Relationship Recognition Madness


Posted on June 13th, 2013 by Lauren Gutterman
 1 comment  

From Erez Aloni, Center for Gender and Sexuality Law Visiting Scholar and Assistant Professor Designate at Whittier Law School, cross posted from the Huffington Post:

Those of us in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community who have fought hard for the law to recognize our relationships have at times failed to appreciate the potentially harmful consequences of such recognition — negative consequences that I term “misrecognition.” A new rule for calculating eligibility for student financial aid is but one example of a policy proposed with good intentions, but which in reality continues a pattern of discrimination against unmarried partners (including same-sex couples). In short, the new rule will financially harm those it is intended to help. Let me explain.

Under the purview of the Department of Education, the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) will now include in its calculation of students’ eligibility for financial aid the income of cohabiting, unmarried parents — including same-sex spouses that are generally unrecognized by the federal government due to the Defense of Marriage Act. LGBTQ organizations have long fought for this legal change; indeed, our community has accepted it as a political victory. Gay activists and commentators argue that the new policy is more just because it reflects the real structure of families — that it validates “LGBTQ families and experience.” The Web is replete with stories of unfortunate children of same-sex couples who had to include only one parent in their applications in previous years (despite having two parents living together) and who suffered emotional pain as a consequence (even in the face of typically larger tuition grants under the old policy).

Prior to this legal change, if the parents were divorced, never married, or same-sex married couples, then a dependent student would include on the FAFSA only the income of the parent with whom she’d lived the longest during the previous 12 months. Hence, in most cases, if the parents were not married, the other parent’s income would not be included in the calculation. For two-income households, the old policy increased a student’s eligibility for financial aid as well as the amount of aid she received, oftentimes by a significant amount. Under the new rule, however, children of unmarried couples who live together (including same-sex spouses) are now required to include both parents’ incomes in the means-tested aid calculation. This will result in those students receiving less financial aid.

Why is that harmful to LGBTQ families and unmarried parents? After all, such a change simply reflects the real structure of the family, and, in the words of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “ensure[s] taxpayer dollars are better targeted toward those students who have the most need . . . .” In addition, the rule ostensibly targets “parents” rather than “partners”– why shouldn’t parents help pay for their children’s education, regardless of their own marital status? Isn’t this a more fair application of law? Only if considered in a legal vacuum.

Currently, most laws do not recognize relationships between unmarried couples for purposes of granting rights and benefits. For instance, tax policy allows only married couples to exempt dollars they spend on health insurance and unpaid medical costs. Unmarried couples enjoy no such financial benefit. At the same time, the law sometimes (mis)recognizes such couples in instances that will reduce or eliminate their benefits.

On its face the new FAFSA policy targets parents, not couples. But this new rule recognizesunmarried parents only for the purpose of withholding or reducing benefits, giving them a double whack since their relationships are not recognized when it comes to gaining benefits. Thus, these couples — who could use their income to finance tuition, fees, and other educational expenses related to their children — have relatively lower income than similarly situated married parents simply on account of their nonmarital status. This new policy, advocated by LGBTQ organizations, ultimately penalizes unmarried (and same-sex) parents just as do laws that do not recognize these couples (and to clarify, the rule targets only parents who live together to the exclusion of others).

When combined, these two practices — the nonrecognition of unmarried couples in the allocation of rights and benefits and the recognition of them in the calculation of student financial aid — result in a functional financial penalty to nonmarried couples. The net result is economic maldistribution. No law or policy can be judged “fair” or “unfair” without considering this fact.

LGBTQ organizations that applaud this change toward misrecognition, rather than condemn it, have somewhat blindly pursued their aims of cultural recognition, without considering the economic distributional effects of their lobbying. In the same week this new policy unfolded concerning student financial aid, we also learned that the overall poverty rate has increased within the LGBTQ community, and that same-sex couples are more likely to be poor than opposite-sex couples. LGBTQ organizations should consider the bottom line at the same time that they consider issues of recognition, and they should choose their battles carefully and in a way that helps mitigate systemic problems, rather than increases them. Cultural and legal recognition are important, of course; but we must ensure that our pursuit of these goals does not create or support policies that, quite frankly, take money out of the pockets of same-sex and unmarried couples in an inequitable way.

Fair redistribution of resources combined with recognition should be LGBTQ organizations’ platform. And as a society, we should demand the equitable distribution of resources and benefits for all families, regardless of how we choose to configure them. Doing so promotes our best means of winning true, deeply-rooted equality for the LGBTQ community and for unmarried partners.

One comment

  1. Hey there! Do you know if they make any plugins to
    safeguard against hackers? I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard
    on. Any recommendations?

    Here is my web blog … Anya DiPrima

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Adoption adultery Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Islamophobia Israel Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.