The Six Financial Mistakes Couples Make

The Six Financial Mistakes Couples Make
By Aleksandra Todorova, smartmoney.com/WNBC.com

IF YOU AND YOUR partner are like most couples, chances are, you fight about money. Numerous studies have shown that money is the No. 1 reason why couples argue — and many of the recently divorced say those battles were the main reason why they untied the knot.

While anyone will tell you that talking about money is the first step in resolving problems, talk alone won't do the trick.

In fact, a recent study commissioned by SmartMoney magazine and Redbook, another Hearst publication (SmartMoney magazine and SmartMoney.com are jointly published by Dow Jones and Hearst), found that more than 70% of couples talk about money on a weekly basis. So what's the problem? "Most of us don't know how to talk about money," says Mary Claire Allvine, a certified financial planner (CFP) and co-author of "The Family CFO: The Couple's Business Plan for Love and Money."

"People tend to be emotional and reactive about money, not strategic," she says.

When emotions run high, people tend to make fiscal mistakes. Allvine's solution: Approach family finances as if you were running a business. "If you put a business metaphor into the picture, you'd be surprised how much more methodical people are."

And so, to help make your next state-of-the-financial-union meeting run smoothly, we've assembled a collection of the six most common mistakes couples make when handling money issues, along with some advice on how to correct them. Do yourself a favor: Make sure all board members review this before you talk.

1. Merging the Finances
The Wrong Approach: United we stand, divided we bank.
The Right Approach: It's yours, mine and ours.

One of the first issues newlyweds face is how to handle their finances. "Couples struggle about this one," says Ruth Hayden, author of "For Richer, Not Poorer: The Money Book for Couples." Should you merge everything you have and earn into one joint account, or should you maintain individual accounts and open a joint one for household expenses?

SmartMoney magazine's survey found that the majority of couples (64%) put all of their money in joint accounts, while 14% kept everything in separate accounts, and 18% had both. "Married couples should try different ways of handling the money to see what works for them," says Ginita Wall, CFP and co-founder of the Women's Institute for Financial Education.

For many newlyweds, the right choice may be somewhere in the middle. "You should have some autonomy money, I should have some autonomy money, and we need to learn how to practice being a couple together with our money," says Hayden.

The advice is different when one spouse enters the marriage with a high debt load. (See our next point below.) But assuming you both have a clean bill of fiscal health, finding a way to blend finances comfortably without feeling like big brother is watching every financial move you make can dramatically cut down on fights. Over time — once kids and mortgages come into play — many couples find that merging all their finances is simply easier. But unless you're both comfortable with the idea, there's no need to rush things.

2. Dealing With Debt
The Wrong Approach: Your debt will ruin us; you must find a way to pay it off.
The Right Approach: It's our debt: Let's decide how to pay it off together.

Of all the issues that spark a fight, debt ranked No. 1 for most (37%) of SmartMoney's survey respondents. "That's one of the places where couples have most disagreement," says Hayden. Couples often don't see eye to eye on how much debt is too much and which kind of debt is bad.

Compounding the problem: in many cases, one spouse enters the marriage with a lot more debt than the other. "We saw that more frequently than we anticipated when we began interviewing couples [for our book]," says Allvine. "It's almost unavoidable. Even if you manage to get to your 20s or 30s without debt, you hook up with a partner who's in debt."

What to do in situations like that? Like it or not, once you're married, your spouse's debts can become your problem. Granted, you're not legally responsible for the credit-card balances ran up before you got married, or for any loans opened in your spouse's name alone — provided you keep your finances completely separate. (Unfortunately, all bets are off should you get divorced. For more on that, click here). But even with separate finances, your spouse's credit score will affect your ability to get joint credit. "It's a public [credit reporting] system, and what you do will absolutely affect the other," says Hayden.

For those couples not yet married, it may be worthwhile to think about a prenup, just to make sure that assets that one spouse brings into a marriage will always be protected from the other spouse's creditors.

But those who've already tied the knot should find a way to pay down the debts as quickly as possible, and without any late payments. For help with this, visit our Debt Management center.

