Elegante 1

Anastacia Elegante
Fiona Harris-Ramsby
English 2010-409
July 3, 2016
Gay Marriage in Todays World

Today, it is hard to turn

on the news, or your
computer without
hearing about the topic
of gay marriage and the
rights of those who fall
into this category. We
are constantly hearing
about the way they are not being treated fairly or even like traditional married couples.
As everyone knows, gay marriage is now legal in Utah, couples no longer have to go
out of state to get their marriage license, like they did before. With this paper, I intend to
shed some light on some key hot topics when it comes to the people involved in samesex marriage and try to form my own opinion based on the research I do and the
information I can find in that research.
First I want to talk about insurance, health and dental that we are provided when
we are employed. In the workplace, we have certain benefits that come with being an

Elegante 2
employee and being able to provide insurance for ourselves and our family is one of
those benefits. Where my husband works, he is able to provide insurance coverage for
not only himself, but for our kids and me as well. He is able to insure me because we
are married, what many same-sex couples are having issues with in the work place is
the lack of willingness to provide coverage for their same-sex partner by their employer.
Even though we have been told gay marriage is now legal and something we should all
accept there are still places that do not want to allow such coverage. For example, The
U.S. Supreme Courts recent nationwide legalization of gay marriage effectively stripped
away many legal protections for employers that dont offer benefits to employees gay
spouses for religious reasons. Still, several employers, including colleges with religious
affiliations, have indicated they wont change their benefits policies despite the high
courts June 26 ruling in James Obergefell et al. v. Richard Hodges et al. Employers that
self-insure their health plans can still elect not to cover employees same-sex spouses
even if they cover married opposite-sex couples, since those plans are not governed by
state laws (Dunning) What I can appreciate about where my husband works, is even
before we were married, I was able to be covered by his insurance as his domestic
partner. His place of employment is one of the places that has never had any issue
covering same-sex partners and even donates money to pride festivals each year.
While I can appreciate the fairness his employer provides to every single employee and
their spouse, no matter their gender, I also wonder is forcing the employers to provide
this service is violating the employers rights? When are people allowed to say no to

Elegante 3
something that goes against everything they believe in or something that makes them
uncomfortable?
Along with insurance coverage, we hear a lot about taxes of same-sex couples
and their social security benefits. Unlike employers not wanting to provide insurance for
same-sex couples, it seems like the government has no issue treating these couples
like traditionally married ones
when it comes to taxes and taking
their money, as shown in the
chart to the left. From now on,
same-sex married couples will be
able to file jointly at the federal
and state level. That should save
money on tax-preparation costs,
but it's not much solace if you end up with a higher tax bill because of the so-called
marriage penalty. The penalty kicks in when a couple filing a joint return pay a higher tax
bill than they would have filing as two singles. It typically affects spouses who are both
in the 28% tax bracket or higher. (Block) Based on my research, same-sex couples are
being treated no differently than traditional married couples when it comes to taxes or
any other benefits. We all get to file jointly or separately and get the same penalties for
being married and making too much by having more money taken from us because of it.
As far as social security benefits, there was some concern whether same-sex couples
would be able to receive the survivor benefits, but from my research, I am unable to find

Elegante 4
any evidence saying that they are unable to, in fact, I have found the opposite as shown
here Social Security. Before the Supreme Court's ruling this year, it was unclear
whether married couples who lived in the 13 states that prohibited same-sex marriage
were eligible for Social Security spousal and survivor benefits, says Colleen Carcone,
wealth planning director for TIAA-CREF. Now, all married same-sex couples can take
advantage of strategies that could increase their overall benefits, such as file-andsuspend (see "Social Security: The Best Path for You," Jan. 2015). Same-sex spouses
are also eligible for a share of a spouse's veterans' and pension benefits. (Block) So
far, what I can gather is that the government is treating these couples the exact same as
every other couple, it is the private parties, such as employers, that are making a stand
for their own beliefs and making the separation as far as rights and what they are willing
to allow.
The next hot topic I have
heard a lot about is should samesex couples be allowed to foster
or adopt children. There are many
people who believe children need
to raised by a man and a woman
to get exposure to both roles in
the home. Others believe that
same-sex couples can do just as
good of a job as anyone. As

Elegante 5
shown in the picture here, there are many people with different opinions. The following
statement shows us that despite studies, people are still weary of wanting a same-sex
couple to adopt or foster a child based on the worry of how they will be raised and fare
emotionally. The issue in the foster child case, according to confirmed statements from
the sealed family courtroom, was that the judge, in his decision Tuesday, cited "myriad"
studies that suggest adopted children fare better in households with heterosexual
parents. Though plenty of research has rebutted such findings, Judge Johansen was far
from alone in holding those beliefs. The Michigan Legislature, for example, in June
passed a bill that allows religious adoption agencies, many of which receive public
funds, to refuse serving same-sex couples if an adoption conflicts with the
organization's religious beliefs. (Jonsson) Just like in the issue involving insurance,
does the organization involved with the foster child have a right to chose who gets to
adopt or foster a child and why? This is the question running through may peoples
minds. When does trumping one groupss rights to give another group their rights go too
far? When do these organizations have the right to choose or the right to refuse? In
forcing certain places to go against their own beliefs to allow something they don't
believe in to happen, are we then as a society violating their rights? As a society we try
to make everyone happy and make them feel safe and that they are being treated fairly.
But it also seems to be a waiting game and we learn to be more accepting as a general
public as well. This statement I found was one I really liked and I think says a lot to who
we are as people who live in Utah and how we handle these sort of issues. "The
important thing about the Utah statute [is] ... it never would

Elegante 6
have gotten anywhere if there had not been a lot of appreciation, particularly by the
Mormons and conservative Republicans, that LGBT people are part of the community,"
William Eskridge, a Yale Law School professor, told the Monitor's Harry Bruinius last
week. (Jonsson).
We hear a lot of controversy regarding how two parents of the same sex could
raise a well balanced child. People often wonder if these same-sex couples could raise
a well balanced child not only physically but emotionally as well. While I have yet to
really develop my own opinion on this topic as a whole I have found some great
research regarding this matter. When in doubt or when we are looking for answers, I
believe it is important to research many different sources to get the most information
possible. There are always plenty of studies happening about millions of different things
that can be researched to help us find answers. In the cart shown below, that I found on

Elegante 7
google, we can see how the poll taken here does not show much of a difference
between the kids who grew up in a heterosexual home versus a homosexual home. As
in my research I also found some information supporting the same thing. According to
a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics, "A growing body of scientific literature
demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as
well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents
are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the
nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular
structural form it takes." Since that report was published in 2002, a number of additional
studies have been published showing that children with same sex parents do at least as
well on the outcomes studied as children as opposite sex parents. This is why the other
major psychological and health organizations have made resolutions supporting same
sex marriage and parenting.(Mustanski).
With all of the different tools we have on hand, I believe we can take a hot topic,
such as this one about same-sex marriage, and so enough research to help us form our
own opinions. In this paper my goal is to provide such resources so each person can
make their own opinions on whether as a society, here in Utah, are we treating people
fairly and making sure everyones rights are being protected.

Works Cited
Block, Sandra. The Money Side of Same-Sex Marriage. Kiplingers Personal Finance
69.10 41-41. Print.
Dunning, Matt. Religious Employers Weigh Gay Marriage Dilemma. Business Journal
49.17 (2015)
Jonsson, Patrik. Foster Child case: how gay rights are playing out in conservative
Utah. The Christian Science Monitor (2015)
Mustanski, Brian. Gay Marriage Is Not Harmful to Children. At Issue: Gay Marriage
(2012)