Gut-wrenching example of why equal marriage is so critical

[cboy4]

as we choose our next president.

The documentary film "Freeheld" chronicles Laurel's struggle to transfer her earned pension to her domestic partner, Stacie Andree.

With less than six months to live, Laurel refuses to back down when her elected officials - the Ocean County Freeholders -deny her request to leave her pension to Stacie, an automatic option for heterosexual married couples.

The film is structured chronologically, following both the escalation of Laurel's battle with the Freeholders and the decline of her health as cancer spreads to her brain.

=================================================================================

2008 ACADEMY AWARD NOMINEE FOR "BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT"

Watch trailer------------------> http://www.freeheld.com **or** ------> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-qtn6TTJY4

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Clinton, Obama and Edwards strongly oppose such rights

Keep this in mind when you vote: All three of the leading candidates (or has it officially been reduced to "two leading candidates" yet?) are on record as strongly opposing equal marriage and all of the attendant rights, protections, responsibilities and priviledges therein. "Civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" are not and never will be marriage.

[IndianaJones]

2. there is no choice beyond those three at this point. nt.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Yup. We must hold our noses and vote away our rights to exist

It is better to be assaulted, have both our legs broken and be left for dead by the Democratic Party than to be murdered outright by the Republican Party. At least, that is what the Democrats keep telling us.

[SidneyCarton]

26. If the Presidential candidates disgust you so much...

Vote third party. That is, if you honestly think a President Romney or McCain would actually improve your situation any.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. So rather than trying to get the Democratic Party to support rather than oppose equality....

I should just go away and stop bothering people about their opposition to equality?

Thanks for nothing.

[cboy4]

3. Yea. I hope people at least watch this trailer because it

really puts/associates a face (actually two faces) with this horrible injustice. :(

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. That's Quite Unfair.

They may not be on record as wanting 'marriage' to be redefined in the eyes of the public, but they MOST DEFINITELY support equal rights for gays in every way those rights exist, and with a President like that who was able to make such things possible, would eradicate that gut wrenching problem displayed in the OP. I know some can argue day and night about the difference between civil unions/marriage, but I think it's extremely unfair to act like the big 3 don't support gay rights based on that argument alone. It's ridiculous in fact. By far the most important leap towards gay rights is being granted all of those rights, such as pension transfer etc, that they currently do not have. And ALL THREE of our candidates support that.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. You are right, it is not fair. But it is true

Opposition to marriage cannot be separated from opposition to the many rights, responsibilities, protections and priviledges that are part and parcel to marriage.

There are over 700 statutory rights given by marriage under Washington State law, and some 1200 statutory rights recognized under federal law. "Civil unions" grant a very small number of rights via state law (exactly 8 in Washington; a bill under consideration in the state Legislature would add 16 more) and ZERO rights under federal law. And mind you, this does not consider the hundreds of other rights granted and recognized through common law and court precedent.

No matter how you slice it, "civil unions," "domestic partnerships" and other forms of non-marriage are bigotry. They are discrimination. They are separate and unequal and thus a direct violation of the United States Constitution: see Brown V. Board of Education, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron">Cooper V. Aaron, Loving v. Virginia and many other rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

And this gross injustice is endorsed by Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards.

[Dhalgren]

8. I agree with you 1000%, TechBear. The very idea that the only

candidates for the Democratic nomination are against equal rights for LGBT is a sickening proposal. I recommend your post...

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. CBoy4's post, you mean

I'm just being my usually cantankerous curmudgeonly self. But thanks anyway. :hi:

[riderinthestorm]

12. I have often said that someday in the future, those who oppose marriage for everyone

equally, will be painted as bigots in the same way those who opposed interracial marriages are painted today.

It is bigotry, flat out, no question about it and our leading Dem candidates should be ashamed of themselves cause legally they don't have a leg to stand on. I believe that the time will come in the future when their current positions will someday be a source of embarassment and shame, and they will repudiate them.

