One thing we hear over and over from anti-marriage-equality activists is that they don’t hate or want to punish gay people, they just want to preserve the institution of marriage in a particular form. But if that’s the case, then why is this controversial?
Just seven weeks into office, President Obama is being forced to confront one of the most sensitive social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers.
But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.
It sounds like Obama might punt on this issue — his spokespeople are saying that he supports legislative repeal of DOMA. I guess I just don’t understand why this would be a difficult issue to respond to. Extend health care benefits to same-sex domestic partners, and use conservatives’ own words against them; basically say, “Look, you guys said you didn’t want to hurt gay people or take away their basic rights to things like medical care. I understand that you are opposed to using the word ‘marriage’ to describe same-sex unions, but that’s not what we’re doing here. We’re just making sure that same-sex partners of government employees can go to the doctor when they’re sick. I thought you were all clear that your opposition to same-sex marriages is about the institution of marriage and the term itself, and that you weren’t actually interested in doing harm to gay individuals; is that not the case?”
Not that hard, right?
Of course, social conservatives are interested in doing harm to gay people.
Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative advocacy group, said that if Mr. Obama extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, he would “provoke a furious grass-roots reaction, reinvigorate the conservative coalition and undermine his efforts to portray himself as a moderate on social issues.”
I say, bring it. Y’all failed last time around in the election — your grassroots base just isn’t as powerful as it used to be. And people of my generation are a lot more accepting of same-sex unions. Even people my parents’ age are increasingly liberal on the subject. You may not get them all supporting same-sex marriage, but proposing that gay people shouldn’t be covered on their partners’ insurance simply because they’re gay is a much harder sell. The administration just has to frame the issue right and trust that a handful of hateful conservative groups don’t represent most American people.
“legislative appeal” ?
The orders are an interesting read:
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/articlefiles/Jan13_2009_USCA9_EDR_Order.pdf
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/articlefiles/Feb.2_2009_Final_FPD_EDR_ORDER.pdf
I’ve always seen constitutional avoidance as a somewhat dubious doctrine, so I view the second one as much more persuasive. Whatever works, though.
A coworker of mine brought up an excellent point about how to “deal” with this situation. Tread water on the issue and push hard for universal healthcare. Then everyone has insurance regardless and it’s one less benefit of being married. Kind of a win-win.
Of course, in the mean time (because I doubt a new healthcare plan would be quick to move through congress or quick to set up and bring into effect), this still has to be dealt with, and yeah, the answer is obvious and pretty uncontroversial from where I’m standing. Partner benefits have been a pretty ordinary part of private employers’ benefit packages for years. When I worked at an Old Navy ten years ago in podunk shithole rural America, they offered partner benefits*. I fail to see why this is hugely controversial on a federal level.
* Yes, I realize that not all companies do – I’m pretty sure my current employer does not, for instance. But it’s hardly rare.
But if that’s the case, then why is this controversial?
Because Jesus just sat down with sinners, he didn’t offer them health insurance!
From an ethical standpoint, it’s a no-brainer, but you’re right that it’s a winner politically.
The anti-marriage crowd has said, time and again, that it supports civil unions as an alternative (even though, in their hearts, most don’t), because they know that that’s where the centre of the country is. Millions of Americans like your parents, Jill, and mine want gays and lesbian couples to have every protection imaginable under the law — but are still attached to an old-fashioned notion of what marriage is. We don’t yet have a working majority in this country that supports marriage equality, but we sure as hell have one that supports equal access to health benefits. This is a tactical chance to further marginalize the Family Research Council and the rest of the paleo-cons.
I meant “repeal.” I was putting up the post quickly and it was a typo. It happens.
I’m with you Jill. Personally, I’m sick to death of the veiled threats and bullshit feints the religious right pulls every single time they think they’re not going to get their way. Fuck ‘em. Perhaps more importantly, its not just your generation, or your parents generation. Most of the people in this country, and thats doubly true of the places where people actually live, are either in favor of marriage equality or don’t really give enough of a shit for it to affect their votes. Right now Bauer’s conservative coalition is a bunch of cardinals who like little kids, a south-east bible belt ghetto run by people on their third marriage and fourth arrest for smoking meth with gay prostitutes, and a generation of bitter old fucks who won’t be eligible to vote much longer anywhere but in Chicago.
Why, of course it’s controversial! You can’t give that to them, they’re NOT MARRIED! You’re encouraging them to live in SIN! But they can’t get married either. That would confirm and support them in their other sin.
Sheesh. Just trying to understand makes my head hurt. My point was, however, that I imagine they’re against DP benefits in general (such as I receive from my hetero partner’s employer) because of the ‘shacked up’ angle. Their opposition to marriage equality just closes up the catch-22 and assures us they want gay people to 1) disappear (become ‘ex-gay’) or 2) live lives of virtuous celibacy. In a non-church-related capacity, so they don’t get their cooties on the church.
I am not sure if this is about gay marriage, health care, or both. But I agree with what Opoponax’s coworker had to say. Gay people should have the right to do absolutely anything straight people do. However, we should question the health care argument as a reason to support gay marriage. Every person deserves health care, gay or straight, single or married. And it should not depend on what type of company we work for, or our partner works for, assuming we have a partner. And we should not assume everyone has a partner. Health care being tied to marriage and employment is based on a lifestyle that was never the norm and rarely exists today. I really think conservatives are going to have a harder and harder time balancing this one. They don’t want universal health care because it would take away an important incentive for marriage. They don’t want an incentive for gay marriage, but they need the incentive for straight marriage.
Opoponax and Ellen, of course universal health care is the ideal. But it’s a loooong process, and there’s no way that it’s going to happen in the new future. Two or three years from now? I have high hopes. But this is something that Obama can do now to get health care for people starting very very soon. It’s an issue that’s in his lap as we speak. He can talk about universal health care, but the reality is that he just pushed through a giant stimulus package, and it’s going to take a good long while to get a universal program (a) properly conceived and planned out, (b) passed, and (c) actually instituted. It’s going to be a multi-year process. So while I’m obviously in favor of universal health care, it just isn’t the answer to this immediate situation.
What boggles my mind is when people call equal rights “special” treatment. As though affording basic liberties were something reserved only for the select few. Give me a break.
Of course the right is fibbing when it says that it will support domestic whatevers, because this whole fucking debate has its origin in right-wing opposition to piecemeal rights for same-sex couples.
[...] …why is this controversial? [...]
“Of course, social conservatives are interested in doing harm to gay people. ”
Really? You want to undermine your legitimacy as a blog by making blanket statements like that?
I was just about ready to consider your viewpoint….until you said that.