3. Keeping Spending in Check
The Wrong Approach: I'm a saver and you're a spender. That's the problem.
The Right Approach: We both spend, but on different things. Let's budget.

Your husband keeps nagging at you that you spend too much — but then comes home one day with a huge smile and — surprise! — a 70-inch flat-screen plasma TV. He happily explains how he sealed the "terrific" deal. You're definitely not impressed.

Sound familiar? Spending is the second most common reason why couples fight, according to SmartMoney's survey. What usually happens, explains Hayden, is that one spouse gets labeled the "spender" and is blamed for skimming all the money out the checkbook. In most cases, however, that's not accurate. "Studies show that men and women spend the same, they just spend differently," she says. Women usually take care of most of the family's daily expenses: the groceries, the bills, clothes for the family — while men spend on large purchases like plasma TVs, cars or computers. "If you counted up your money, you would be spending about the same," Hayden says. "But because you spend so differently, the perception is different."

The solution here is to identify the real problem, Hayden says — namely, that you're both spending money on a tight budget. Then sit down and decide how much money you'll allocate to the "dailyness" of life, and how much to save for the big purchases. "What we're trying to do is get the 'Surprise!' out of it," she says.

Ruling applies only in Polk County, which will appeal

Judge: Ban on gay marriage invalid

BY JEFF ECKHOFF AND JASON CLAYWORTH:
Des Moines REGISTER STAFF WRITERS

Gary Seronko and Curtis Rethmeir made a split-second decision Thursday to get married.

They rushed to the Polk County recorder's office and applied for a marriage license a half-hour after a Polk County judge ruled that Iowa law improperly prohibits same-sex couples from marrying.

Unless the judge agrees to delay implementation of his ruling, Seronko and Rethmeir next week will become the first same-sex couple to legally marry in Iowa.

"We just looked at each other and said, let's go," said Seronko.

District Judge Robert Hanson, citing what he said is the inherent unfairness of an Iowa law that says that "only a marriage between a male and a female is valid," ordered the Polk County recorder on Thursday to begin applying state marriage rules "in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage."

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office intends to appeal the ruling, which for now applies only to Polk County.

County lawyers late Thursday formally asked Hanson to block implementation of his decision until the issue is resolved by the Iowa Supreme Court. A hearing on the request for a stay could come as early as today.

Meanwhile, the ruling has reinvigorated calls for an Iowa Constitution amendment outlawing same-sex marriages.

Amendments to the Iowa Constitution need to be approved by simple majorities in both the House and Senate in two successive sessions of the Legislature and then be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election.

Gov. Chet Culver said he plans "to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."

"While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Culver said.

Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Democrat from Des Moines, advised people to "take a deep breath and calm down."

McCarthy noted that recent legislation clarified lawmakers' intent that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's likely that the issue will go before the Iowa Supreme Court and take months, or even more than a year, to be resolved, he said.

McCarthy warned that Iowans should expect to see marriage used in political campaigns. "I have no doubt there will be attempts to polarize, demonize and separate people on this issue," McCarthy said.

County officials said Seronko, 51, and Rethmeir, 29, were the only Polk County same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license Thursday. Under Iowa's mandatory three-business-day waiting period, they cannot use their license before Wednesday. The men spent Thursday afternoon quickly planning a wedding for next week.

"Now that it's legal at the moment, we thought we'd better get down there," Seronko said of the county recorder's office. "Even if they try to change it, I think we're still going to try to have a ceremony on Wednesday."

Hanson ruled that the law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution.

His ruling came in a 2005 lawsuit brought by six gay and lesbian couples (meet the plaintiff couples) against then-Polk County Recorder Tim Brien. The judge rejected the state's arguments that a ban on same-sex marriages "promotes procreation," promotes child-rearing by different-sex couples, "promotes stability in opposite-sex relationships," conserves state and private resources, and promotes "the concept of fundamental marriage or the integrity of traditional marriage."