[Tyler Durden]

14. Wish I could go with you. But you're wrong.

The States have statutes ON THE BOOKS regarding MARRIAGE as the delineating factor for inheritance, child adoption and custody, etcetera. Take Michigan: there's a new Defense of Marriage BS item in state law, but they didn't change any of the items that reserve certain rights to MARRIED PEOPLE.

There needs to be a federal statute or a SCOTUS Judgment supporting equal rights under the law for all persons...because it sure as shit isn't happening now.

Picture yourself in the same situation: in Michigan, if you and your late wife were both men, and "her" parents decided to deny you visiting rights, they could. Also, if the children were legally in "her" name (if adopted; you can't both be "Dad/Father" in Michigan) then "her" parents could take them away from you.

Sorry to touch a nerve there, but this is what is being fought for. With State Statute on file, and without a commitment from a candidate to bring this to SCOTUS via the Department of Justice, then the states play whatever games they want.

[cboy4]

23. Yea, well some of the three are far more trustworthy than

the others.

That's for sure.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. Clinton is not

"strongly opposed" to gay marriage. She's said she was support such a bill in NY State.

She doesn't believe it's a federal matter, though.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. So she opposes extending the 1200 or so federal marriage benefts to same-sex couples

How does that prove my statement wrong?

[MonkeyFunk]

13. because

she's not "strongly opposed" to gay marriage. She's not right on the issue, either.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. She has put in a lot of time and effort explaining her opposition to equal rights

And has adamantly maintained that opposition. Personally, I would call that "strongly opposed."

[MonkeyFunk]

18. ok

you'd be wrong, but it's your right.

[Laughing Mirror]

29. marriage equality can only exist at the federal level

If she doesn't "believe" that, then she is indeed completely opposed to gay marriage, "strongly" or otherwise.

[xchrom]

6. recommend

[cboy4]

15. **Difference between marriage and civil unions** (For those

who are confused).

=======================================================


Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

GAO Report excerpt and link:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted
between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory
provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate
marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.


Side by side comparison: Marriage v. Civil Unions
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Fm4phQMc8h4J:www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf+difference+between+marriage+and+civil+union&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Thank you, those were the stats I was looking for

And I was wrong in my above post about how many benefits those in a domestic partnership in Washington get: the number is 11, not 8 (see Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Washington">Domestic Partnership in Washington. I should have known better as I wrote that part of the article.) But that still falls far short of the 700 or so benefits and rights recognized by state law as belonging to married couples.

(Edited for spelling)

[cboy4]

19. Yea, no worries =)

:)

[Auntie Bush]

20. Disclimer... I'm not gay !

But I'd like someone to explain to me WHY when a man and a woman fall in love they can get married and share all sorts of benefits? And why is it fair for 2 men or 2 women to fall in love and be prevented from marrying and sharing any benefits with their loved one? I just can't understand this bias thinking! I thought the bible says we are all created equal. :scared:

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. Well, according to the Washington State Supreme Court....

It is because mixed-sex couples can have children, and same-sex couples cannot.

Never mind that many mixed-sex couples cannot have children because of surgical sterilization or infertility. Never mind that many mixed-sex couples do not want to have children and use birth control. Never mind that many same-sex couples adopt, opt for in vitro or have children from previous relationships. (See here for one approach -- sadly, a failed approach -- to counteract this judicial idiocy.)

[Midlodemocrat]

21. When is this country going to wake up on this issue?

Why are so many people afraid of giving marital rights to the LGBT community? It's not like the heterosexual population has a lock on the prevention of divorce. It's not like the heterosexual community hasn't fucked up their kids with their machinations and mind games during divorce.

Marriage should be a right ALL Americans have access to, not just the ones that don't rattle the homophobes.

