|
|
|
|
2004 Legislative Action Alert:
WHAT CAN YOU DO? Here Is What You Can Do!
Suggested topics: Following are some suggested points to raise in a letter compiled from the ACLU. To make your letter have a maximum impact, emphasize how this bill can affect you AND the welfare of the state in general. Some possible ideas include: 1) this will harm the state’s reputation and make it more difficult for major businesses to recruit and maintain employees. 2) the state already bans same-sex unions under Idaho code, and the federal defense of marriage act guarantees that states do not have to recognize same sex unions from other states, this amendment adds nothing of value to the state. How a Marriage Amendment Could Harm Unmarried Couples in Committed Relationships Laws which discriminate against any type of same-sex relationship recognition would prevent all unmarried couples in Idaho from seeking even the most basic protections for their relationships. The following are just a few of the harms that couples would face if these proposals become law. Family and Medical Leave – All families suffer the occasional emergency. Most employers, including state and local governments, are sympathetic and have generous leave policies that enable employees to take time off to tend to a spouse, child or other close family member who is sick or otherwise in need of emergency assistance. Legislation denying protection to unmarried couples would mean that all unmarried employees of state and local governments in committed relationships would risk losing their jobs if they took time off from work to look after their families in an emergency. The law also discourages private employers from providing family and medical leave policies to unmarried employees in committed relationships. Hospital Visitation – Hospitals often have rules that limit patient visits only to family members. These rules often prevent the partners in unmarried committed relationships from visiting their sick loved ones when they’re needed most. Sometimes they are prevented from seeing their loved ones for the last time. Legislation discriminating against unmarried couples would give hospitals the right to ignore the wishes of the patient and exclude visits by partners in unmarried committed relationships. Medical Decision-Making – In emergency medical situations where a patient is incapacitated or otherwise unable to make decisions, hospitals and emergency medical workers often defer important medical decisions to the patient’s next of kin. Most people in unmarried but committed relationships would prefer for their partners to make such decisions. Under laws denying rights to unmarried couples, hospitals are encouraged to ignore the wishes of the patient and consult with other family members – even if the patient’s wishes have been made clear to all. Bereavement Leave – Most employees, including all those who work for the state and local governments, are entitled to take bereavement leave at the death of a spouse, relative or relative of a spouse. Under current proposals, all those in unmarried but committed relationships are at risk of losing their jobs for taking time off to mourn the loss of their partners. Burial Rights – Absent a will or other legal documentation specifying the wishes of the deceased, Idaho law looks to the next of kin to make decisions regarding burial arrangements. Yet most people in unmarried but committed relationships would prefer that their surviving partners make such decisions. Under proposals which discriminate against unmarried couples, without a will or other legal documentation there are no guarantees that the surviving partner will have a say in burial arrangement decisions – regardless of the deceased’s expressed wishes. Health Insurance – State and local government employees have the option of securing health insurance coverage for their spouses. While unmarried employees in committed relationships do the same work, they do not have the option of providing these important benefits for their partners. Under the proposal, unmarried employees of the state and local governments in committed relationships would be prevented from seeking health insurance coverage for their partners. Similarly, while private employers, including many in Idaho, have chosen to provide partner insurance coverage, proposed legislation would discourages them from doing so in Idaho. Pension Benefits – Many employers provide pension plans that include benefits for the spouses of employees. While plans vary, spouses are usually provided a percentage of the pension benefit that the employee receives, often even after the employee passes away. Unmarried employees of the state and local governments who are involved in committed relationships would be unable to provide these important benefits to their partners. Similarly, the amendment acts to discourage private employers from providing these benefits. A constitutional amendment defining marriage, and prohibiting recognition of any other committed relationship is unwise and unnecessary. The amendment would result in real harm to real people. Why the Constitution should not be Amended · The Idaho Constitution was written to protect our rights. It should not be amended to allow discrimination and deny basic rights to anyone. · With the many problems that the Legislature needs to address, spending time and resources to amend the Idaho Constitution to make a pronouncement about marriage is divisive and unnecessary. · The Idaho Constitution is not the place to change morality every time someone has an idea about what that morality should be. · Gay Americans serve in the military, keep our communities safe as firefighters and police officers, staff our hospitals, build our cities, and pay taxes. Denying gay couples any recognition of their committed relationships takes away their legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitation, and inheritance that married couples enjoy. This discrimination should be ended. · Today we look back, almost disbelieving, on the time when many Americans did not tolerate relationships between Catholics and Protestants or between whites and blacks. This amendment would deny basic rights to committed couples simply because they are gay or lesbian. · The proposed amendment changes our Constitution. It is unnecessary, unwise and politically motivated. |
|
