2013-06-19T20:54:10-04:00 Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=lanae-erickson Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Lanae Erickson Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1083993 2011-11-11T19:01:28-05:00 2012-01-11T05:12:01-05:00

Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanae-erickson/
But if you ask people who are still struggling with whether they support allowing gay couples to marry, they are just as likely to believe that I want to marry in order to get "rights and benefits like tax advantages, hospital visitation, or sharing a spouse's pension," rather than to publicly acknowledge lifetime commitment. Why? Because that's what many in the movement have been telling them for so many years -- and they listened.

After conducting extensive research on Americans in the middle, Third Way believes that correcting this misperception is the number one thing we can do to solidify support for marriage across the country. And a vital part of that effort must come in shifting our own advocacy from the language of rights to the language of commitment.

There are three reasons that setting aside the rights argument in favor of talking about lifetime commitment is crucial.

First, most Americans don't think about their own marriages in terms of rights. Although marriage provides important protections for families, the institution and the ideal of marriage transcend spousal Social Security benefits or joint tax filing. When asked to describe marriage in their own words, people in the middle use words like "commitment," "responsibility," "fidelity," and "a big step." And when contemplating why couples like themselves get married, they overwhelmingly say it's "to publicly acknowledge their love and commitment to each other." The description of marriage that Americans most frequently cited in another round of our research was "a lifetime commitment between two people through good times and bad." There is a stunning consistency among these responses -- and the shared theme is commitment, not rights.

Secondly, understanding that gay couples want to marry for similar reasons as other couples do -- to make a public promise of lifetime commitment -- drives support for allowing us to do so. Those who thought gay couples marry for commitment in our most recent poll were substantially more likely to support allowing those couples to marry; in fact, a whopping 3/5ths supported marriage, while 3/5ths of those who believed gay couples marry to get a basket of rights opposed it.

Third, if we continue to identify a lack of rights as the problem, civil unions may continue to be the answer for many in the middle. While there are differences between the rights afforded by state civil unions and marriages, continuing to argue that what we're after is the 1,138 federal rights of marriage gives those who aren't comfortable with allowing gay couples to marry an easy out. We've heard it over and over again: "Give them all the rights of marriage, just don't call it marriage." And if we're asking for rights, why wouldn't we be satisfied with that answer?

Instead, using a framework of commitment shows what is really at stake. It isn't about pensions or tax forms -- it's about joining the tradition that plays such an important role in American families, communities, and society. It's about making those solemn vows in front of the people you care most about, promising to be faithful to your partner for the rest of your life. And it's about having your friends and family pledge to support you in that sometimes difficult task. Those deeply personal, admirable, and incomparable promises just can't be approximated with some made-up legal category.

This week, Third Way is launching a Commitment Campaign to help deepen support for marriage among those in the middle by persuading them that gay couples want to marry to make a lifetime commitment, not simply for rights and benefits. We'll work with policymakers and advocates in states with marriage legislation and ballot initiatives, aid in the efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level, and help to build public support for marriage to prepare for a possible Supreme Court decision on the issue. The Commitment Campaign already has the bipartisan support of prominent political leaders and activists including Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (D), former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee (I), Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (R), among others. Our hope is that by shifting the focus to commitment, we can correct the misperception about why gay couples want to marry and hasten the time when committed gay couples across the country will be able to make those precious vows.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.974299 2011-09-23T10:32:46-04:00 2011-11-23T05:12:02-05:00

Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanae-erickson/ passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under federal law. It was signed -- 15 years ago this week -- by a Democratic President who was considered the most gay-friendly in history. And its passage was meant to end the debate on marriage for gay couples once and for all. A decade and a half later, gay couples in six states and D.C. can marry, and more than a dozen other states provide civil unions or some other form of recognition for their relationships. What explains this fundamental shift?

