Marriage Testimony - October 23, 2003

GLAD's Testimony

Personal stories

Testimony from experts and organizations

No reason for current marriage discrimination

Civil rights

Testimony of Bruce W. Bell

I have been a full-time employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for 32 years, working at Cape Cod Community College, first as a mathematics faculty member and then as one of the academic deans. In 1989 I received a Citation for Outstanding Performance from the Commonwealth in recognition of my contribution to carrying out the goals of the College. During my 32 years at the College, I have gone from being a closeted gay person to being comfortable with whom I am. The General Court's previous work that included sexual orientation in anti-discrimination legislation and provided support to gay-straight student groups has been a critical factor in allowing gay employees and students to feel safe. I don't think I would have had the courage to come out at work, without the protection you provided. In return, I am certain that this protection has made me a more productive and committed employee.

The most important person in my life is my partner of 27 years, George Smart. George is the Director of Outpatient Services for the Massachusetts Behavioral Health Partnership, the company that manages the Commonwealth's Medicaid mental health program. Our relationship is the greatest accomplishment of my life. Like every good, long-lasting relationship, we have supported each other and helped each other to grow. Early in our relationship, I developed Guillain Barre, a disease that caused total paralysis and required me to be on a lung machine. I was in intensive care for over 10 weeks at St. Elizabeth's Hospital. George was there at the hospital every day, while at the same time working on his Masters in Social Work at Boston College. We have been there for each other through the death of 3 parents, 1 younger sibling, and a nephew. We have been very fortunate to have had the support of our families and friends. Despite all these positive factors, we are increasingly aware of how the failure to extend marriage rights to gay couples, not only hurts the couples involved, but has many negative consequences for society as a whole.

A case in point--on December 31, 2003, I will be retiring from Cape Cod Community College under the Early Retirement Incentive you passed earlier this year. I do thank you for downsizing state government through early retirements rather than massive firings. This once again demonstrates the humane and thoughtful policy decisions this body continually makes. However, I do find it quite hurtful and unfair, that after 32 years of serving the Commonwealth in an exemplary manner, I am not eligible for the same retirement benefits as my straight colleagues. My partner is seven years younger, and his only retirement income will be from Social Security. I would very much like to be able to choose Option C under the retirement plan which would allow me to take a smaller monthly income, but protect that income for the life of my partner. Under Option C, I can name my mother or one of my brothers as a beneficiary, but I cannot name my partner of 27 years. Another important issue is the rules concerning health insurance. A straight married colleague can bring his or her spouse under the Group Insurance Commission health plan, even if they have only been together for a few months. I cannot do that with my partner of 27 years and will not be able to do that when I retire. When we are both retired, George will need to pay for all of his health insurance, which will severely effect the quality of our retirement. After 32 years of service to the Commonwealth and 27 years in a committed relationship, I feel strongly that this disparate treatment is unfair and inequitable.

In making your previous decisions to provide basic civil rights protection to gay people, the legislature in its wisdom separated the religious issues from policy considerations and made decisions based upon the common good. You need to do the same when considering extending rights to gay couples. The question that needs to be answered is what positive and negative consequences will there be to society by doing this. It is clear to me, and should be to you as well, that the previous legislation, which provided basic civil rights protection to gay people, in no way weakened the civil rights of others. Similarly, the argument that extending rights to gay couples will weaken the relationships of straight couples has no merit. On the contrary, maintaining a long-term relationship is difficult work. Straight and gay couples can learn much from each other that will help both to sustain and strengthen their relationships. Just as taking away civil rights from any group weakens the civil rights of everyone, denying the same rights to committed gay couples says that the Commonwealth does not place a value on loving, committed relationships. It is in the best interests of the Commonwealth to provide the same rights to all committed couples. I am confident that if it does, it will find that it is repaid by having a more productive, committed, happier citizenry. Time and again you have made the difficult choices to help move society to a better place. The time is right for you to provide the same benefits for all committed couples.

On behalf of my partner, George Smart, and myself, thank you for letting us present our testimony to you.

Testimony of Jamie Caron

I have been a resident of Massachusetts since 1985. I met and fell in love with my partner, Celia, in Northampton in 1988, and we presently reside together in Northampton at 57 Fort Street. After a typical courtship - dating for two years, living together for the next year, and then buying our first home in 1991 - we decided to have children. We were then blessed with the arrival of three wonderful children! Simone is now ten, Elliot is eight, and Davis is four. They were joyfully welcomed and loved from the moment of their conception. We, like many families, enjoy, cherish and love our children, the family we have created, and the time we have together. Also, like other families, we face the daily challenges of juggling and managing the responsibilities of full time jobs, parenting, school, and all the wonderful child related activities (sports, homework, play dates, etc.) that fill our lives. Suffice to say that we are stressed but having the time of our lives!