"This court has yet to hear any convincing argument as to how excluding same-sex couples from getting married promotes responsible reproduction in general or by different-sex couples in particular," Hanson wrote. "So far as this court can tell, (the law) operates only to harm same-sex couples and their children."

Camila Taylor, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, a gay-civil-rights organization that backed the lawsuit, said the judge's decision amounts to recognition that "gay and lesbian couples and their children deserve equal treatment from their governments just as any other couple."

Jennifer Barbouroske, a plaintiff from Iowa City, said she and her partner were "very excited" by the ruling but were too busy caring for their children Thursday evening to rush to Des Moines for their marriage license. "We waited for 17 years," she said. "Everything is relative."

Some Iowa politicians responded to the ruling by renewing calls for a constitutional amendment. Other politicians praised the ruling as a step toward statewide equality.

"I've got to believe it will probably be challenged, but I think it does say something about the need for equality in all our laws, including our marriage laws," said state Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, an Ames Democrat. "I don't think we should discriminate against any group."

House Minority Leader Chris Rants, a Sioux City Republican, vowed to take more steps to change Iowa law to prevent same-sex marriages.

"I can't believe this actually happened in Iowa," Rants said of Hanson's ruling. "What it means is that one person has decided they know better than the whole Legislature." (continue?)

Gay couples line up in Des Moines for marriage licenses

Sean Fritz, left, and Tim McQuillan show their wedding license before getting married, Friday, Aug. 31, 2007, in Des Moines, Iowa. The Ames, Iowa, couple was married a day after a judge threw out the state's ban on same-sex marriage. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

By O.Kay Henderson Radio Iowa

Two Iowa State University students believe they are the first gay couple in Iowa to legally wed.

Twenty-four-year-old Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan stood under a shade tree as a Unitarian minister from Des Moines performed the hastily-arranged ceremony in his front yard at about 10:20 a.m.

Fritz proposed to McQuillan last night when he heard a Polk County judge had ruled Iowa's law forbidding gay marriage was unconstitutional. Fritz went to the store and bought wedding rings last night, then got on the Internet to find the paperwork for a Polk County marriage license.

"There was a lot of double-checking everything on the Internet to make sure that we got all the paperwork filled out correctly the first time," he says. "We didn't want to get refused because we messed up a 't' somewhere."

Fritz says he called McQuillan's mother in California to ask permission to marry her son. McQuillan says Fritz then got in touch with him. "He instant messaged me over the Internet that this was going on," McQuillan says. "When he picked me up around nine o'clock he proposed to me on the spot. Besides the obvious shock, I still haven't recovered. Maybe it'll set in later this week."

Michelle Garland of Ames, the couple's next-door-neighbor, served as a witness on the couple's marriage application and she lined up the judge who granted the waiver allowing the couple to try to marry today rather than wait the required three days before marrying. "I'm just so happy to be in Iowa for this and so happy to be a part of their wedding," she says.

Garland’s 10-year-old, Esther, was the flower girl for the ceremony. Both men had to stoop to sign the marriage license as the document was placed on the only flat surface available – the minister’s front sidewalk.

Gay couples started lining up outside the Polk County Recorder's office at five o'clock this morning.

Lori Septer of Altoona was among the first to fill out paperwork with her partner. "I was nervous, believe it or not," she says. "We've been together 12 years. We've waited for this, but I was still nervous. It's something I've never done in my life because I've never been afforded this right before so that's why we weren't going to waste any time."

Kelly Bertelsen was introduced to Septer 25 years ago by a mutual friend and they've lived together for 12 years. "If the stay doesn't go into effect, we'll be married on Thursday," she says. "We'll find a justice of the peace."

Bertelsen's mother, Sandy, was a witness for their marriage license application. "They are commited. They are great kids," she says. "They are just so happy."

Iowa Family Policy Center president Chuck Hurley calls the state of affairs this morning in Iowa "devastating" and "outrageous."

Hurley says it's time to defend the concept of one-man/one-woman marriage by passing an amendment to Iowa's constitution.

