# Rights not currently granted to gays **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 2, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026 "2004-03-02T02:44:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/21 "2004-03-02T22:44:57Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > In order to squash my ignorance, could someone please provide me with a list of rights that are currently limited only to those who marry? Factual answers only please. Also, no debating. There are plenty of other threads for that. A while back (1997) a study was done that found 1049 specific legal benefits of marraige. The pdf is [here](http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/22 "2004-03-02T22:52:24Z")
> [@Bambi Hassenpfeffer](#): > > [li]The State of Florida also permits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which means my boss could come to me tomorrow and fire me for being gay – she could put on my termination papers that I was fired for cause, and that the reason was my sexuality. As you probably know, people fired for cause can be denied unemployment benefits.[/li][/list] > > I’m certain that there are others, and I’m also certain that **Otto** will be by shortly to list them. Are you sure that being fired for cause is enough reason to be denied unemployment benefits, and that being fired because of your sexual orientation is considered “fired for cause”? I ask because in NY, only firing for misconduct is a reason for the denial of unemployment. I once received unemployment after being fired for being uanble to do the job well enough- fired for cause ,if you ask me- but received unemployment because it wasn’t misconduct. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/23 "2004-03-03T00:03:56Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > A minor nitpick to the title of the OP - these are not rights that are not granted to gays, per se; these are rights that are not granted to _unmarried couples_, regardless of their sexual preference. > > In the same vein, these rights and/or privileges are granted to married couples, regardless of whether one or both of the individuals are gay (it just has to be a legally recognized marriage). Point taken. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/24 "2004-03-03T04:18:27Z")
I’d like a bit more info before taking that point, **Skammer**. Are you saying that a male-female common law couple is never treated the same way as a married couple? For example, are male-female common law couples barred from adopting children jointly? if one of them has a child from a previous relationship, is the other one barred from adopting the step-child? Are common law opposite sex couples never permitted to file jointly for tax purposes? And so on with each of the examples given so far. In other words, is marriage the only pairing that gets recognition by the law in all states and federally, or does the law sometimes treat opposite-sex common law couples in the same way as married couples? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/25 "2004-03-03T04:28:42Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > In other words, is marriage the only pairing that gets recognition by the law in all states and federally, or does the law sometimes treat opposite-sex common law couples in the same way as married couples? There are only a handful of common-law states, and in those states there is no differentiation between a couple married under the terms of the state’s marriage statutes and those married under the common law. Once a couple has achieved spousal status under the common law, they are afforded the same rights and privileges as any other married couple, and must dissolve their marriage under the divorce laws should it come to that. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/26 "2004-03-05T05:44:51Z")
TIME has a column in this week’s issue, discussing some of the rights that married couples get under federal law: [1,138 Reasons Marriage is Cool](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040308-596123,00.html). Interestingly, one of the legal rights in question is the Secret Service protection for Vice President Cheney’s family: > [@](#): > > Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 879 makes it illegal to threaten certain individuals guarded by the Secret Service, including the President, the Vice President and their families. At first blush, you wouldn’t think the statute has anything to do with the war over gay marriage. But consider this: that law makes it a federal crime to threaten the husband of Elizabeth Cheney, one of the Vice President’s daughters. But it does not outlaw threats against the lesbian partner of Mary Cheney, his younger daughter. Legally speaking, Mary’s partner is not a member of the Vice President’s family but, rather, a total stranger to it. ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/27 "2004-03-05T13:54:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How do they verify if you’re gay or not? One must also fill out extensive application documents and in Florida, the question of sexual preference is (last I knew) directly asked. Potential adoptive parents must undergo something called a home study, in which the household is visited and judged by a trained social worker, and they must provide references. So as a gay person seeking to adopt in Florida, you have to lie on your application documents (and probably again in person at some point), must be sure that there is no visible evidence of your sexuality in your home and you must be sure that all of your references are aware that they must avoid making the slightest allusion to your sexuality in their statements. If you live with your partner, the stakes are even higher, as you must do everything you can to make it seem that you’re mere housemates and both of you come under scrutiny. That’s a lot to withstand. ---