First, public opinion has swung rapidly and remarkably in favor of gay couples. Support for allowing gay couples to marry has doubled since 1996, from 27 percent to 53 percent. This reflects a greater warming of Americans toward their gay and lesbian neighbors. Only 42 percent said they personally knew a gay person when DOMA passed, compared to 77 percent today. And in this case, familiarity did not breed contempt. Today, fully two-thirds of the country would use the word "family" to describe a gay couple with a child -- in the DOMA days it was just 29 percent.

Second, the vitriol of the DOMA debate compelled reasonable people to start thinking about something that never occurred to most of them -- allowing some legal construct for committed couples of the same gender. In 1996, no state had any form of legal relationship recognition for gay couples. Now, 19 states (plus D.C.) have laws ranging from marriage to domestic partnerships. When individual cities and towns are included, 143 million Americans now reside in a place where gay couples can form a legal bond -- up from 13 million only 15 years ago. And these communities aren't limited to the coasts -- they have sprung up in Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, and Utah, reflecting a broad public consensus.

Third, gay relationships went mainstream in the workplace. Private employers seeking to recruit and retain high-skilled workers, as well as to appeal to a broad consumer market, found it beneficial to recognize their gay employees' relationships. Even more telling, they suffered very little backlash for doing so. In the fifteen years since DOMA was passed, the number of Fortune 500 companies offering protections and benefits to gay employees and their partners has increased fifteen-fold, from 19 to 291.

Likewise, states followed suit. We've gone from 2 to 22 states (plus DC) that now recognize the relationships of gay public workers by covering their partners under employee benefits. That includes unusual suspects like Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina.

Today, the politics around gay issues seem unrecognizable from the dark days only 15 years ago. This summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on repealing DOMA -- an event that would have been a "can't-miss" opportunity for derision, grandstanding, and possibly even attack ads from Republicans in years past. But this time, only one Republican Senator even showed up to speak (a second one stopped by briefly to enter a statement into the record). Just a handful of years ago, it would have been unthinkable that opponents would forego a chance to ridicule "gay marriage" -- but things have changed on both sides of the aisle.

In the White House, we've gone from a gay-friendly president who signed DOMA into law to a president who refuses to defend that law in court. And for many politicians of both parties, gay equality and relationship recognition has gone from an issue to run from to a cause to run to. Most recently, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's role in allowing gay couples to marry in his state was seen as a shrewd move on the national political stage.

Our country has evolved with astonishing speed, and we are rapidly approaching a national consensus in support of recognizing the relationships of gay couples, including through marriage in many states. When DOMA was passed in 1996, opponents decried the gay-baiting and sinister motives of culture warriors bent on demonizing gays and lesbians. As it turns out, maybe we should thank them.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.906768 2011-08-04T11:28:06-04:00 2011-10-04T05:12:02-04:00

Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanae-erickson/ newest report details the seismic shift in our country since the passage of DOMA 15 years ago. There are many striking contrasts that illustrate this evolution, but one incredible change is this: in 1996 only 5% of the country lived in a state or locality that recognized gay couples' relationships--now 46% do.

Here are some of the numbers that show New York is a piece in a much larger puzzle:

• While 53% of the general public now supports marriage for gay couples, 59% of self-described Independents favor it, as do 65% of moderates.


• The number of states offering protections and benefits to gay state employees and their partners has jumped more than ten-fold, from 2 to 22.


• The number of people living in jurisdictions that provide legal recognition to gay couples has leapt more than ten-fold, from 13 million to 143 million.


• The number of Fortune 500 companies offering protections and benefits to gay employees and their partners has increased more than fifteen-fold, from 19 to 291 companies.

Check out the full report and infographic to see how far we've come since DOMA!
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.869620 2011-06-01T15:51:41-04:00 2011-08-01T05:12:01-04:00

Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanae-erickson/
It may sound crazy, but that's the reality for many gay Americans -- and the companies who employ them.