Late yesterday, a Polk County judge ruled a state law stipulating the only legal marriages in Iowa were between a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

You may listen to the marriage ceremony by clicking on the audio link below.

AUDIO: marriage ceremony (mp3 runs 6 min)

E-Mail this page...

Marriage Equality USA Praises the Iowa Court Decision

	Marriage Equality USA Praises the Iowa Court Decision
:	PRESS ADVISORY: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AUGUST 30, 2007 Marriage Equality USA Praises the Iowa Court Decision to Support the Opportunity for Same-Sex Couples to Marry Media Contacts: Molly McKay, Media Director, media@marriageequality.org Phyllis Stevens, Iowa Chapter Leader, ia-central@marriageequality.org Des Moines, Iowa: "Today is a truly profound day in America's heartland as we celebrate Polk County Iowa District Court 's ruling that loving, committed same-sex couples, many of whom have been together for decades, should indeed have the freedom to marry their beloved ,” said Marriage Equality USA Iowa Chapter Leader, Phyllis Stevens. In their decision, the Iowa Court ruled “Couples, such as Plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way be prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex.” “We applaud Lambda Legal's efforts and the courageous plaintiff couples who stepped forward and offered the truth of their lives as loving families to secure the freedom to marry for all same-sex couples in their state,” said Molly McKay, Media Director, Marriage Equality USA. “ We also celebrate the educational outreach efforts of our Marriage Equality USA Iowa Chapter working in coalition with other local advocates to sustain this momentum.” “The court applied the traditional Midwest value of fairness and inclusion. Iowa is home to thousands of same-sex couples who live in every county of this state. Providing these families equal protection is not only neighborly , but the right thing to do,” said Stevens. “This decision and the courage and perseverance of these families that share their stories on how the exclusion from marriage harms their families will help ensure that no family in the future is treated as second class and will help move this nation forward in the movement for same-sex couples to gain the over 1,000 federal rights and the tens of thousands of states’ rights that come with marriage and marriage alone.” “We are pleased to see so many advances made in support of marriage equality this year, from coast to coast and now expanding to include middle America. Marriage Equality USA will not rest until marriage equality is the law of the land from sea to shining sea ,” said McKay. “It is our honor and our responsibility to help correct this outstanding injustice.” Founded in 1998, Marriage Equality US.A is a national grassroots organization whose mission is to secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state level, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation . For more information go to www.marriageequality.org.

Iowa Court OK's Marriage for Same Sex Couples

BREAKING NEWS FROM LAMBDA LEGAL Iowa Court OK's Marriage for Same Sex Couples 'This decision brings to life the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality for same-sex couples and their families in Iowa.' (Des Moines, IA, August 30, 2007) ---- A 63 page decision issued today by the Iowa District Court for Polk County said that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry based on the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law. The case was filed by Lambda Legal on behalf of six same-sex couples and their families in Iowa. "This decision brings to life the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality for same-sex couples and their families in Iowa," said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. "This is a significant step forward in recognizing the constitutional rights of all Iowans, and it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa," said Dennis Johnson of Dorsey and Whitney, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs with Lambda Legal. In his decision, Judge Robert B. Hanson said, "Couples, such as Plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex." In December 2005, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit with the Polk County Court on behalf of six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Iowa, arguing that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa Constitution, and prevents these couples from taking care of each other and their children. Today's decision comes after a hearing in May of this year where both sides made arguments before the court. The plaintiffs in this case include: Kate, 34, and Trish Varnum, 42, of Cedar Rapids, who have been in a committed relationship for nearly seven years. In addition to the Varnums are David Twombley, 66, and Larry Hoch, 65, of Urbandale, both retired teachers who have been in a committed relationship for over six years; Dawn and Jen BarbouRoske, 39 and 37 respectively, of Iowa City, who have been together for more than 17 years and their two children, McKinley, 9, and Breeanna, 5; Ingrid Olson, 29, and Reva Evans, 33, of Council Bluffs, who have been together for nearly 10 years and their son, Jamison, 1; Jason Morgan, 37, and Chuck Swaggerty, 35, of Sioux City, who have been together for 10 years; and Bill Musser, 49, and Otter Dreaming, 50, of Decorah, who have been together for over six years. Camilla Taylor and Kenneth Upton Jr., Senior Staff Attorneys at Lambda Legal are handling the case. They are joined by former Iowa Solicitor General Dennis Johnson of Dorsey and Whitney in Des Moines. The case is Varnum v. Brien.

