Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Stories begat other stories, or at least they do for me; this two-part conversation came from a comment that was made after I posted a story suggesting that voting matters this time, especially if you don't want environmental disasters like the recent Hungarian "toxic lake" that burst from its containment and polluted the Danube River happening in your neighborhood.
Long story short, we are going to be moving on to ask what, for some, is a more fundamental question: if you're an LBGT voter, and the Democratic Party hasn't, to put it charitably, "been all they could be" when it comes to issues like repealing "don't ask, don't tell" or the Federal Defense of Marriage Act...what should you do?
Now normally I would be the one trying to develop an answer to the question, but instead, we're going to be posing the question to a group of experts, and we'll be letting them give the answers.
And just because you, The Valued Reader, deserve the extra effort, for Part Two we've trying to get you a "Special Bonus Expert" to add some input to the conversation: a Democratic Member of Congress who represents a large LBGT community.
This morning on NPR Linda Wertheimer was interviewing a founder of the Log Cabin Republicans. She noted that Senator John Cornyn has recently appeared before a gay rights group and wondered, is it time for you to declare victory?
Last week a young Republican activist here said that, after voting for Charlie Bass and Kelly Ayotte, he would be in a good position to urge them to change their positions and support equal rights for gays.
BRRRINGG! This is your wakeup call.
Today EVERY Republican Senator voted to block consideration of a measure that would have simply authorized the President and the military to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The so-called "moderates" from Maine, Dick Lugar, John McCain: it was unanimous.
The Republican Party is solidly against equal rights for gay Americans. If you're comfortable in that crowd, so be it.
Adding (Dean): Why is someone who got out of Vietnam due to acne and bad knees keeping patriotic Americans from serving their country? Disgraceful.
As you look at today's Prop 8 ruling, I want you to think back a few weeks to the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) rulings for a bit of legal logic that will make a huge difference as this case moves through any appeals process.
What I want you to think about are two moderately obscure concepts: "strict scrutiny" and "rational basis". The difference between the two will tell us how hard Prop 8 will be to defend, and we'll quickly walk through what you need to know, right here, right now.
Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) has told a group of national LGBT Democrats he would work to end DOMA should he be elected to the US Senate.
and
Hodes, a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act in the U.S. House that would overturn DOMA, and would be one of a very few senate members who supports marriage rights for same-sex couples should he win in November.
This is great news - and we can all be proud of Congressman Hodes for standing up for justice and equality.
Now if we can only get him to stop supporting war....
We are back, just a bit late, to wrap up the discussion we began about the pair of rulings issued in Boston by Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro this week that declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.
In the first half of the conversation, we examined the ruling in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), today we examine the companion case, Gill v Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
I don't usually tell you the end of the story at the beginning, but this time I will: there are a lot of happy Plaintiffs this week, and the Federal Government, as Defendant (whom I will refer to as "the Feds" from time to time), is not so happy at the moment.
As with last time, there's a lot of ground to cover, and the sooner we get to it, the better.
I have to work fast over the next two days to get you this story, but it is a good one.
We are all aware of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), championed by former Congressman Bob "I'm A Libertarian If It Doesn't Involve Your Penis Or Vagina" Barr; we now have two rulings, released on the same day by the same Federal judge, that will render the Act moot, if they're either upheld throughout the appeals process...or if the Obama Administration decides to end that appeals process right now.
There's a lot of ground to cover, and time is short.
Six-term former congressman Charlie Bass cast one of the aye votes in 1996 that made DOMA law.
Now that it's been struck down, will congressional candidate Charlie Bass commit to reinstating it if he gets back into Congress?
It's obvious from my Google alerts that Bass is doing everything in his power to stay out of the spotlight until the primary is over, especially after the Joe Barton fiasco. Regardless, this is a valid question that the NH media might want to wake him up for, given the fact that we are one of the few states further ahead than the federal government on marriage equality.
US District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled today that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it impedes the rights of the states to define marriage.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.
Over the past six months, my opponents have constantly reminded me of how crucial this race is. Whether it's a woman's right to choose or a family's right to affordable health care - they've shown us time and time again what we all stand to lose if Kelly Ayotte, Bill Binnie, or Ovide Lamontagne wins.
