http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/2 ... 933/427226

Why Same-Sex Marriage -- yes, "Marriage" -- Matters
by Glenn in NYC [Subscribe]
Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:30:28 PM MST

I am a gay man in NYC. My partner Rusty and I have been together for 8 years. I use the term "partner" because, here in New York, we are not allowed to marry. That may change if we can ever get the Republicans out of power in the State Senate, but for now, it is the reality.

I often see it asked, however -- and this, by persons whom I know to be well-meaning and supportive of recognition of same-sex relationships -- why it is necessary to push for "marriage". Why, it is said, aren't civil unions, or domestic partnerships, or some other arrangement sufficient? Why must we antagonize people by pressing for full entry into the institution of marriage?

I could answer this is many ways. We could talk about the inherent repugnance of "separate-but-equal." We could talk about the absurdity of creating new legal institutions just for the purpose of marking same-sex relationships as different. But today, I'd like to talk about the actual, real-world, practical issues. As a court decision of yesterday demonstrates, the denial of same-sex marriage rights affects our lives in real ways.

Meet John Langan.

John lost his partner of 15 years, Conrad, to a stupid car accident and has been fighting ever since to obtain recognition of his status as surviving spouse. They had a civil union under Vermont law. But the New York courts have now, for a second time, told John that the life he and Conrad shared mean nothing -- nothing -- in this state. All because they could not get "married."

John and Conrad met in 1986. They fell in love, the moved in together after 8 months, and they spent the rest of Conrad's life together as partners. (Details of their lives together -- which I urge you to read -- are here.) Conrad was, like myself, a lawyer here in Manhattan. John was an insurance agent. Apparently, at least early on, Conrad was the main financial support for the couple. (Yeah, we lawyers are way overpaid, I agree.) They were, in any case, financially interdependent -- as most married couples are.

John and Conrad took every step they knew how to formalize their relationship and care for each other. They appointed each other Health Care Proxies. They made wills. They took out life insurance naming each other beneficiary. They took many steps which, had they been married, would have been unnecessary because the law has built-in provisions. But no matter, they did what they could.

In July 2000, Vermont instituted civil unions, and within weeks John and Conrad began making plans to be so united. On November 11, 2000, they flew to Vermont and were joined in front of their family and friends. They exchanged rings. They exchanged vows:



They were, in short, as close as they could then get to being fully married. (Massachusetts did not institute marriage until 2004. In any case, New Yorkers cannot go to Massachusetts to get married, thanks to Mitt Romney's revival of a bigoted law meant to prevent mixed-race marriage. But that's another story.) But they were not "married."

On February 12, 2002, John got a call from St. Vincent's, a Catholic hospital here in Manhattan. Conrad, the doctor said, had been hit by a car and had a fractured leg. But Conrad was able to speak to John and tell him he was OK, but that he needed surgery on the fracture. John raced to the hospital, but by the time he got there Conrad was already on his way in. Conrad's brother had beaten John to the hospital, and gave John a copy of a note that Conrad had left for John:



John stayed with Conrad over the next 2 days, as Conrad went through another surgery to close the wound. All seemed well; doctors thought Conrad would be heading home soon. On the night of the 14th, John kissed Conrad good night; Conrad said, "Goodnight my sweetheart." Those were the last words Conrad ever said to John. The next morning, St. Vincent's called John to tell him Conrad had died overnight, apparently due to a blood clot.

John was, I'm sure, grief-stricken. I tell you, I read that note from Conrad before he went into surgery and think about what if that were one of the last things Rusty ever said to me, and tears start streaming. Any married couple -- well, any couple still deeply in love -- would feel the same, I think.

Now comes John's legal travails. John believed that St. Vincent's had committed medical malpractice. As the surviving spouse -- at least, he thought he was -- John was entitled under NY law to sue St. Vincent's for wrongful death, and he did. But even though the doctors and nurses at St. Vincent's had treated him like Conrad's spouse, now the lawyers (and the Catholic Church) were involved. John was not Conrad's spouse, they said, and thus he cannot sue. In 2005, in a particularly stupid decision, the intermediate NY appeals court (the Second Department) agreed with the hospital.