Read the full text of the decision.

Gays scornful of senator's statement

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer via Yahoo! News

NEW YORK - Sen. Larry Craig's "I'm not gay" declaration met with disdain Wednesday from gay activists, many of whom knew for nearly a year — long before his recent arrest — of allegations that the conservative Idaho Republican solicited sex from men in public bathrooms.

They view his case as a prime example of hypocrisy — a man who furtively engaged in same-sex liaisons while consistently opposing gay-rights measures as a politician.

"He may very well not think of himself as being gay, and these are just urges that he has," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "It's the tragedy of homophobia. People create these walls that separate themselves from who they really are."

AFP/Getty Images/File Photo: The US Republican Party, already sullied by sex and influence scandals, is reeling from a new political bomshell -- the arrest of conservative Republican Senator Larry Craig, pictured in 2005, by police probing lewd conduct incidents.(AFP/Getty Images/File/Win McNamee)

In Washington, some of Craig's fellow Republican congressmen began calling for his resignation, terming his conduct inappropriate. The White House expressed disappointment in the case while avoiding a statement of support for Craig.

Craig proclaimed his innocence, and his heterosexuality, on Tuesday after revelations that he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct following his arrest in June at a Minneapolis airport men's room where an undercover officer suspected him of soliciting sex.

But detailed accusations against Craig had been available since last year through an Internet-based activist who had a hand in outing several Republican politicians, including former Rep. Mark Foley, the focus of a House page scandal, and former Rep. Edward Schrock, linked to a gay dating site.

The activist, Mike Rogers, went public last October with allegations that Craig engaged in sexual encounters with at least three men, including one who said he had sex with Craig twice at Washington's Union Station.

The Idaho Statesman published a lengthy story Tuesday, a day after the June 11 arrest was first reported, detailing Rogers' allegations, which Craig has denied.

The newspaper went even further back into Craig's life, talking to other men who claimed they were solicited by him. It also mentioned a congressional scandal in 1982, in which a male page reported having sex with three congressmen, and Craig — although not named by the youth — issued a statement denying any wrongdoing.

The cumulative weight of the allegations served to convince many conservatives — as well as gay activists — that Craig was being untruthful.

"I ask Senator Craig to help us all by doing the right thing: Fess up to God and man, step aside and seek help," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, president of a conservative religious group, Faith and Action.

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, one of two openly gay members of Congress, chided Craig for hypocrisy but said there was no need for him to resign now.

"It's not an abuse of his office in the sense that he was taking money for corrupt votes," said Frank, D-Mass. "I think people should resign when they have clearly done the job in a way that is dishonest."

Rogers noted that some politicians, when confronted with evidence about same-sex encounters, have acknowledged their homosexuality — such as Frank and the late Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass. Others persist in denial, and Rogers contends they are fair game for exposure if they vote against gay-rights causes.

"I'd love for Larry Craig to come out and be honest with the people of Idaho and run as a Senate candidate and see if the Republican Party is the big tent they claim to be," Rogers said. However, he predicted that the Idaho GOP would be eager to get Craig — who is up for re-election in 2008 — out of politics.

Foreman said Craig contributed to his own problems by living in denial.

"For most people living in the closet, and particularly for people in power, they dig themselves in so deeply they can't see a way out," he said. "When they are found out, their life does come crashing down around them — not because they were gay, because of the way they covered it up."

However, Foreman did express some empathy with Craig in regard to the reaction of his GOP Senate colleagues. They have called for an ethics committee review of his case, which they did not do in response to revelations that Sen. David Vitter, R-La., was on the contact list of a Washington-area escort service.