[flvegan]

24. Sadly "our next president" won't do shit to promote gay marriage rights.

The only candidate that supported equal marriage rights (Kucinich) just dropped out due to lack of support.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[cboy4]

25. Thanks for reminding me about DK dropping out!

:cry:
:cry:

[plantwomyn]

27. This could be my partner and me.

I'm glad I'm typing this because I'm too choked up to say it aloud. Wonder why homophobes would think I would "choose" this "lifestyle". This is a part of the culture of fear we in the gay community live in every day. We have been together for 10 years, my partner works for the federal government. She cannot add me to her insurance even though the federal government has a sexual orientation nondiscrimination rule! I am uninsured because of the cost for individual policies. Her pension coming to me is a pipe dream in this fucked up society. We have NONE of the protections of a heterosexual couple married for one day. It took me hours to find and fill out paperwork so that when she goes into a doctors office or hospital, the staff acknowledges me as her life partner. I have no idea how much a lawyer would have charged me to this paperwork and worry every time I take her to the doctor that they will question their validity. To give them credit. Once acknowledged I have never had a problem with any medical care giver and this is Indiana. Maybe they see in my eyes that it wouldn't be a good idea to cross me when my honey is hurting and sick. We just had a scare in the emergency room and I get tense every time they start to ask their "next of kin" questions.

[Ilsa]

28. I'm really sorry. And I was hoping that Elizabeth Edwards would help

John see the light on this one.

My husband and I don't have a pension from his company, but he is paid pretty well. We are only saving through his 401(k), our IRAs and whatever outside plans we can. Frankly, I'm expecting us to have to work for a paycheck for the rest of our lives.

I think pensions eventually have to go away. The govt has allowed the corporations to underfund and rob them. A better way is needed so couples with any label can have the same legal remedies.

[cboy4]

32. Well, I remain hopeful that Elizabeth (and their wonderful

daughter)do indeed help John "see the light."

I really do believe in my heart that Edwards does indeed want to do he right thing, but his Baptist beliefs interfere.

I think this is how Elizabeth has the ability to come into play and utilize her influence.

I just adore her.

[Ilsa]

33. I adore her also. Those long held teachings are hard to overcome.

They are almost hardwired into the brain so it is really difficult for a person to break through it. It took me a decade as an adult. But it started with gentle arguments, confronting contradictions in beliefs, and time to gradually move to acceptance and appreciation of how different we all are, and yet having the same needs for love, security, etc. .

[cboy4]

31. Yea, this could be a lot of couples. You're not alone in

your tears...I was crying the first time I saw it also.

I wish ALL of the candidates were forced to watch this powerful film.

[Der Blaue Engel]

36. "We have NONE of the protections of a heterosexual couple married for one day."

Not to mention that most Domestic Partnership laws/corporate policies state that a couple must live together and share finances for one year before applying to be "recognized."

If you're heterosexual, you can pull any stupid Britney Spears-type marriage stunt you like and instantly get all of the benefits, but if you happen to love someone of the same sex, you have to "prove" your commitment. So even if you are lucky enough to have the Domestic Partnership option, and you or your partner is in an accident or becomes ill before the year is up, well, fuck you, you should have been born straight. :grr:

There are a million such issues that those saying separate but "equal" is okay are either unaware of or simply don't give a damn about. :(

[cboy4]

34. ***Mods, could you please move my thread to the

GLBT forum?***

Thanks :)

CBOY

[TommyO]

35. Thank you for posting this

As citizens of the United States, we're supposed to be entitled to everything that everyone else is under law, unfortunately gay people suffer from serious discrimination in our relationships. This is an especially egregious example of that discrimination, something that I hope is resolved in my lifetime.

[Der Blaue Engel]

37. It just tears me up even watching the trailer

:cry:

I have a particularly hard time with brain cancer stories, as my mother died from breast cancer that metastasized to her brain, but the heartbreaking circumstance of this (and thousands of other couples) is doubly painful to watch.

I wonder how one can see the whole movie, since it's a short. (I guess I should check out the site.)

Thanks for posting.