A new Washington Post-ABC poll shows support for gay marriage equality at a new high with 58% of Americans stating they support marriage equality. It’s no surprise that people between 18-29 years old support marriage equality by an enormous margin: 81% of people in that age group favor it. The real surprise is that the report also shows that a majority of Republicans are now in support though their level of support is a smaller margin than other groups.

Also the results suggest that even in states where marriage equality is still illegal, there is majority support for it. The report goes on to state that the public’s opinion of homosexuality as a whole has changed. Polling shows that 62 percent of Americans now say being gay is just the way some people are, not something people choose to be. A significant increase over the same polling done several years ago.

It gives us a positive feeling going into the arguments that will take place in the Supreme Court next week as the Court prepares to decide the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  The cases up for review are United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to California’s Proposition 8.

Related articles

• Mexican Supreme Court Rules That Bans on Gay Marriage Are Unconstitutional

Chris Kluwe (Photo credit: rburtzel)

Proposition 8. It’s no surprise that the brief was initiated by Brendon Ayanbadejo of the Baltimore Ravens and Chris Kluwe of the Minnesota Vikings.  Both athletes were vocal in their support for gay marriage rights during the recent election.

“Athletes are learning that they can no longer say ‘I am not a role model’—that they are forced to be a role model and privileged to be a role model, and that their words and actions, no matter how innocently intended, are magnified for both good and bad,” the brief reads. “If the Court reverses the Ninth Circuit, many professional athletes will take their cues from that. And that will cause a ripple effect as even more people follow their role models, their leaders, their heroes.”

The supporters added that acknowledging same-sex marriages will also lead to more young people respecting LGBT and understanding the consequences of bullying and abuse. This may be the biggest plus in having athletes support gay and lesbian rights – the view that it’s not ok for athletes to bully others.

More athletes and sporting professionals can sign the document – and let’s hope they do – but the full list of initial signers as reported by The Advocate are as follows:

Chris Kluwe
NFL punter, Minnesota Vikings

Brendon Ayanbadejo
NFL linebacker, 2012 Super Bowl Champion Baltimore Ravens
Three-Time Pro Bowler

Scott Fujita
NFL linebacker, including with 2009 Super Bowl Champion New Orleans Saints

Marie Tillman
President and Co-Founder, Pat Tillman Foundation, a national leader in providing resources and educational scholarship support to veterans

Russell Simmons
Businessman and founder of Def Jam Records and Phat Farm clothing

Rick Welts
President & Chief of Operations, Golden State Warriors

Cheryl Reeve
WNBA Head Coach, Minnesota Lynx
WNBA Champion & Coach of the Year 2011
All-conference point guard, LaSalle

Pokey Chatman
WNBA Head Coach, Chicago Sky

Dominique Foxworth
President, NFL Players Association
Former NFL cornerback

Demaurice Smith
Executive Director, NFL Players Association

Patrick Nero
Athletic Director, George Washington U.

Kenneth Faried
NBA player, Denver Nuggets
All-American at Morehead State University

Robbie Rogers
Soccer Player, formerly with U. of Maryland, U.S. men’s national soccer team, and professionally with Columbus Crew (2008 MLS Cup winner) and Leeds United

Rashad Evans
Michigan State wrestler
Former UFC light heavyweight champion

Hudson Taylor
Division I Three-Time All-American wrestler
Columbia University coach
Hunter Hillenmeyer
Former NFL linebacker with Chicago Bears
Founder, OverDog, a service to connect fans to athletes via videogames

Esera Tuaolo
Former NFL defensive tackle and nose tackle
Board member of the Gay and Lesbian Athletics Foundation
Author of “Alone In The Trenches: My Life As A Gay Man In The NFL”

Wade Davis, Jr.
Former NFL Player
Frequent author and speaker on the issue of LGBT individuals in athletics

David Kopay
Former running back with the San Francisco 49ers, Detroit Lions, Washington Redskins, New Orleans Saints, and Green Bay Packers

Adam Podlesh
NFL punter, Chicago Bears

Eric Barton
Former NFL linebacker with Oakland Raiders, New York Jets, and Cleveland Browns

Chris Gocong
NFL linebacker, Cleveland Browns

Alex Mack
NFL Center, Cleveland Browns
Winner of Draddy Trophy, the “academic Heisman”

Steve Gleason
Former NFL Safety, New Orleans Saints
Founder, Team Gleason, raising awareness of ALS

Connor Barwin
NFL linebacker, Philadelphia Eagles, formerly with Houston Texans

Kawika Mitchell
Former NFL linebacker, New York Giants, Buffalo Bills, and New Orleans Saints
2007 Super Bowl Champion with Giants

