NJ Civil Unions

From the New York Times: 2 Months After New Jersey’s Civil Union Law, Problems Finding True Equality.

I’m not sure what to make of this article, even though I did learn things from it.

Its thesis seems to be that civil unions are causing problems for gay couples that would be solved if they had access to marriage. It begins with several anecdotes about people who are being denied health insurance coverage by their civil-union spouses’ employers, when married spouses would be granted coverage. The nut graf states that these problems “rais[e] questions about whether the new arrangement adequately fulfills the promise of the State Supreme Court ruling that led to it.” The writer of the article seems to have an agenda, which is often the case when an article states that something “raises questions.”

[R]esidents who work for companies headquartered in other states, and those whose insurers are based outside New Jersey, have found it difficult if not impossible to sign their partners up for health insurance. Unions and employers whose self-insured plans are federally regulated have also denied coverage in some cases. Staff members in doctors’ offices and emergency rooms have questioned partners’ role in decision-making. Confusion abounds over the interplay of state and federal laws governing taxes, inheritance and property.

Can you really blame a law on the fact that people disobey it or don’t understand it?

The article also deals with several instances of unequal treatment that would persist even if the New Jersey legislature had granted marriage rights, and not just civil union rights, to same-sex couples.

For example, some companies provide only “self-insured” health care plans, which are financed by employers rather than purchased from state-regulated insurers. Because self-insured plans are governed by a federal law – ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act – apparently insurers and employers think the plans are also subject to DOMA. But apparently that’s not true:

[G]ay-rights advocates said federal law did not prohibit self-insured companies from providing benefits to same-sex couples. A 2006 report by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation found that more than half the Fortune 500 companies, most of which have self-insured plans, offered benefits to domestic partners.

“It’s the employer’s own choice to decide who’s a beneficiary, and the federal government doesn’t prevent employers from doing the right thing,” said Michele Granda, a staff lawyer with the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “Those employers are purposefully choosing to discriminate against their employees.”

Which would be the case even if New Jersey allowed gay couples to get married. Because DOMA theoretically applies to them, too.

The article does point out the problems inherent in divergent state/federal marriage schemes, though – problems involving taxes, Medicaid, and bankruptcy.

Civil union partners filing taxes jointly in New Jersey have to file federal tax returns as if they were single, then calculate what they would owe on a joint federal return to figure their state credits and deductions, said Stephen J. Hyland, a lawyer and writer of “New Jersey Domestic Partners: A Legal Guide.”

“Civil union couples will most likely be treated as if they are single for purposes of qualifying for Medicaid, which can jeopardize the couple’s home if one partner needs nursing home care,” Mr. Hyland said.

Bankruptcy is governed by federal law, although state law determines how married and civil union couples hold title to their property.

There’s a real tension between federal schemes and traditional states’-rights theory. Federal programs are so much more a part of Americans’ personal lives than they used to be. What’s the solution? Either the federal government should recognize all marriages that a particular state recognizes, or state-married (and state CU’d) couples just have to deal with two different schemes until we get a more enlightened Congress and president.

It’s probably going to be the latter. Whenever that happens.

Oh. And so much for my trying to write short blog entries.

NJ Lt Governorship

For the third time this decade, New Jersey has an acting governor, following Gov. Jon Corzine’s serious car accident (in which he stupidly wasn’t wearing a seatbelt). First Governor Whitman resigned to take over the EPA, then Governor McGreevey resigned in the wake of the state homeland security debacle, and now this. Corzine won’t be able to resume his duties as governor for “days to weeks,” and he could be in a wheelchair for six months.

New Jersey really needs a lieutenant governor. Fortunately, in November 2005, New Jersey voters passed a constitutional amendment to create a lieutenant governship – although it doesn’t go into effect until the 2009 elections. Until then, the state will continue to muddle through.

At any rate, everyone seemed to like Acting Governor Dick Codey last time around, and he’s the acting governor again now, so things aren’t so bad.

Roker/Imus

There are way more important things going in the world right now. But anyway:

Al Roker blogged yesterday that Don Imus must go. (Now it turns out Imus is gone, permanently, at least from MSNBC.) Today, in response to feedback, he wrote:

My freedom of speech was questioned. Some of the complaints that came in fell in that same category; I was denying Don Imus his freedom of speech. Far from it. Don Imus has the right to say whatever he wants, however hateful, stupid or uncaring. He DOES NOT have the right to say it on public airwaves or on the cable broadcast of a publicly owned company. That is a privilege, just as you do not have the right to have a license to drive a car. It is a privilege. Privileges can be revoked if certain criteria are not met.

Amen. I can’t read Don Imus’s mind and don’t know what the appropriate response is. But I am happy when people correctly point out that freedom of speech is a right that is enforced against governments, not against private entities. A private entity can do whatever the hell it wants when it comes to speech. If a private entity bans your speech, you still have freedom of speech — the freedom to speak somewhere else. If a government bans your speech, you don’t have any alternatives. (This leaves out the issue of what happens when a government bans speech in only a certain venue, of course.)

Granted, freedom of speech is more than just part of the Bill of Rights in this country, it’s a principle that pervades our culture; when people yell “freedom of speech!” they’re usually arguing for the principle.

That’s fine – as long as they realize that that principle holds no water as a legal argument.