It turns out that even a gay couple that is legally married or registered as domestic partners cannot accept standard employer benefits like health care for a spouse or partner without paying a special and cumbersome tax. That is because, according to federal tax law, employer-provided health care insurance for an opposite-sex spouse is considered a benefit, but for a same-sex couple, it is considered income. The difference? Income is taxed; benefits are not.

Unbeknownst to many, federal tax law singles out health insurance for a domestic partner and treats it as "imputed income" -- penalizing both the employer who offers it and the employees who utilize it by levying extra taxes. Further, this loophole creates a huge administrative mess -- forcing businesses to keep a separate set of books for their gay employees in order to calculate these added payroll and income taxes.

The result is an unnecessary nuisance that costs more for everyone: the employer pays hundreds more in payroll taxes, while the employee pays thousands more to the IRS, all to do what more and more businesses and Americans feel is fair.

The fact is that as America makes enormous strides in its acceptance and recognition of same-sex couples, the tax code is stuck in the past. And because much of American enterprise is ahead of government, businesses and couples all over the country are trying to work around this cumbersome exclusion. Some employers have decided to "gross up" or pay their employees who have domestic partners an extra amount each year to cover the cost of the added tax burden. It's an expensive and ill-fitting work-around, but some businesses have found that if they don't gross up, no one will opt to use the domestic partner protections they offer. The added tax penalty and arduous calculations mandated by the federal government just aren't worth it.

But there's an easy fix that would cut through this maze. It's called the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, and its mouthful of a name is almost as long as its gracefully simple substance. The bill would merely close the loophole and ensure that all workers can receive their employer-provided health coverage on equal footing. No business would be forced to provide domestic partner protections under the legislation, but those who chose to do so would no longer be penalized. The result would be to streamline the process for small businesses and Fortune 500 companies alike, more of whom are offering protections to same-sex couples nearly every day.

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of gay and lesbian couples who were married or registered under civil union or domestic partnership laws in their states has increased from zero to at least 135,000. As this number grows, let's let businesses who want to respect the relationships of their employees with domestic partners do so without punishment. And let's eliminate the complicated and confusing hoops that currently make so many employers add imaginary income to a few of their workers' pay stubs. Few policy solutions in Washington make more sense.

To learn more, check out our idea brief, Eliminating the Tax Penalty on Health Insurance for Domestic Partners, or our infographic illustrating The Tax Penalties and Bureaucratic Burden of Domestic Partner Health Insurance.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.832557 2011-03-09T12:07:49-05:00 2011-05-25T18:35:25-04:00

Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanae-erickson/
On that day, the Obama administration issued a rule that refined the "midnight regulations" on federal conscience clause protections that were issued by the Bush administration. The new HHS rule was in effect a partial rescission of the Bush regulation. The Obama rule kept in place key components of the 2008 rule and sought to carefully balance the rights of medical providers who have moral objections to certain procedures with the ability of patients to obtain the medical care they need. It was yet another illustration of the nuanced, respectful, common-ground approach that President Obama and his administration have long taken on the divisive issue of abortion.

But just a few hours later, in another part of Washington, the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted to cut off federal funding for mammograms, STD tests, and contraception for low-income women by passing an amendment that would bar Planned Parenthood from obtaining federal money and eliminate the entire federal family planning program known as Title X. Rejecting President Obama's, and the majority of the country's, plea to work together to reduce the need for abortion by preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting pregnant women, the new House Republican majority opted for a take-no-prisoners ideological approach. This act, in addition to being completely out of line with what the American people continue to ask of their leaders on this issue, would likely have the opposite effect from what pro-life Members claim to desire. By decreasing access to birth control, it would likely contribute to increasing the number of abortions in this country, since half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.

The Obama administration's actions carefully considered both sides, and rather than rejecting the old rule wholesale, reiterated federal conscience clause protections that have been on the books for nearly 40 years, while rolling back certain provisions from the Bush regulations that were clearly beyond the scope of federal law. The new rule kept intact the detailed enforcement mechanisms laid out by the Bush administration, including a process for medical providers to file complaints with the HHS Office of Civil Rights if they feel they are discriminated against in violation of federal conscience protections. In addition, the new regulation unveiled increased education and outreach initiatives in order to ensure that health care providers are aware of their statutory rights and know where to turn if they are aggrieved.

