Kate, as a traditionally religious person, I happen to agree with you on the subject of differentiating between civil marriage and religious marriage. I’d go one further: When a Minister, Priest, Rabbi, Imam, or Officiant (that’s a new word for me) performs a marriage, he or she is acting as an agent of the State. I would suggest that is actually a violation of the idea of church/state separation.

I’m just curious, what are the rights and benefits that marriage bestows on people? Not asking for an exhaustive list, but what are the high points?

Dear hs,

I’m glad we agree on this issue–and you’ve put your finger on my discomfort with performing marriages: suddenly I’m an officer of the state in addition to a clergyperson, not a role I look for and a violation of church/state, as you say.

There are over 1,000 rights and benefits that marriage automatically bestows–some of them, such as inheritance and the ability to make medical decisions for someone, you can set up with legal papers–although even then if you don’t have the papers on you your right to make life-and-death decisions for your partner could be challenged. Some rights, such as Social Security survivor benefits, are federal laws that state civil union systems can’t affect. There are also intangible benefits, in that the community looks at married couples differently than non-married couples, but the legal rights are crucial. For instance, my partner isn’t covered by my employer’s insurance, and luckily he’s pretty healthy, but if he had a pre-existing condition he would be uninsurable as an individual.

You can find a comprehensive list of marriage rights prepared by the U.S. Government Accounting Office at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf or just browse for “federal rights of marriage.”

Kate,
I know this is slightly off-topic, but something you said has me genuinely concerned. Does your partner have any health insurance? As he gets older, it is very likely that he will eventually develop something that could make him uninsurable. HIPAA rules provide some degree of protection, but only if he has continuous insurance coverage without any breaks. Lack of insurance, combined with a lengthy hospital stay, is a very fast way for a family to become bankrupt. Please take care of yourselves.
Good fortune!

Dear Benja,

You are so kind to be concerned. Yes, he has individual insurance, and I will pass on your info to him about continual coverage.

And I understand that health insurance is a big problem for many clergy, since a majority of congregations are small and denominational coverage is getting harder and harder to come by. “Retired” clergy made destitute by medical expenses are far from rare. And they have a lot of company in non-clergy, of course.

But I’m sure that the United States of America will figure out how to provide health care for all its citizens before long. . . . If we demand it.

I respectfully disagree on several issues.

I don’t think marriage is a naturally human institution and therefore I don’t think it is a human right.

I don’t see it as a civil right because there is no guarantee to marriage in the Constitution. As far as the state goes, I view the recognition of marriage by the state and all subsequent benefits to be a privilege granted by the citizens of said state or the legislative body. But there is no need to certify any union between any group of people, again its not a right.

I do view marriage as a religious concept. Each faith has their own right to set rules for marriage as they see fit. None of these rules should be observed by a legal body.

I don’t see a church/state violation because you don’t have to have a religious wedding to obtain the state certificate. And vice versa, you don’t have to apply for state sanctioning of your religious ceremony. Again, its a privilege.

Too often I believe people try to make things civil or human rights just because. Personally I’d vote to extend the right to marry to Homosexual couples. But I think it’s in the hands of state voters to decide to extend that privilege and not the courts to extend it as a right.

I’d ask this, and its a serious question. Since you believe marriage is a human right that should be observed by the government, what is your view on multiple partner arrangements? If three or more loving adult people want the same recognition, as a right how can you deny them?

Kate,
You may be interested in looking at is a FAQ page on portability of health insurance on the department of labor website (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html).

Thank you for your support Kate and the work you do with the Ethical Society. Members of the LGBT community in Missouri are naturally pleased at the California ruling and wait for the day when such decisions are not necessary in our Democracy. Democracy and Equality always partner up eventually.

As a note, I’d hope that the United States of America decides to stay out of the insurance industry. Instead I’d hope that they would decide that instead of driving up costs for everyone, that lower taxes would provide better personal choice for healthcare needs. Its the ethics of personal responsibility.

Kate:

Many same sex siblings are up in arms because so much is being done to placate those room mates actually performing “the deed” but leaving innocents out in the cold over life and death decisions, insurance and survivor benefits.

I’m not suggesting that it’s easy being gay. A potential marriage in Massachusetts between Walter A. and Carstairs P. went down the tubes because of savage disagreement over which would throw the garter and or the bridal bouquet.

Marriage was a civil moneymaker long before religious intrusion, with the expressed purpose of protecting inheritance rights of proven progeny. The progeny of same sex couples is questionable at best, so isn’t much of the brouhaha really about gaining societal approval of their choice of mates, you know sort of trophy spouses?

Religious “marriages” aren’t recognized in this country without a civil license - so I thought all marriages were civil contracts between the parties and the state.