Now, in Vermont, John undeniably would have had the right to sue, because Vermont purports (as required by its Supreme Court) to give civil union partners the exact same rights as married couples. And New York would generally, under the doctrine of "comity," give recognition to a marriage validly performed elsewhere, even if the couple could not have married in NY. But none of that mattered, said the court:



In other words, yes, you have under Vermont law the same rights as married couples, but you're not married. Game over.

Now, fast-forward to yesterday. Under NY's workers' compensation law, a suriving spouse is entitled to death benefits when an injury occurs on the job. (Conrad's accident occurred while he was doing work for John's insurance business.) So John applied for benefits. The worker's compensation carrier accepted the injury as work-related. But -- you guessed it -- they argued that John was not Conrad's "spouse." And yesterday, another intermediate appellate court agreed.

Now, again, there is absolutely no dispute that New York would consider someone married in another state to be a spouse for purposes of the workmen's comp laws here. But the court said, hey, they're not married, they're civil union partners:



John and Conrad were as loving and devoted as any man and woman, and quite a bit more than much of what passes for valid marriages in this land. They did everything within their power to formalize and validate that relationship. And John only sought what any surviving spouse -- trying to carry on financially after the death of his husband -- would be entitled to. But because all John and Conrad could get were "civil unions" -- and not "marriage" -- the doors of this state's justice system have been twice slammed in John's face. And that term "justice" leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth as I write this.

That, my friends, is why nothing short of marriage will do.

Well, that makes sense.

thanks for posting.

Don't you get it? You'll ruin my marriage if you let fags wed.

Too bad he died eh?


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


meet your maker suckah!

You got anything on this law David?

Spontaneously dying of blood clot = medical malpractice?

Everyone should have the right to sue frivolously.

PD,
Very interesting article. You are very passionate about gay marraige and civil rights. Is that the kind of law you practice?

i'm gonna throw out a question here: do you think if hetero couples would refuse to get married unless gay couples have the same rights, that anything would change?

I'd love to pose my solution for this whole mess to the writer of this article and see what he thought. I've talked about it before on this forum, but it's been a while.

Any two people should be able to go to the courthouse, and apply for things like the merging of income, child custody, hospital visitation rights, and other rights along those lines. They don't have to be the opposite sex, or even romantically involved. People should also have the ability to choose only the contracts they want to make with each other.

For simplicity purposes, I would have no problem if you group some of these into a package that's commonly used and will do for most people.

My hope for such a proposal that it would take the emotion out of legal contracts that should have none of it.

here's something i found:

http://mickarran.com/2004/05/

These people fucking piss me off...

the whole article: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... _marriage/

he is such a slimeball.

The government should get out of the marriage game all together. Whatever happened to that seperation of church and state principal? Face it, marriage was a religious act in it's inception to the US. What other official court documents are routinely signed to officialize them by religious leaders. Marriage should be for show and civil unions the official government process. Civil unions should be open to all and to multiple partners. The fight for marriage seems so backassward to me.

doesn't the constitution cover this? you know, god and marriage ...

In theory, I agree.

However, as long as courts are recognizing only "marriages" from other states under the "privileges and immunities" clause, then civil unions are just another case of "separate but equal", which as we all know, was never actually equal.

Personally, I think that CHURCHES ought to get out of the marriage business, but same result.

Anyone know what would happen in these circumstances in Britain?

Do you have further info on this? It makes sense but I was unaware that's how marriages work from state to state.

I agree, PD.

I honestly don't understand why this is still a debated topic. I haven't heard one justifiable reason why gay people aren't allowed to marry eachother. I can't believe we have a law simply based on peoples religious judgements and ignorance. It's completely perplexing.