The new regulation also clarified that federal statutes do not equate birth control with abortion and reiterated that conscience protections do not allow medical providers to refuse to treat a patient, or an entire group of people, just because the patient has done something of which the provider disapproves. The new rule restates that federal conscience clause protections are intended to shield a health care provider who objects to participating in a certain medical procedure--not someone who doesn't want to give medical treatment to gay people or another group whose behavior they simply don't like.

The Obama administration's new conscience clause rule seeks common ground, balance, and mutual respect on this emotional and often divisive issue. Unfortunately, the laudable common-ground principles the Obama administration strove for are strikingly absent from the firebrand speeches and drastic actions taken by House Republicans the very same day. In the coming weeks, our divided government will have to work together to find a compromise on the Title X cuts, as with many other issues. For the sake of the country, let's hope that the negotiation is motivated by the principles evident in the new HHS rule, not the bombastic and myopic approach illustrated by the House attack on Planned Parenthood. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.450927 2010-02-08T18:37:28-05:00 2011-05-25T15:25:21-04:00

Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanae-erickson/
The camera angle widens to reveal the woman's son and his male partner sitting next to her and her grandchild. It is only then that you realize this is an ad asking you to vote no on a ballot initiative which would repeal marriage equality in Maine. (You can see the ad HERE.) The commercial said a lot. But it's what it did not say that was worth hearing. The ad didn't say a word about rights or benefits. It spoke of responsibilities and commitment.

Third Way recently partnered with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research to conduct two statewide polls after the 2009 election: in Washington, where voters upheld an expanded domestic partnership law, and in Maine, where voters overturned marriage. By analyzing the poll results, we've come up with some insights about what we think is the best way forward to achieve relationship recognition and marriage in the future, and they sound an awful lot like that ad from Maine.

Our research found that there are people who don't yet support marriage but who are fundamentally easier to reach than other marriage opponents. For these folks, who we call "the middle," the equality argument (which to date has been the primary focus of marriage advocates) isn't connecting. Our work revealed that in order to reach folks in the middle, marriage advocates must make clear that gay and lesbian couples are seeking to join in the true spirit of marriage, the way the middle sees it. Our poll found that people in the middle view marriage as an ideal, not a legal construct, and they are not yet persuaded that gay couples fit into this ideal. To them, the ideal is about lifetime commitment, responsibility, and obligation--not rights and benefits, or even legal protections.

Instead of leading with talk about equality, our polls suggest that marriage advocates should concentrate on making plain that gay couples fit into this ideal and demonstrating that gay couples want to undertake the sacrifices that it entails. When advocates speak about marriage in this way, they can address the middle's concern that allowing gay couples to marry will threaten or change the tradition of marriage, or that it will alter the way children perceive or value that tradition.

If advocates can show and convince Americans that gay couples want to join the true spirit of marriage as the middle sees it--to be there for each other for better or for worse--they will help move the country more quickly towards support for marriage. Who knows? They might even make Grandma proud.

To read more of Third Way's insights and analysis, CLICK HERE. To see the polls, click HERE and HERE.

Rachel Laser is the Culture Program Director at Third Way and Lanae Erickson is Senior Policy Counsel at Third Way. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.425207 2010-01-19T09:37:25-05:00 2011-05-25T15:15:20-04:00

Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanae-erickson/ decreased by 4.4% in the first half of 2009, despite the lousy shape of the economy and the high rates of unemployment, according to a surprising report released last week by the FBI. Experts looking to explain this counterintuitive trend have credited everything from smart and targeted policing in big cities (last year New York was safer than it had been during any year on record), to innovative use of new technologies to prevent and deter crime (more cities are using crime-mapping systems and other novel strategies to leverage scarce resources), to the $4 billion included in the stimulus bill to help state and local law enforcement and criminal justice systems weather the tough economic times.