As more and more New Hampshire communities clearly reject discrimination and instead voice support for marriage equality, our attention turns to how federal discrimination harms married gay and lesbian couples in New Hampshire:
Tonight in Concord, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) will host a workshop about "DOMA and Your Marriage" and outline what federal discrimination means for newly married couples in New Hampshire.
Janson Wu, a staff attorney with GLAD will provide legal information regarding Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and how it affects the marriages of same-sex couples in New Hampshire.
Section 3 of DOMA specifically defines marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal law, effectively denying all married same-sex couples the federal rights and responsibilities that typically accompany marriage, despite New Hampshire's decision to treat those couples as legally married at the state level. In light of Section 3 of DOMA, many questions and problems arise for New Hampshire's married same-sex couples. How should same-sex married couples file their 2011 federal tax returns in light of DOMA? Can a same-sex married couple access Social Security spousal and survivor benefits? What if one spouse is a federal employee - how does DOMA affect their health benefits and retirement pensions? What if one spouse gets sick - can the other spouse take time off to take care of the sick spouse? What if one spouse is not a citizen - what is the best way to deal with these immigration issues?
Wu will also discuss GLAD's federal court case, Gill v. OPM, challenging Section 3 of DOMA and what a potential victory in that case would mean for New Hampshire residents.
As I mentioned, the first workshop is tonight, followed by a second on the Seacoast. To RSVP or, if you are unable to attend, get notes, email info@granitestateprogress.org. (Workshops are cosponsored by Granite State Progress, PFLAG - New Hampshire, and SEIU 1984's Lavender Caucus.)
Concord
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
6:00 - 7:30 PM
State Employees Association, 207 N. Main Street
Portsmouth
Thursday, May 20, 2010
6:00 - 7:30 PM
South Church, 292 State Street
Robert and Carl* are a gay couple who have been together for several years. They live in a state that permits same-sex marriage, and recently tied the knot in a Church ceremony. Like many other married couples, they have established a stable home and are active members of their community. Carl is healthy but lives with a manageable medical condition. Like approximately 1.1 million other Americans, Carl is HIV positive.
Today, HIV positive people are living long, normal, healthy lives...as long as they receive proper medical care. Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART), a combination of three medications, is now the standard treatment to battle HIV . While quite effective one of the major downsides of treatment is cost. Carl's three medications run about $2,200 per month...a figure that is quite typical. This, of course, does not include approximately six blood tests and physicians appointments per year, bringing his treatment costs to about $3,000 per month.
The US Congress recognized the steep cost of treatment when they reauthorized the Ryan White Care Act in 2009 by a vote of 408-9. This Act authorizes the expenditure of over $2 billion annually to assist with HIV outreach and treatment. It is the 'payer of last resort,' and income guidelines are applied towards recipients, but still it is estimated that some 30% of HIV positive individuals receive some assistance through this program.
More comprehensive coverage, of course, is available through private insurance. More than 25% of Americans work for an employer that offers domestic partner benefits; 51% percent of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health benefits; and 37% of all Americans live in states where some legal protection of same-sex partner arrangements exist (marriage, civil unions, or domestic partner benefits.)
Back to Robert and Carl.
Robert has a full-time, secure job, and both he and his employer contribute towards Roberts' health insurance. When Robert married Carl, they looked forward to Carl's being added to Roberts policy as a spouse, thus providing not only coverage for Carl's HIV medicine, but for the entire range of normal health care for which the typical American might visit the doctor or the hospital. Robert, who had been married before, had already had his children (and formerly, an ex-wife), on his family policy.
Enter the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA").
Under DOMA, the federal government agencies are prohibited from recognizing the validity of same-sex unions of any kind, even when they are authorized under state law. This is a significant change to federal-state relationships, since Family Law issues have always been decided at the state level. As a result, in Rhode Island, Alabama, and Alaska first cousins may legally marry, while in Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania such marriages are illegal. The Federal government dos not take a stand on this issue: they accept first-cousin marriages from Alaska as legal, but would reject the validity of first-cousin marriages illegally performed in Pennsylvania. In other words, the federal government normally accepts the states' definition of marriage as authoritative in the matter of marriage.
