From the Editorial Page of Concord,Monitor NH



Gov. John Lynch was half right in his assessment of the rights of gay and lesbian couples in New Hampshire after the Senate's surprise approval of the same-sex marriage bill last week.

Lynch reminded reporters that New Hampshire's existing civil union law gives gay couples the same legal rights - at the state level - as the marriage legislation would, and he said that true progress wouldn't be possible until the federal government acted.

We disagree with the governor's implication that the difference between "civil unions" and "marriage" is unimportant to the state's gay residents. New Hampshire's civil unions law was, indeed, a big step forward. But in setting up two parallel but distinct institutions, lawmakers indicated there was good reason to treat gay couples and families as somehow different from - and lesser than - heterosexuals. Creating a single, civil marriage institution in the state will be a powerful message of nondiscrimination.

Nonetheless, Lynch makes a strong point about the federal government. The national Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, hurts gay couples in two ways. First, it says that gay marriages or civil unions performed in one state do not need to be recognized by other states. Get married in Massachusetts, move to Wyoming and, shazam, your marriage no longer counts. Second, it denies gay couples the federal rights that come with marriage.

There are more than 1,100 federal statutes related to marital status - affecting everything from taxation and Social Security benefits to veterans' assistance and health insurance.

Here's an example: States that allow gay marriage can extend health benefits to the spouses of gay public employees, as they do to any other spouse. But when filling out their federal tax forms, those employees must treat those benefits as extra income, and thus pay an extra federal tax.

Here's another: When two people are retired and collecting Social Security, a lower-earning or non-earning spouse can increase his or her federal benefit by up to one half of the higher earner's payment just because they are married. Not so if they're gay - even in states where gay marriage is legal.

Here's another: There are several spousal benefits related to a veteran's death. If, for instance, that death is service-connected, the surviving spouse receives a monthly payment and a one-time payment. If there is no spouse, the money is provided to the next of kin. Gay spouses don't count.

Here's another: Heterosexual spouses have an unlimited ability to make gifts and transfer property to one another without incurring federal taxes. Not true of gay couples.

The federal government's refusal to recognize gay unions mostly hurts gay couples. But there are also instances where the victim is the broader society. One federal conflict-of-interest law, for example, prohibits judges from appointing or employing any members of their families to jobs within the court. But gay spouses don't count.

In March, a gay rights group filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses in Massachusetts who have been denied federal legal protections available to spouses. The case has the potential to upend part or all of the Defense of Marriage Act.

But far better than waiting for a court order, Congress and President Obama could simply act. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted out of fear and bigotry and cynical politics. It may well have saved us from a more onerous constitutional amendment at the federal level, but it has outlived its usefulness. It should be repealed.





Maine governor signs same-sex marriage bill
By BDN Staff

AUGUSTA, Maine - Gov. John Baldacci on Wednesday signed a gay marriage bill passed just hours before by the Maine Legislature.

Baldacci made his announcement within an hour of the Maine Senate giving its final approval to LD 1020. The Senate voted 21-13 in favor of the measure after a short debate.

"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Baldacci said in a written statement. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

Amazing By Anonymous on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 08:46
By Honest Abe on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 12:01
20090506/OPINION/905060305
905060305
article_title: Congress should repeal marriage law
article_pubdate: 20090506
Could you please show us the law that says one must procreate in order to obtain a civil marriage license? I don't believe you can. THERE IS NO

C