heterosexual employee earning the same salary and receiving the same health benefits for his or her spouse would owe income and payroll taxes on only $40,000. (source for this data)

Having the state honor the relationship in whatever form is nice, but it just really doesn’t cut it. If something happens to one of us, there are so many ways the Federal Government will screw us over because they see us as legal strangers.