Under DOMA, however, the federal government will not consider a same-sex marriage, validly performed under state law, as a valid marriage under federal law. And that has serious federal income tax implications.
When Robert added Carl, his lawful spouse, to his family health insurance, his HR office informed him that since Carl was not a spouse under federal law, Robert would have to pay taxes on "imputed income" to Carl. "Imputed Income is the addition of the value of cash/non-cash compensation to an employees' taxable wages," and both federal income taxes and FICA (Social Security) taxes are assessed against the value of this imputed income.
Robert was shocked when he saw his next paycheck. In order to cover the imputed value of providing health insurance to his spouse - an action that is never applied to an opposite-sex spouse - his employer had withheld an additional $450/month from his paycheck.
As a middle-class income-earner, the loss of an additional $5,400 annually was too much to absorb. Robert removed Carl from his health insurance policy, and Carl applied for - and received - HIV coverage under the Ryan White Act.
The sad reality is that without DOMA, Carl could have been added to a private insurance policy just as any other spouse could be, without the punishing effect of federal taxes associated with imputed income.
Because of DOMA, American taxpayers will now pay a minimum of $36,000 annually for Carl. And this is just a single instance of a pattern that is replicated across the nation.
There are over 1.1 million HIV positive Americans. 30% receive assistance through the Two Billion dollar plus Ryan White Care Act. Close to half might currently or eventually be eligible for private insurance coverage through spouses, civil unions, domestic partnership arrangements, or company policies.
Fiscal Conservatives, take note: one of the single most significant actions you could take to reduce spending and taxpayer burden, while improving health care provisions for hundreds of thousands of Americans, is to repeal the provision of DOMA that prohibits federal recognition of valid state marriages.
The only real question is whether you believe that punishing homosexual couples is a more important public policy goal.
*Robert and Carl are not their real names, but they are real people and the dollar figures and story are entirely accurate.
--------------------------
SOURCES:
CDC 'HIV Prevalence Estimates -- United States, 2006' MMWR 57(39), 3 October 2008
http://health.msn.com/health-t...
http://aids.about.com/od/hivme...
AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) - Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Fact Sheet
U.S. Census Bureau. "County Business Patterns: 2000."
Human Rights Campaign, "State of the Workplace: 2006."
http://www.haasjr.org/index.php
http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Really very awfully nice Civil Rights Leader Kevin Smith weighs in on the idea that New Hampshire could conceivably join Massachussetts in the lawsuit challenging DOMA:
"It is our sincere hope that Governor Lynch does not waste any more of the taxpayer's time and money on the issue of gay marriage...
..."It is quite amazing though how this Governor went from publically opposing gay marriage as recently as April and now continues to support the repeal of DOMA. Perhaps this is another reason why his poll numbers have plummeted in the last few months - his word simply cannot be trusted."
Of course, it is quite amazing - to the point of incredulity, really - how someone so focused on defeating HB436 could not know that Lynch has long talked about the unfairness of DOMA in reference to NH's marriage equality. It makes you wonder if Smith's words can be trusted. And funny how a civil rights leader such as he would be so opposed to the civil rights of gays and lesbians in the first place.
But maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe it's just that he's an instinctively partisan, career paid political operative. I get it: he doesn't like Lynch, but he just loved Craig Benson:
Finally, Gov. Benson, the elves know I'm your number one fan,
Your legacy shall live in New Hampshire lore;
They've carved out your profile to replace the Old Man."
I think this is a fine idea, for all kinds of reasons (email release, though Pindell has it here too):
Dear Governor, (cc NH Legislators)
I urge you to ask the New Hampshire Attorney General to join the lawsuit of the State of Massachusetts on the Defense Of Marriage Act. Especially since marriage equality will become law in New Hampshire on January 1, 2010, I think that by joining the action of the State of Massachusetts concerning the unconstitutionality of DOMA, we will be assuring that our same-gendered couples who will be married can secure the exact same federal rights, obligations, and responsibilities which are given to differently-gendered couples.
If she's going to break her pledge to serve, it's only fair she do the job Lynch asks her to do until the 17th. If not, then we're clear on where she stands.