In 2001, however, our family was touched by some devastating news – Celia, my partner, was diagnosed with a rare form of bone cancer. A nine-centimeter tumor was removed from her skull. She underwent a very invasive and frightening neurosurgery, followed by eight weeks of intensive daily radiation in Boston. While a cancer diagnosis is overwhelming for all who face this life threatening disease, our experience was even more challenging due to our status as an unmarried couple. I was at times not recognized as Celia's partner. I was ignored or, at best, referred to as Celia's “friend.”

If I had not had legal documentation to prove my status as Celia's health care proxy, I would have been denied access to Celia and critical information about her health. While it is odd to use the word fortunate when referring to a catastrophic illness, we were, in fact, fortunate to have some advanced notice of what lied ahead. We were able to prepare ourselves both legally and emotionally. Because we were concerned that I might be denied access to Celia or critical information about her health status, we obtained a health care proxy in advance of Celia's surgery which fully identified myself as Celia's health care proxy. As it turns out, our concern was justified, as some medical staff indicated that they would only release information to Celia's family. I was not considered family. As her health care proxy, however, I did have access to information that would have otherwise been denied.

Celia's neurosurgeon warned us that Celia's surgery would leave her feeling like she got hit by a Mack truck. If, in fact, our family health crisis had been an unexpected and catastrophic accident, like getting hit by a truck, I would not have been prepared and would not have had access to Celia or information about her medical status, which was, as it turned out, absolutely critical to her recovery.

In anticipation of Celia's upcoming surgery, we also quickly got ourselves into court to finalize the co-adoption of our youngest child, as we had done on behalf of our older children years before. We finalized Davis' adoption only days before Celia's surgery. Of course, we needed Davis' birth certificate, like her siblings', to legally identify Celia as Davis' mother. Davis needed that too. While grateful for the right to proceed with the co-parent adoptions of all three of our children, we were, at the same time, saddened and frustrated by the need for these legal proceedings. Had we been able to marry and been legally recognized as a couple at the time of our children's conceptions, the law would have recognized Celia as our children's mother, equal to me as their birth mother. We did, after all, create and welcome each one of our children together, equally, and with tremendous hope for our future together as a family.

Having to deal with a life-threatening illness is certainly stressful and exhausting. Yet, our situation was all the more unbearable because we were not legally married in the eyes of the law. Had we been married, some elements of the worry and stress during this difficult time would have been reduced or eliminated in very important ways. The additional anxiety and frustration we experienced as a result of this legal barrier was significant and, unfortunately, reinforced the notion that my family does not have the same rights as other families.

I have a wonderful family, created with hope, joy and commitment. We ask that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts honor and respect our family and other families like ours. The state's legal recognition of our family will not change who we are; we are strong, we are committed and we are a family regardless of a legal right to marry. The legal recognition will, however, bring honor to the Commonwealth. It will also bring some sense of comfort to our lives – both emotionally and legally – in times of crisis as well as in times of joy. We, like all other families and children, should have that right.

Testimony of Martin Friedman

Fire Chief John Campbell was my partner for forty years before he passed away from cancer on August 29, 1998 at the age of 72. For the forty years between 1958 and John's death in 1998, John and I lived together in a loving, committed relationship. The personal story I want to share with you today concerns the difficulties John and I faced during the last year and a half of John's life when I tended to his terminal illness and the difficulties I faced as a widower upon John's death because I could not legally claim the recognizable legal status of husband, even though John and I functioned as each other's spouse in all aspects of our life together.

By way of background, Fire Chief John Campbell was born in Boston and was educated in the local schools. He began his career with the Boston Fire Department in 1949 at Ladder 5 in South Boston, after eight months as a Boston police officer. He was promoted to fire lieutenant in 1956, fire captain in 1966, and to District 8 fire chief in 1984. He retired in 1991 after 42 years of service. Among other awards and tributes, John received the Walter Scott Medal for Valor for extreme personal risk in 1964 after locating a trapped, unconscious woman and carrying her to the street. John served in the Marine Corps and participated in the Iwo Jima campaign during World War II. He was a member of Boston Firefighters Local 7188, IAFF, the Society of St. Florian, and he retained membership in the Boston Fireman's Relief Fund and the Boston Firefighters Mutual Relief Fund.

