Gay Marriage: April 2006 Archives

“We think that Minnesota is the kind of place that people will want to move to and work in,” McClung said. “Defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we don’t think, would necessarily have any real impact on the ability to attract people to a state that offers so much as Minnesota does.”

McClung says passing a ban in Minnesota wouldn’t put the state at a disadvantage with the 19 other states that have passed similar marriage bans. But in a global economy, Richard Florida says the best and brightest could decide to live in other more tolerant places like Toronto, London or Sydney. (source)

WRONG! It will have a huge effect on who moves into the state or who chooses to move to Minnesota. I can tell you from my own personal experience, now that I am middle-aged, that where you live in this country, and what kind of support (recognition / benefits) the state you live in allows you to have, is a huge consideration to us.

Recently, at my company, they introduced a new program into their health care suite. It was for “long term care”. This has nothing to do with short term or long term disability. Long term care happens after those programs have ended. It can include nursing homes, or assisted living units, or a retirement community that offers programs to those who require additional care. I think these programs are a wonderful idea for people now living long enough to take advantage of this, or with chronic health issues.

Also, nursing homes, as we know them, will be gone in ten years time. They are losing money and are no longer financially viable. There have been good and very bad nursing homes. Some were basically a place to put people until they died. There were limited or no programs available to stimulate their clients’ interests. How depressing.

Many of the extended care facilities are very nice. You have your own apartment, and can have as much or as little assistance as you require. But the price for this can be high. That is where this program comes into play. We will be looking at the program to see if it’s something we might want to start putting money into.

Kent also told me of a program where he works that will allow him to take a leave of absence in the event that his spouse/partner has been disabled, for the purpose of taking care of that partner. That benefit has always been available to heterosexual married couples.

It’s nice to see these programs coming into being. But, they both depend on one thing; that we enter into a Connecticut Civil Union - something that Connecticut put into place last year.

I asked the representative of the program, during the question and answer period, if “civil unions” would be recognized by the program. He actually didn’t understand what I meant be “civil unions”. I then said, “domestic partnerships”. He understood that, which is a good thing because my next description would have been “state-sanctioned fuck buddy”, as I was starting to get annoyed. He said, “I don’t know the answer to that.” I replied, “Is your program a federal or a state run program?” He replied, “It’s state run.” I said, “Then you should know the answer to that question because Connecticut, as of last year, offers civil unions. You should know if your program adheres to state law!”

Silence filled the room. I’m not sure if it was my tone, my direct questioning, or that some people who didn’t know me that well were now aware that they were in the presence of a queer (at 51 years old, I have little time for bullshit anymore). I had to actually call their home office to get an answer to this question since their representative never called me back, as he promised he would. Moving on....

So here’s the dilemma I am dealing with... It’s not a logical decision. It is an emotional decision. In a nutshell, if I can use a trite expression, this sums it up: “You only get to cry once at your wedding.”

If we get a civil union, we would be eligible for these programs. If not, we would not be. That seems fair and logical enough. But what about the human dignity of being equal? In my eyes, a civil union just isn’t a wedding and never will be. It will always be a symbol of what we aren’t good enough for. It will always be second-class. But that’s not my dilemma. This is.....

Say we do get a civil union for the sake of these extra protections. When Connecticut does finally achieve marriage rights for gay couples (and I do believe it will), we will get married. But, how will we feel about that marriage? Will it have a diminished meaning, emotionally and spiritually?

If you are a straight person reading this, think about the wedding you had and how special that day was. Then, try to imagine that it was a civil union, because you couldn’t legally have a marriage. Later, you add marriage to the mix. But, you already had your... union in life together. What does that make the marriage, an add-on benefit? It just wouldn’t be special anymore. We would probably just go to the Town Clerk and get the marriage license. At that point, what’s to celebrate? It’s just a formality.

I don’t want to feel bitter-sweet about my wedding. I want it to be the most wonderful day of my life, and that only happens once. After thirty-one years together, is that asking too much?