AMA Says Gay Marriage Bans Contribute to Health Disparities

[pgwenthold]

This could go here or in medicine, but I think it is better here.

Here is part of a recent press release put out by the GLMA. It refers to an AMA policy supporting gay marriage for health reasons.


*AMA Says Gay Marriage Bans
Contribute to Health Disparities*

*Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Praises AMA Policy Declaring
Same-Sex Marriage Bans to be Harmful to the Health of LGBT Families*

The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) today praised the American
Medical Association’s (AMA’s) adoption of policy declaring that gay marriage
bans contribute to health disparities for gay couples and their children.

“We hope the newly adopted policy will inform future debates about expanding
the right to marriage to gay and lesbian couples,” said GLMA Education and
Policy Director James Beaudreau. “The science on this issue is clear: the
health and well-being of gay couples and their families is directly affected
by the right to marry, and denial of that right has many serious health
related consequences.”

As part of the newly adopted policy, the AMA “supports measures providing
same-sex households with the same rights and privileges to health care,
health insurance, and survivor benefits, as afforded opposite-sex
households.”


They refer to a report by the GLMA, which gives the following information

A 2008 report published by GLMA, *Same Sex Marriage and Health*, documented
evidence about the affects of same-sex marriage bans on the LGBT community.
The report noted that:

- Access to health insurance through a spouse is an important component
of obtaining quality healthcare;
- Research indicates that being married can contribute to overall health
and longevity;
- Hospital visitation and decision making rights conferred by marriage
are important to the quality of care; and
- Children of LGBT parents benefit when their families are respected and
accorded legal protections.


I like the one I've bolded. Basically, it says, "You talk about how marriage is such a great thing for one's health and longevity. We agree. So why can't gay people get those benefits, too?"

So the argument is that gay marriage is a national health issue. What again are the arguments against?

[Alt+F4]

So the argument is that gay marriage is a national health issue. What again are the arguments against?

Because if you let gay people marry each other the following will occur:

1. Straight people will catch "the gay".
2. It will automatically allow you to legally marry a goat, your own mother and/or a doorknob.
3. It will destroy the moral fiber of the universe.

[johnny karate]

Since I doubt those who oppose gay marriage are all that concerned with their health issues, I think the argument remains:

"I don't like gays!"

[ponderingturtle]

Because if you let gay people marry each other the following will occur:

1. Straight people will catch "the gay".
2. It will automatically allow you to legally marry a goat, your own mother and/or a doorknob.
3. It will destroy the moral fiber of the universe.

And we all know how important fiber is an a moral diet.

[pgwenthold]

Since I doubt those who oppose gay marriage are all that concerned with their health issues, I think the argument remains:

"I don't like gays!"

Yeah, and notice that the supposed "health benefits" would only apply to gay people and their kids. Since they all have aids and are going to die anyway, who cares if they feel a little better. They got what they deserved. They shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

(there's an interesting implication there: opponents say "think of the children"! and the AMA says, "the children would be fine if you didn't stigmatize them")

[rwguinn]

I don't think that "Marriage" as such contributes to better health-It is a stable, loving relationship that does it.
As such, calling it "Marriage" or "Domestic Partnership" or "living together" should make no difference to the people involved. It's just a word, y'know.

[Darat]

I don't think that "Marriage" as such contributes to better health-It is a stable, loving relationship that does it.
As such, calling it "Marriage" or "Domestic Partnership" or "living together" should make no difference to the people involved. It's just a word, y'know.

But it isn't just a word, it's a big bag of legal and cultural stuff. This was my view on the matter just a few years ago:


...snip...

The decision has already and perhaps surprisingly to some people made changes in my outlook on the world. It’s hard to explain but the thought that my loved one, the person I have chosen to live my life with could be excluded from my life at critical moments, that he had no legal rights (apart from a power of attorney which are not 100% reliable in certain circumstances) and vice-a-versa that I could have been excluded from critical moments of his life, whilst not consciously on my mind always caused some pessimism to colour my view of my life and partnership. Banishing these fears has given me greater peace of mind.