D’Qwell Jackson
NFL Linebacker, Cleveland Browns
Elected team captain

Eric Winston
NFL Offensive Lineman, most recently with Kansas City Chiefs

Scott Shanle
NFL Linebacker, most recently with New Orleans Saints
2009 Super Bowl Champion with Saints

Sean Avery
Former NHL Left Wing with Detroit Red Wings, Los Angeles Kings, Dallas Stars and New York Rangers

Joe Briggs
Former Texas Christian U. football player
Public Policy Counsel with NFL Players Association
Professor, Georgetown University

Michelle Marciniak
Former point guard and National Champion (and MVP) with Tennessee Vols, and Seattle Storm of the WNBA
Former Asst. Coach – Univ. of S. Carolina
Co-Founder — Sheex luxury performance bed sheets

Susan Walvius
Former head women’s basketball coach at Virginia Commonwealth U., WVU, and U. of South Carolina
Co-Founder — Sheex luxury performance bed sheets

Beth Brooke
Global Vice-Chair, Public Policy, Ernst & Young
Former women’s basketball player, Purdue U.

James Cantelupe
Director, Barclays (Chicago)
Former NFL defensive back with Chicago ears and All-American defensive back with Army (West Point)

April Ross
Professional beach volleyball player
National Freshman of the Year and All-American at USC
2012 Olympic Silver Medalist, Beach Volleyball

Jennifer Kessy
Professional beach volleyball player
All-American at USC
2012 Olympic Silver Medalist, Beach Volleyball

Seimone Augustus
WNBA guard/forward, Minnesota Lynx
Two-time Olympic gold medalist
Three-time All-America with LSU
2011 WNBA Champion (Finals MVP) and three-time All-Star

Rebekkah Brunson
WNBA Forward, Minnesota Lynx
2011 WNBA All-Star
Founder, 32 Foundation, sponsoring academic and athletic opportunities for youth in the DC area

Kia Vaughn
WNBA center, Washington Mystics

Katura Horton-Perinchief
First female Bermudian to compete in Olympic diving

Jayne Appel
WNBA All-Star center, San Antonio Silver Stars

Tabi Bonney (Tabiabué Bonney)
Togo-born, Washington D.C.-based rapper
Former high school science teacher

I don’t have a lot to add to this but as an athlete, and someone who has always loved sports, it makes me happy to read this. Sure, given the thousands of sports figures in the U.S., it could have been more but we have to start somewhere, right?  It’s also good to see so many of Minnesota athletes (past and present – I count 5) on the list, including the head coach of the Minnesota Lynx – makes me feel even better about taking my daughter to their games.

Map of USA with Florida highlighted (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Florida legislators have tabled a bill that would have created a domestic-partnership registry for same-sex (and opposite-sex) couples. State Sen. Eleanor Sobel, (D-Hollywood) introduced SB 196, the Families First Act, to the Florida Senate Committee on Children, Families and Elder Affairs. It would have granted a few of the legal privileges of marriage: hospital and prison visitation, end-of-life decision-making and burial arrangements.

Many Florida areas already offer domestic partnerships—including Orange County, Broward County, Key West. Tampa, Miami, Orlando and Clearwater—but obviously a statewide registry would eliminate a lot of confusion and red tape.

LGBT advocacy groups are disappointed but not deterred by the news: “We will call on those who say they would support a different version [of the bill] to keep their word and help craft an amendment that provides these essential protections,” said Nadine Smith of Equality Florida.

Mexico’s Supreme Court announced its decision Monday that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutionally discriminatory.  Ironically, as the US Supreme Court is readying to hear arguments on whether the

On Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage in 1967, Zaldívar wrote (translated from its original Spanish):

The historical disadvantages that homosexuals have suffered have been well recognized and documented: public harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination in their employment and in access to certain services, in addition to their exclusion to some aspects of public life. In this sense … when they are denied access to marriage it creates an analogy with the discrimination that interracial couples suffered in another era. In the celebrated case Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court argued that “restricting marriage rights as belonging to one race or another is incompatible with the equal protection clause” under the US constitution.

Zaldívar also wrote that it would also be contrary to the principles of the 1954 school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education to restrict same-sex couples to civil unions or domestic partnerships while barring them from marriage.

It can be said that the [other] models for recognition of same-sex couples, even if the only difference with marriage be the name given to both types of institutions, are inherently discriminatory because the constitute a regime of “separate but equal.” Like racial segregation, founded on the unacceptable idea of white supremacy, the exclusion of homosexual couples from marriage also is based on prejudice that historically has existed against homosexuals. Their exclusion from the institution of marriage perpetuates the notion that same-sex couples are less worthy of recognition than heterosexuals, offending their dignity as people.

