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.

RI may recognize SSM

Okay, here’s a case where legally defining same-sex relationships as “marriages” instead of “civil unions” makes a difference. According to today’s NY Times:

The Rhode Island attorney general said Wednesday that same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, the sole state where they are legal, should be recognized in Rhode Island. …“This is about Rhode Island citizens who entered into a valid, legally recognized same-sex marriage and returned here to live and work,” [Rhode Island’s attorney general said]. “There is no way, no law, no constitutional provision and, in my estimation, no right to allow the denial of basic human rights.”

Here’s the full text of the attorney general’s letter. (Here’s the request that prompted the letter.) A legal opinion of the state’s attorney general has no legal force on its own, but it’s likely to be followed by state agencies nevertheless.

The letter mentions only same-sex marriage, which today is legal only in Massachusetts. It says nothing about civil unions. If the New Jersey legislature had just gone ahead and granted the M-word to New Jersey same-sex couples, their marriages could be recognized in Rhode Island, too. But it didn’t. So they can’t. It’s up in the air.

It could be argued that the New Jersey legislature didn’t follow the New Jersey Supreme Court’s order to create marriage equivalence for same-sex couples, because there will be no equivalence if those couples move to Rhode Island. This is an iffy argument, though, because it’s Rhode Island’s fault for not extending its recognition to other states’ civil unions as well as marriages. The right place to contest or try to expand the Rhode Island policy is Rhode Island. Also, this seems to come into effect only when a couple moves to Rhode Island, at which point the couple would, for the most part, be outside of New Jersey’s jurisdiction.

It’s possible, of course, that Rhode Island could extend its recognition to civil-unioned couples from other states. But the AG’s letter doesn’t say that.

So the point is driven home: there’s no status truly equivalent to marriage. There’s just marriage.