More on Marital-Status Discrimination

Recently, a gay friend on Facebook denied that marriage as an institution is discriminatory. This seems laughable to me, especially since gay couples are routinely-excluded from marriage in most American states. Interracial marriage used to be illegal before the landmark Loving vs. Virginia case which ended miscegenation laws in 1965.

Here was my response:

--

If marital status is held as a preferred status over being unmarried (like religious over non-religious), then yes, it's inherently discriminatory—especially when there are benefits to be had from marriage including tax benefits, motor insurance discounts, health-insurance benefit sharing, hospital visitation, etc. The real kicker here for me, and which affects me every single day I am a freelancer is the lack of health insurance benefit sharing. My girlfriend of 14 years is not allowed to share her health insurance with me, someone she owns a house with, because there's discrimination at the *Federal level*. This has been verified by a lawyer.

Gay couples enjoy domestic partner benefits (despite the discrimination against them with marriage) and there is a state mandate for companies to allow gay domestic partners of 6 months or more with commingled finances to share health insurance. Again, this is denied to me and my girlfriend of 14 years, because we are of opposite sex.

Marriage creates discrimination directly and indirectly. It's directly discriminatory because gay people are excluded from marriage, and polyamorous groups are barred as well. The effect it has on heterosexual couples is that they are railroaded into the preferred institution of marriage and punished for being unmarried.

This is nothing less than marital-status discrimination, and it's one of the frontiers of equality still basically lacking legal challenge because too many people still get married. Still, the way health-insurance works, there are many ways to be a 'protected class' and it takes almost a perfect storm of variables for someone to find themselves in an opposite-sex relationship, without health insurance and seeing the CLEAR discrimination that happens as punishment for refraining from the institution of marriage.

People still use the facile logic that I should 'just get married' but this totally misses the point. Marriage is a personal decision and should not be validated or endorsed by government (any more than religion). Since it is endorsed by government, it shouldn't be held as a favored status over unmarried couples who for ideological reasons refuse to marry. This is NO different than favoring religion over non-religion. Would you tell an atheist to join a church to get married? No. Can atheists get married without religion? Of course. Should we be punished for not being able to or not *wanting* to marry? NO.

The fact that you don't understand this belies the pervasive and endemic nature of the problem. I support gay marriage...so please re-consider your views on marriage vs. those who for any reason choose not to marry but still deserve to enjoy domestic partner benefits. Believe me, I've been trying to get domestic partner health-insurance benefits from my girlfriend's company since 2004....and it's been NO every time, with no state protections here. For you to deny that it's discrimination is madness to me, but maybe you're just not educated about this stuff yet.

Here's hoping I shed some light on the topic.

--

The way to undermine the inherent discrimination related to marriage is simple: Don't get married. It's exactly the same as believers leaving their churches in droves, or the exponential growth of secularism around the world. It does pain me a bit to think that I am such a vocal advocate for gay rights (and gay marriage), and yet when I complain about discrimination so many people don't even acknowledge that this discrimination exists. Ironically, once gay people can get married, more people who choose to stay unmarried will see the clearer discrimination against unmarried couples...especially with regard to health-insurance benefits. Marriage is not the answer. Equality under the law is the answer. 

--

Why I am Against Marriage (And You Should Be Too).

I understand and support marriage-rights for all, but I don't think government should be in the marriage business. As long as they are, I agree, everyone should have equal access. What I am suffering with day to day though is marital status discrimination—like the fact that my girlfriend's company (CBS) won't cover opposite-sex domestic partners (health insurance) but is forced to cover same-sex domestic partners —which is needed, I understand because gay couples still can't legally marry in CA due to the 2008 passing of Prop (H)8. We've been trying to get coverage for me (through her) since 2004 with various H.R. people, and to no avail. There are 4-5 opposite-sex domestic couples *that we know about* that would benefit immediately if CBS would simply stop discriminating. Yes, I am naming names. I see no reason to protect them from their own discriminatory practices.

No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.

Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.

The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.

Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.

If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).

Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.

Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.

Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.

This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.

No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--