But the reality is that states and local governments, faced with anemic budgets even before the economic crisis hit, are desperately searching for ways to find savings in their inefficient and exorbitantly expensive corrections systems. In some cases, prisoners are being released before they have finished their sentences. Unfortunately, little is being done to ensure that those who are released don't end up right back where they started--in prison--on the taxpayer's dime.

Last week, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) introduced the Inmate Work, Education, and Responsibility Curriculum Act (I-WERC), HR 4458, which would provide grants to state and local corrections facilities to create a 40-hour work week for prisoners to pursue responsible activities. The program would require corrections facilities to conduct an individualized assessment of a prisoner's education, skills, and history. Based on that assessment, corrections facilities would develop a self-improvement curriculum for each participant consisting of activities critical for reentry, such as education, counseling, substance use treatment, anger management, and skills and job training.

Under Congressman Weiner's bill, state and local corrections officials could require participants to spend as much time on their curriculum as most people do at work--40 hours a week. This would force prisoners to begin working on their successful reentry while they are still behind bars--transforming idleness into productivity and working every day towards becoming responsible citizens upon their reintegration into the community.

A wide range of groups from across the political spectrum have come together to support Congressman Weiner's I-WERC bill, including the American Jail Association and others in the corrections community, Prison Fellowship and members of the faith community, and the Legal Action Center and other criminal justice advocacy groups. They all recognize one important fact: we release 700,000 people a year from corrections facilities in this country. If we don't arm those people to take responsibility for themselves and become productive members of their communities when they return home, we are sentencing ourselves to an inevitable increase in crime, and the hefty burden of paying to lock them up again.

To learn more about the I-WERC bill, HR 4458, click here and here.

By Lanae Erickson, Policy Counsel, and Rachel Laser, Culture Program Director, at Third Way.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.346660 2009-11-05T16:47:41-05:00 2011-05-25T14:35:20-04:00

Lanae Erickson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanae-erickson/
So if Americans overwhelming support employment discrimination laws protecting the LGBT community, why have we not yet passed those protections on a federal level?

We think that despite the supportive poll numbers, there is an underlying ambivalence on this issue among many Americans, and that ambivalence is rooted in one simple but important concept: joining versus changing. In our public opinion research, we've found that if people think that an LGBT equality measure -- from relationship recognition to workplace protections -- is intended to allow gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans to join a traditional institution, rather than change it, they are much more likely to be supportive.

In order to make the case that ENDA is about allowing gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans to join the workplace, rather than to change it, advocates must emphasize three things about the bill:

1. ENDA conforms to the traditional rules of the workplace.
   
   It creates a level playing field for all employees, is careful not to create or imply any special rights for gay, lesbian, and transgender employees, takes the lead of America's most successful businesses, and has an explicit exemption for small business owners.



2. ENDA does not change the rules for the religious community.
   It contains a strong exemption that makes clear the bill does not apply to a broad range of religious organizations, including churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, or religious social services agencies.



3. ENDA furthers core, traditional American values.
   It is consistent with core American values like meritocracy (hiring and firing employees based on workplace performance), religious liberty (exempting religious organizations from the bill), and the Golden Rule (treating others as we'd like to be treated).

We think that if proponents succeed in convincing policymakers and Americans that ENDA is about allowing gay, lesbian, and transgender people to join the workplace, they will be able to overcome the lingering ambivalence and finally pass a bill that ensures all employees will be judged on the basis of their workplace performance and behavior.

To that end, we offer a memo that aims to help advocates frame the issue in a way that speaks to people's core concerns, and a fact sheet that answers frequently asked questions about the legislation, including how it will impact the business community, nonprofits, and people of faith. We hope that these resources will help aid in the passage of ENDA, ensuring that every person is judged at work on the job they do, and nothing more.

After all, that is the American way.
]]>