The Mexican marriage case was the first test in any Latin American court of whether the decision in Atala’s case can be applied to marriage rights. The court held that it could, writing that Atala requires the rejection of “a regime of separate-but-equal marriage.” But, due to technicalities of Mexico’s legal system, only the three couples who brought this case will be able to marry right away. Mexico City is still the only jurisdiction inside Mexico where marriage between same-sex couples is fully legal; several more lawsuits will have to be brought before that right is available nationwide.

Unlike in the United States, Mexico’s Supreme Court may only strike down a law once it has ruled the same way in five separate cases. The current ruling concerns three separate cases, so it will take two more for any same-sex couple in Oaxaca to be able to wed easily, and then the process may have to be repeated in other states. But this case means that this is no longer a legal issue but, instead, becomes a matter of time and procedure before others in Mexico may easily marry their same-sex partners.

Is it all Doom & Gloom for the unmarried couple and unique family?

No, with the right strategies you may protect yourself and your family. One such tool is life insurance. Life insurance can provide a vehicle to address these concerns. It can replace income after the death of your partner, provide cash to pay potential estate taxes and provide funds that avoid probate.

Life insurance: Replacement income after a partner’s death

As the surviving partner in an unmarried couple, you may face a greater financial burden in maintaining your standard of living after the death of your partner than does a surviving spouse. You are not be eligible to receive income from many of the sources available to a surviving spouse, or you may receive only limited benefits. Life insurance provides a method to provide replacement income to your partner. You can structure this by cross-owning life insurance policies or by purchasing an individual policy with your partner as the beneficiary.

• Cross-owning life insurance policies—You each buy a policy on the other’s life. At your partner’s death, you collect the policy’s death benefit and invest the proceeds to produce the income you need. Because your partner did not own the policy, the proceeds will not be included in his or her estate for federal tax purposes. However, without proper planning, the value of the policy your partner owns on your life will be included in your partner’s estate for tax purposes. This means that when calculating the total value of your assets, the state and federal governments will include the life insurance policy. If your total assets are over $1,000,000 your estate will owe taxes to the state of Minnesota. If the total value is over $5,000,000, your estate will owe the federal government taxes.

Example(s): Shawn and Chris are an unmarried couple. They each buy a life insurance policy on the other. When Shawn died, Chris invested the proceeds and lives off the interest. Because Chris owned the policy, the proceeds paid upon Shawn’s death were not included in Shawn’s estate and were not subject to federal estate taxes when she died. However, the value of the policy Shawn owned on Chris’s life was included in Shawn’s estate for federal tax purposes.

• Individual policy—You own the policy, naming your partner as beneficiary.

Caution: Because you own the policy, it is includable in your estate when you die for federal estate tax purposes. Any amount over the estate applicable exclusion amount may be subject to estate taxes.

Example(s): Shawn owned a policy, naming Chris as the beneficiary. When Shawn died in 2012, the proceeds of the policy were includable in her estate. If Shawn’s taxable estate exceeded the applicable exclusion amount of $5 million, the excess would be subject to estate tax beginning at a rate of 18 percent up to 35 percent. The potential estate tax on Shawn’s estate, including the value of life insurance she owned at his death, would have significantly cut into the amount available to Chris.

Further, you may avoid having the life insurance policy included in your estate for purposes of calculating your tax liability by working with an estate planning attorney to create an Irrevocable Life Insurance Policy (ILIT). The details of planning with an ILIT will be discussed in a later post.

Charlie Morgan, a chief warrant officer in the New Hampshire Army National Guard, passed away last week after a five-year battle with breast cancer, leaving behind her wife Karen and their daughter Casey. Morgan was a nationally recognized advocate in the effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. She was a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit in 2011 saying the act violated her constitutional rights. Once DADT was repealed, Morgan turned her attention to having the military recognize the rights (and subsequent benefits) of same-sex spouses of military personnel.  Her illness caused her to worry that her spouse and child would be denied the Social Security and other benefits to which opposite sex spouses are entitled under military policy.

DOMA, as existing law, requires the Pentagon to ignore same-sex marriages. As such, Chief Warrant Officer Morgan’s spouse will not receive any surviving spouse benefits from the military.  But, numerous members of Congress seek to remedy that situation.

The Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act, re-introduced with about 40 co-sponsors as of Thursday, would allow the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs to recognize any marriage that has been recognized by a state, the District of Columbia, commonwealths, territories or possessions and provide the same benefits to the spouses of all service members. The act is designed to act as a stopgap between Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s announcement earlier this week to extend more rights to same-sex military couples, and the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from officially recognizing marriages of gay and lesbian couples.