**Author:** ![Daikona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8baadc/32.png) [@Daikona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daikona)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/28 "2004-03-05T15:37:02Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > A minor nitpick to the title of the OP - these are not rights that are not granted to gays, per se; these are rights that are not granted to _unmarried couples_, regardless of their sexual preference. > > In the same vein, these rights and/or privileges are granted to married couples, regardless of whether one or both of the individuals are gay (it just has to be a legally recognized marriage). Well, yes. But heterosexual couple have the _option_ of getting married. Homosexuals are required, by law, to _remain_ unmarried couples. And some of these things (see adoption) are specifically about sexual orientation anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/29 "2004-03-05T20:38:16Z")
> [@Daikona](#): > > Well, yes. But heterosexual couple have the _option_ of getting married. Homosexuals are required, by law, to _remain_ unmarried couples. And some of these things (see adoption) are specifically about sexual orientation anyway. Gotta pick nits again – there’s no law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. Just not to each other. Even that’s not true; two homosexuals _can_ marry if they’re opposite gender. I don’t have the right to marry someone my own gender. So we’re equal. And, yeah, if it were legal I may have done back when I was in the Army. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/30 "2004-03-05T20:49:14Z")
And I do realize I used the wrong word several times above. _Sex_. Not _gender_. I meant \*sex[/]i. And by nitpicking, I mean the actual terminology. I’m all for civil unions and that gays shouldn’t be denied certain rights. But if you’re going to fight for something, choose the words properly. The “marriage” issue isn’t an equal rights issue. All of the _goodies_ associated with being married is the real “equal rights” issue. I’ll back you all on those rights. ---
**Author:** ![alexandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@alexandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alexandra)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/31 "2004-03-06T23:24:04Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > Gotta pick nits again – there’s no law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. Just not to each other. Even that’s not true; two homosexuals _can_ marry if they’re opposite gender. You really are nitpicking - that goes without saying. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/32 "2004-03-07T00:18:13Z")
**You really are nitpicking - that goes without saying.** In some ways I don’t think this is a nitpick at all, I have heard many time that homosexuals are denied 1000+ rights that hetrosexuals get, but it is not true, the individual chooses who to marry, and the laws are (or should be) known ahead of time. ---
**Author:** ![alexandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@alexandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alexandra)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/33 "2004-03-07T00:29:12Z")
Yeah, someone should have warned those homosexuals about that. Cos then they would just go and find women. Sorry for debating. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/34 "2004-03-07T04:54:28Z")
One big one that has been implicitly stated, but I feel is worth explicitly mentioning, is the nature of real estate ownership - married couples can by a place as “tenants by the entirety,” with ownership continuing with one spouse if the other dies without any red tape. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/35 "2004-03-07T05:07:57Z")
> [@Cillasi](#): > > 1. Guaranteed inheritance rights. I’d imagine that gay couple can get around this If both partners make out wills, each making the other their heir. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/36 "2004-03-07T05:57:24Z")
> [@Joel](#): > > I’d imagine that gay couple can get around this If both partners make out wills, each making the other their heir. That’s assuming that there are no other potential heirs who challenge the will claiming “undue influence.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/37 "2004-03-07T06:38:40Z")
> [@FisherQueen](#): > > As far as I know, discrimination against gays is still okey-dokey in Ohio, so feel free to fire a gay person, evict him, or throw him out of your restaurant for holding hands with his boyfriend. > > I know a woman who was fired because she was gay. Admittedly, she was teaching in a Christian school. But still. She may have run into this problem in any state, due to this pesky little item known as the First Amendment. Christian schools typically have wide latitude over their hiring and firing, due to their religious nature. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026/38 "2004-03-08T03:32:46Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Illegitimacy is a [“quasi-suspect”](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm) classification under the law, which means that laws which burden on that basis require the government to that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest. [sidebar] **Otto** , could you point me to any SCOTUS cases on this issue? it came up in a class I taught last week but I didn’t have any quick reference. Thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-not-currently-granted-to-gays/232026.md?page=1)