...snip...

[Alt+F4]

I don't think that "Marriage" as such contributes to better health-It is a stable, loving relationship that does it.
As such, calling it "Marriage" or "Domestic Partnership" or "living together" should make no difference to the people involved. It's just a word, y'know.

If it's just a word, nothing more, than why can't the gays have it too?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't think that "Marriage" as such contributes to better health-It is a stable, loving relationship that does it.
As such, calling it "Marriage" or "Domestic Partnership" or "living together" should make no difference to the people involved. It's just a word, y'know.

"Should" and reality don't mix.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/000302/cohabit.shtml
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ800915&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ800915
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubmyths%20of%20marriage.htm

[pgwenthold]

If it's just a word, nothing more, than why can't the gays have it too?

This is just like the "under God" part of the pledge. Someone complains about it, and the response is, "What's the big deal? It's not anything that MEANS anything important." But try to remove it? Oh the uproar! Man, people tend to get awfully worked up about something that they don't think is a big deal.

A comment I've made before, the american people seemed to get awfully worked up about ceremonial deism. Apparently, it is very, very important.

[rwguinn]

But it isn't just a word, it's a big bag of legal and cultural stuff. This was my view on the matter just a few years ago:

If it's just a word, nothing more, than why can't the gays have it too?
That came across badly.
It's just a word. Why can't it (and the benefits of it) apply to everybody in a committed, loving partnership? I have no clue.
On the other hand, marriage has led to Murder, and even (gasp) divorce and financial ruin...

[bpesta22]

I emailed GLMA about a month ago with lots of data I thought they'd find useful (similar stuff to the arguments they're making here). Sadly-- to me-- they ignored it.

[casebro]

I was expecting some real data about poorer health of gay families. The only thing related to a hard fact in the OP is that gay partners are excluded from decision making. Pretty nebulous argument that Gays suffer poorer health.

Apparently GLMA is just blowing smoke. But I can see that the AMA doesn't want to alienate a small percentage of their members in something that costs the rest of the members zilch.

[pgwenthold]

I emailed GLMA about a month ago with lots of data I thought they'd find useful (similar stuff to the arguments they're making here). Sadly-- to me-- they ignored it.

In the release, they refer to their 2008 report, so if you just contacted them a month ago, it was stuff they already had published.

[Upchurch]

2. It will automatically allow you to legally marry a goat, your own mother and/or a doorknob.
and ...
EXPcBI4CJc8

[sugarb]

But it isn't just a word, it's a big bag of legal and cultural stuff. This was my view on the matter just a few years ago:

Hello, Darat.

I may be wrong but I think the bill in the Senate provides for access to health insurance for domestic partners. At first I got a little excited about that, but then I started wondering if that only refers to states that have made domestic partnership a legal status. Either way, though, I see it as a good thing if it makes it into the final bill. A step in the right direction at least.

[Alt+F4]

and ...
EXPcBI4CJc8

I'd much rather marry a doorknob than a duck. A doorknob is always hard and there is no annoying quacking. :)

[Alt+F4]

I may be wrong but I think the bill in the Senate provides for access to health insurance for domestic partners. At first I got a little excited about that, but then I started wondering if that only refers to states that have made domestic partnership a legal status. Either way, though, I see it as a good thing if it makes it into the final bill. A step in the right direction at least.

Let me use New York City as an example. Domestic partnerships are legal here and if the employer allows it, the non-employee partner can be covered under the employees health insurance. The problem was that the IRS considered the amount of money the employer was paying for the partner's insurance as taxable income on the employee.

[Fishstick]

As such, calling it "Marriage" or "Domestic Partnership" or "living together" should make no difference to the people involved. It's just a word, y'know.

http://thisishistorictimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/segregation.gif