"The double standard is shocking," Foreman said. "We'll throw the closet queer under the bus, but if you see a female prostitute, that's just fine."

The Craig case also raised questions about the phenomenon of male sex in public restrooms — how prevalent is it, and who participates?

The issue has been a source of controversy this summer in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where Mayor Jim Naugle has drawn fire from gay-rights groups for suggesting that such bathroom sex is a significant problem and briefly proposing installation of automated, single-user toilets.

After reports of Craig's arrest, police officials around the country gave widely varying accounts of whether public bathroom sex was a serious problem in their areas.

"My sense is that most of the people who engage in bathroom sex are living closeted lives," Foreman said. "If you're open, you can hook up on line, in a bar or even through your church."

William Leap, an anthropology professor at American University, said his research indicated that up to half of those who engage in male bathroom sex would consider themselves heterosexual.

"You've got several groups of folks," he said. "Happily married men with children who enjoy having sex with men every so often, and also self-identified gay men who enjoy the thrill of anonymous sex."

He suggested that almost every sizable community nationwide has one or more places where men seek out sex with other men. Whether that location becomes notorious, and the setting for arrests, Leap said, depends largely on whether the men using it create a disturbance that bothers others.

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Miga in Washington contributed to this report.

Record 94% of FORTUNE 500 Companies Provide Sexual Orientation Discrimination Protection

via Equality Forum

13 of the 30 Noncompliant Companies Headquartered in Texas Equality Forum, a national and international gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) civil rights organization, announced that 470 (94%) of the 2007 FORTUNE 500 Companies voluntarily include sexual orientation in their employment nondiscrimination policies. Equality Forum collaborates in this project with Professor Louis Thomas, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor, Yale Law School. According to Gallup’s May 10-13, 2007, Values and Beliefs Poll, 89% of U.S. citizens believe that gays and lesbians should have workplace discrimination protection. There is no federal workplace protection based on sexual orientation and only 20 states include sexual orientation nondiscrimination in their workplace statutes. “When 94% of the FORTUNE 500 Companies and 89% of the public support workplace equality, Congress is derelict by its failure to include GLBT citizens in federal workplace discrimination protection,” stated Malcolm Lazin, Executive Director, Equality Forum. “There is no cost to provide sexual orientation protection. Corporations and shareholders benefit from a workplace where merit, not intolerance, prevails.” Of the 30 FORTUNE 500 Companies that are noncompliant, 13 (43.3%) are headquartered in Texas. “When it comes to equality, Texas is a lone and tarnished star,” Lazin stated. In fall 2003, when Equality Forum began contacting FORTUNE 500 Companies, 323 (64.6%) companies provided sexual orientation protection. Equality Forum made the business case to the 177 (35.4%) CEOs, HR Directors and all members of the Boards of Directors of companies not offering that protection. For the full press release and the FORTUNE 500 Project Web site, which categorizes all FORTUNE 500 companies by rank, state and industry, please visit: www.equalityforum.com/fortune50

UPCOMING EVENTS:
GLBT History Month: October 2007
Equality Forum 2008: April 28 to May 4, 2008

ABOUT EQUALITY FORUM

Equality Forum is a national and international GLBT civil rights organization with an educational focus. Equality Forum coordinates GLBT History Month, produces documentary films, undertakes high impact initiatives and presents the largest annual international GLBT civil rights forum. For more information, visit: www.equalityforum.com

Gay marriage goes way back

Historian says men wed as early as 600 years ago in medieval Europe
By Jeanna Bryner/MSNBC.com

	Antonio Medina, right, and Jorge Cerpa kiss each other after signing their civil contract, the first in Mexico that offers same-sex couples the same rights as marriage. A historian says gay marriage goes back 600 years and if the records are right, they weren't taboo in the past. View related photos
Ronaldo Schemidt / AFP - Getty Images file

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”

If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

Continue...

The REAL Difference Between Gay & Straight Marriages!!