“While we wait for a decision from the Supreme Court on DOMA, we look forward to seeing action from the President and the next Secretary of Defense to make sure our troops and their families are protected from discrimination and prejudice,” said American Military Partner Association president Stephen Peters.

Panetta’s announcement this week will allow same-sex military partners to obtain dependent identification cards, family support programs, child care, joint assignments, and other benefits. Still other benefits, such health care and housing allowances, can only be granted to same-sex couples once the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed, because those statutes are governed using the words “spouse” and “marriage.” DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of same-sex couples.

“All spouses in the military, regardless of orientation, put up with tremendous hardships, and it’s time we recognize their contribution and sacrifice with true equality,” Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the lead sponsor on the bill, said Thursday.

English: Official photo of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced this morning that he, along with Senate colleague Susan Collins (R-ME), will re-introduce the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA).  Senator Leahy reiterated his support for UAFA’s inclusion in any immigration reform bill stating:

“We must also do better by gay and lesbian Americans who face discrimination in our immigration law,” Senator Leahy said during his opening remarks. “Today, Senator Susan Collins and I will introduce the Uniting American Families Act.  This legislation will end the needless discrimination so many Americans face in our immigration system. Too many citizens, including Vermonters who I have come to know personally and who want nothing more than to be with their loved ones, are denied this basic human right.  This policy serves no legitimate purpose and it is wrong.”

Senator Leahy and Senator Collins are now part of a coalition of leaders, including President Obama, who have pledged their support for LGBT families.

Related Articles

Immigration to Consider Gay Relationship in Deportation Cases

As you may know, I write this blog because I love educating those in our community about how to protect their families.  Why then haven’t I written since September? Because in September both of my parents fell in and both died in November. Given the travel between hospitals in California and Minnesota and handling client matters I didn’t have the time, or energy, to continue writing my blog.

The timing of my absence was unfortunate as this was an historic time for the Gay and Lesbian community with 3 states (Maine, Maryland and Washington) voting to allow gay couples to marry. Further, my own home state, defeated the hateful bid to amend our Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

I was in a hospital in California with my Mom when the results came in that Minnesotans would defeat this awful amendment. It was such a bittersweet moment. In addition to being in a hospital to say goodbye to my Mom, my Dad died that same day.  Even though he was a devout Catholic, he had looked forward to voting against the amendment and would have loved seeing it defeated.

I was, and am, so proud of my state for turning away such hatred, especially as Minnesota already has a “mini-DOMA” and the State Supreme Court held in 1972 that gay couples don’t have a right to marry so the amendment was merely icing on a hate-filled cake.

I have heard so many stories of hope in our community lately and keep thinking “I want to write about that on The Gay Estate.”  Now that it’s 2013 I plan to look forward and take steps to return The Gay Estate to it’s glory as a Top Rated Blog in Minnesota. So, stay tuned and thanks for your support.

Chris

Related articles

• Minnesotans Vote Against Ban On Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court says it will hear two days’ worth of arguments over laws affecting gay marriage during the last week of March.  Justices on Monday announced they will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26 and United States v. Windsor on March 27.

The first case involves California’s constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex marriage (Proposition 8). The second concerns a federal law that denies gay couples who legally marry the right to obtain federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples. The court scheduled one hour’s worth of arguments on each day but may extend the amount of time given to arguments in each case.

The issues in Windsor are (a) whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State; (b) whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (c) whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.

And in Hollingsworth the issues are (1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case.

This is shaping up to be an interesting year for the gay and lesbian community and the Supreme Court.

The person you choose will want to follow your wishes as much as possible so please take the time to communicate them now.

One way to discuss these issues with your family, friends and chosen advisors is to break them down into small discussions.  Instead of making time for a 3 hour conversation about the decisions you’ve made perhaps you could start with a talk about why your chosen guardian is important to you and what led you to chose that person for such a crucial role.  Then you can have a follow-up conversation to talk about your hopes and wishes for your child which led you to choosing a guardian.

Chances are you will both (all) be uncomfortable and you have no control over other people’s reaction to what you’re going to say.  So why not handle the details over which you do have control?  You are asking others to listen to the most important decisions you may have to make in your life, so treat them well and lighten the mood a bit. Pick a favorite place (restaurant, park or beach) and have some food and wine (beer) while discussing these difficult topics.

While these subjects are crucial and you want to be able to convey every hope and dream you have for your child in one big meeting, keep in mind that it the subject matter is heavy and uncomfortable. And remember, if the person with whom you’re speaking looks off and says, “look, a school bus,” it may be a good time to schedule another meeting to pick up where this one left off.

photo credit: mars-hill