Cowardly Lion: Howard Dean and Civil Unions

by: NanuqFC

Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 21:16:00 PM EDT

I like civil unions. Lots less baggage than "marriage." We get to invent our own traditions, or carry on parts of the old ones, or take on the whole marriage panoply of ceremony and tradition as we like.

But -- and you knew there would be a "but" -- what sticks in my craw are comments like those of Howard "Fifty State" Dean, the former governor who signed Vermont's civil unions bill secretively, behind closed doors, so as not to offend the bigots or allow the queers and their equality-minded allies opportunity to celebrate. Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate who made millions of dollars for his 2004 campaign from hopeful queers across the country, thanks in large part to gay and lesbian Vermonters who campaigned for him among out-of-state communities he otherwise had no clue how to address, shows an odd mix of almost-courage buried in cowardice. It's as if his heart for justice is battling his fearful political instincts, and unfortunately there is no well-meaning but ultimately fraudulent Wizard of Oz to give him a medal so he could finally go with justice.

About New Hampshire's enactment of civil unions, a step toward equality for gay and lesbian couples, Howard Dean, the current kingmaker of the Democratic Party, said in a statement carried by WCAX TV:

You know I don't think marriage or civil unions are a national issue. I think the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. Clearly the states have the right to make these kinds of decisions about benefits and legal relationships and that's always been the way it is. I think there should be less federal regulation not more.

Okay, he threw one good line in there: "I think the defense of marriage act [DOMA] is unconstitutional." That's the courageous Lion part.

The problems with the rest of his statement are below the fold.

Clearly the states have the right to make these kinds of decisions about benefits and legal relationships and that's always been the way it is. I think there should be less federal regulation not more. [emphasis mine]

Problem #1: When the federal government exercised no say in marriage laws of individual states, 13 or 14 states decided that whites and African Americans could not legally marry. That issue was dealt with in the Loving v. Viginia Supreme Court ruling.

Problem #2: No civil union is recognized by the federal government, which grants more than a thousand rights and benefits to married couples.

Here are two major examples of the consequences of not having equal federal rights and benefits: income tax and health care.

Income tax: Every year my partner and I have to do two federal tax returns apiece: one as if we were filing separately, as legal strangers; one as if we could file jointly, as the all-but-married, civilly united couple that we are. Because Vermont's state taxes are a percentage of federal taxes, and the federal government does not recognize our legal relationship, the second federal return is required to enable us to file our state taxes as a couple.

Not only do we have to give the state copies of our fake second federal return in order to prove our numbers (which no mixed-gender married couple has to do),  but because we do not get to file federal tax returns as a couple, we lose out on more than a thousand dollars a year in refunds. Screw all that whining about the so-called "marriage penalty." We -- and all other Vermont gay and lesbian civil union couples -- lose serious cash every year on a major "civil union penalty."

Howard Dean's support of "states' rights" with regard to marriage and civil unions ignores this federally enforced major economic disadvantage.

Health care: One of Bush's few "big ideas" (other than war as a vehicle for transfer of wealth) was employer-and-employee-funded, consumer-controlled "Health Care Savings Accounts" to supplement (in some cases to replace) employer-paid health insurance. It was supposed to help slow the growth of health care expenses by enlisting the consumer in making choices based on cost and real necessity not just on whether the insurance plan would pay for any given piece of premium care.

Even if you accept the premise (and so far I can't say it has worked well), it is a federal program. Because it is a federal program, the amount of my spouse's health care savings account money we can use for my health care expenses is: ZERO. Zip. Nada. Nichts. Nothing. At the same time, married couples can use their health care savings account money for any family member's expenses. My spouse's employer has made an HCSA part of its diminishing health insurance benefit package.

And that's not even mentioning all the other issues from Social Security survivor's benefits to buying a family pass to national parks.

So, Mr. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, thanks for the incremental step toward equality in Vermont. Thanks for supporting civil unions so that Heartland Democrats who are confused or uncertain, or fear that the issue will bite them in the next election will know that their party's leader thinks civil unions are okay (but not "gay marriage") -- and just in case that's too scary, that he supports "states' rights." BTW, your statement on civil unions appears nowhere on the DNC site, so maybe I'm giving you more credit than you deserve.

The courage you showed seven years ago in signing Vermont's civil unions law and your cowardice in doing it "in the closet" shows in what you did not say this week: "States should be able to define marriage and civil unions, and in the name of equality for ALL Americans, as long as the federal government awards benefits to married couples, those benefits must also be awarded equally to partners in civil union."