The Answer may SHOCK you!
(via BlueJersey.com/youtube)

Zogby Poll: Six months into civil unions, New Jerseyans say change the law to real marriage equality

The New Jersey civil unions law is now failing at a rate of 1 in every 6.2 cases. 1514 couples have gotten civil unioned. Garden State Equality has received 242 complaints of employers not recognizing civil unions. Where does New Jersey stand on changing the law?

Zogby Poll: Six months into civil unions,

New Jerseyans say change the law

to real marriage equality

To see the complete poll results, visit

http://www.gardenstateequality.org/poll.htm

By 63% to 31%, New Jersey voters say they’d be fine with the state legislature upgrading civil unions to marriage equality.

By 72% to 21%, New Jersey voters say state legislators would be in no electoral danger if they enacted marriage equality.

By 61% to 29%, New Jersey voters say they expect the state to enact marriage equality within just a couple of years.

Zogby asked the baseline question – do you favor marriage equality versus civil unions – in two ways. Results are 48% to 45% for marriage equality in one question, 48% to 30% in another.

And a significant 35% of respondents said they would be less likely to do business with a company that denies equal benefits to gay employees. 20% said “much less likely.”

As New Jersey marks the six-month anniversary of the civil unions law this Sunday, August 19, a new statewide Zogby Poll shows majorities of voters favoring changing the law to full marriage equality for same-sex couples. The poll of 803 New Jersey voters was taken from August 8th through 10, 2007, with a margin of error of +/- 3.5%. Though Garden State Equality commissioned the poll, Zogby collected the data independently.

The poll asked:

“If public officials in New Jersey come to the conclusion that civil unions for gay couples have not worked to provide equality under the law, and that the way to fix the law is to give gay couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples, would you be fine with that or would you be upset by that?” 63% responded “fine with that,” while only 31% responded “upset by that.”

The poll also provides key political information to legislators for when they consider changing civil unions to marriage equality. The poll asked:

“Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen to legislators if they were to allow gay couples to marry? Those legislators would not be reelected, or nothing because people care about other issues more.” 72% said nothing would happen to legislators, while only 21% said legislators would not be reelected.

In response to the question, “Regardless of where you stand on the issue of allowing gay couples to marry, do you agree or disagree that gay couples will be allowed to get married in New Jersey in a couple of years anyway?”, 61% agreed, while only 29% disagreed.

The poll also asked the baseline question testing support for marriage equality versus civil unions in two different ways. When voters were asked: “ New Jersey allows gay couples to enter into civil unions but not marry. Do you agree or disagree that New Jersey should give gay couples the same freedom to marry as heterosexual couples?” 48% supported marriage equality, while 45% opposed it.

But when voters were asked: “Which of the following comes closest to your own point of view: (A) If gay couples want to marry, let them. It will ensure equality and will not affect marriages of heterosexual couples anyway. (B) Allow gay couples to enter into civil unions, but not marriage. Allowing gay couples to marry will hurt the institution of marriage. (C) Do not allow gay couples to marry or enter into civil unions,” 48% of voters supported marriage equality, 30% supported civil unions but no more, and 20% supported neither marriage nor civil unions for same-sex couples.

The difference between the two questions may have been the concept of marriage for gay couples hurting the institution of marriage, the primary argument of marriage-equality opponents that New Jersey voters clearly reject.

“Regardless of whether any public official supports marriage equality or wants to maintain the state’s failed civil unions law,” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, “no official in New Jersey can credibly say that marriage for gay couples is a divisive issue in the state. Even voters who oppose marriage equality are ready to accept an upgrade of the state’s civil unions law to real marriage equality.”

The poll also asked questions unrelated to civil unions or marriage equality. The poll asked: “I am going to read to you a list of public figures. Regardless of whether or not you agree with them on the issues or how well they have performed their job while in office, please tell me for each if you personally like them. For example, would he or she be the kind of person you think you would like to have a cup of coffee with?”

Here’s how voters responded:

Like - Dislike - Not Sure

Governor Jon Corzine 64 - 27 - 9%

Senate President Dick Codey 65 - 20 - 15%

Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts 17 - 20 - 63%

U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg 56 - 30 - 14%

U.S. Senator Bob Menendez 45 - 35 - 20%

President George W. Bush 40 - 58 - 2%

Former President Bill Clinton 67 - 28 - 5%

Former Vice President Al Gore 64 - 33 - 3%

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton 56 - 40 - 3%

NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg 71 - 18 - 11%

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani 64 - 31 - 5%

Prosecutor Chris Christie 26 - 13 - 61%

State Senator Tom Kean, Jr. 45 - 30 - 25%

The N.J. civil-union law, six months on

The N.J. civil-union law, six months on

via: To Form more Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

Excerpt:

[photo caption: Heather Aurand and Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier (right), who entered into a civil union in February, with their three children. United Parcel Service, where Brazier is employed, agreed to spousal health-care benefits for Aurand.]

Last Monday, Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier and Heather Aurand of Toms River got the news they had been waiting months to hear.

Ever since the couple of seven years entered into a civil union in February, they had been trying to convince United Parcel Service, where Brazier works as a driver, that Aurand should get spousal health-care benefits.

Last week, the company agreed.

"We're obviously pleased with what UPS did," said Aurand, 36, a stay-at-home mom to the couple's three small children who had been paying $340 a month to buy basic medical insurance. "It's just unfortunate it took this long."

New Jersey's fledgling civil-union law was created to give same-sex couples the same rights - on the state level, at least - as their married counterparts. Since the law took effect Feb. 19, more than 1,300 couples have taken advantage of it.

But almost six months later, many of those couples say that getting others to recognize their new rights - without the label of "marriage" - remains a struggle.

"If the Legislature called it marriage to begin with, we wouldn't have had this issue and a lot of other people wouldn't still have it," Aurand said. "There are people here in New Jersey who don't even know what a civil union is."

[...]

But both state civil-rights officials and gay-rights activists say the majority of problems involve employers that have refused to provide health-care benefits to civil-union partners.

Some companies, they say, aren't familiar with the requirements of the law yet.

Others simply don't want to comply.

Still others - large companies that self-fund their insurance - are allowed, under federal law, not to extend benefits to same-sex partners.

But those companies, gay-rights activists say, are not prevented from following what they say is the spirit of the state law.

Atlanta-based UPS relied on its interpretation that civil-union partners in New Jersey were legally different from married spouses when it denied spousal benefits to same-sex hourly workers under their union contract.

The company, which already covers civil-union partners of nonunion employees, reversed itself after two employees, including Brazier, appealed - and Gov. Corzine got personally involved. In a July 20 letter to company chief executive Michael Eskew, Corzine said that in denying spousal benefits, UPS was contributing to "the inequitable treatment of committed, same-sex couples that the New Jersey law is intended to eradicate."

Some gay-rights activists say the very public reversal of such a large company could be a watershed moment. Others are doubtful.

"We're looking at going forward one family at a time, one company at a time, working very slowly and painfully over the next couple months and years," said David Buckel of Lambda Legal.

[...]

Moskovitz's experience and those of other gay couples will be reviewed by a special commission created by legislators to gauge the law's success. The panel is scheduled to deliver its first report to the Legislature in December.

"What we're trying to do is explore: Are civil unions working? Are there deficiencies?" said Vespa-Papaleo, the panel's chairman.

The vice chairman, Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, already has answered those questions.

"The failure of this law is astounding," he said. "Civil unions in New Jersey are an invitation to discriminate. . . . The only way to give gay couples equality is to give them marriage."

It doesn't look like that will be happening any time soon.

Forced by an October state Supreme Court ruling to grant same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, the Legislature consciously opted not to call the union "marriage." Legislative leaders said there wasn't enough public support.

Senate President Richard J. Codey (D., Essex) said there still isn't.

"I think we're still a ways away with that debate," he said. "All rights don't happen overnight, but in New Jersey, we've made great strides."

[...] Link: The Philadelphia Inquirer