I am currently 65 years old. I met John in New York City in 1958 when I was only 20 years old. Shortly after meeting John, I relocated to Boston to be with him. Presently, I live in the South End of Boston at 5 Dwight Street in the home that John and I shared for 32 years. John retired from the Boston Fire Department in 1991, and consistent with his wishes, I took early retirement at the same time so that we could spend more quality time together. Prior to my retirement, I was the sole proprietor of a custom picture-framing store in downtown Boston for twenty-five years. Although I had always worked, John was the primary wage earner, and it was truly John's income that carried us along. Just like our emotional life, our finances were completely intermingled and interdependent.

The last two years of John's life were spent living with the ravages of throat cancer. Due to John's repeated inhalation of smoke while on the job, his physicians identified his long career fighting fires as the likely cause of his illness. During the last two years of his life, John underwent four major surgeries and several minor ones. His first surgery in 1996, a tracheotomy, left John without a voice box. It also left him unable to consume food through his mouth. Thus, for the final two years of his life, John could not speak and only received nourishment through a feeding tube. John also suffered terribly during this time. He fought infections and had many near death experiences, as he would choke on plugs of mucous that would build in his throat and could not be coughed out.

I was John's sole caregiver. I lovingly cared for John at home throughout his entire illness, including his death. Except limited periods of time that John was in the hospital, John spent his time at home with me as the sole caretaker. Fortunately, the Visiting Nurses Association made visits two to three times per week, until near the end when they came for a short period of time each day; and the Veterans Administration provided some support as well. I was at John's side every moment as we went through this very painful period as loving partners would. Dutifully, I would assist John to clear the plugs of mucous out of his trachea with long plastic tweezers so he would not choke to death. Multiple times each day, I changed his dressings and fed him through the feeding tube which had been inserted into his stomach. Carefully, I would provide him with moisture to wet his lips and mouth; but, even the slightest amount of moisture would burn his throat. Obviously, this was a painful time for John. Yet, it was also painful for me to watch and assist John. This experience was only made worse by the fact that I could not receive the comfort of John's spoken words, as all he could do was write since his voice box was removed in 1996. Towards the end of his life, even the writing stopped.

John and I had been living on John's pension. Because I could not receive insurance coverage through John's health plan, we had to use a portion of John's pension to fund my private insurance. On John's behalf and at his insistence, I contacted Boston City Hall to ask whether there was any way I could participate in Fire Chief Campbell's insurance in light of the difficulties we were then facing. Though John wanted to arrange for me to be covered by his insurance and participate more fully in his pension, Boston City Hall could offer no support at that time. To make our financial ends meet and to prepare for my life after John's anticipated death, I took on part-time work as a waiter and attempted to sell antiques out of a little shop I had opened in our home. Soon, however, John's caretaking needs forced me to discontinue even these modest efforts.

John and I owned and shared property, and we did what we could to prepare for the inevitable. We executed wills, health care proxies, and durable powers of attorney, among other things. We also arranged for the joint ownership of our property. Due to the fact that we were not recognized as a legal couple, however, I incurred legal fees in the thousands of dollars (incurred prior and after John's death).

Even these efforts, however, did not completely insulate me from experiencing the unequal treatment I endured under the law because I was not John's legal spouse. Though John did have a health care proxy which entitled me to information about John's medical status, I recall that the surgeon who performed John's first surgery at Boston City Hospital purposely waited approximately 6-7 hours after the procedure to report John's condition to me. The surgery ended in the early evening, and yet the physician did not notify me of John's status until approximately 2 a.m. the next morning. I am convinced that this homophobic surgeon would have notified a wife in the same circumstances immediately following the surgery. The unequal treatment I receive under the law only serves to reinforce and fuel mistreatment of gays and lesbians in all aspects of society. These attitudes cannot be fixed with health care proxies. Rather, until the underlying discriminatory marriage laws are changed, gays and lesbians cannot realistically expect to be treated with fairness and decency from the world at large.

While settling John's estate, it was painful for me to see how little respect our loving, committed relationship was given. I could not receive John's pension because I was not his legal spouse. I had to pay substantial taxes on real property John had gifted to me during our lifetime and additional inheritance taxes which I would not have had to pay if we had been legally wed. Because I was a spouse without formal legal recognition, I had to pay well over $100,000 in taxes and attorneys fees. Had I been legally recognized as John's spouse, the inheritance taxes would have been negligible, if any. Moreover, without John's pension, my ability to obtain insurance coverage for myself was dramatically compromised, as the cost of my private health insurance at the time of John's death was approximately $625 per month.

John and I openly lived our lives together. We held ourselves out to the world as a loving, committed couple. John's co-workers (and their spouses) on the Boston Fire Department acknowledged our relationship. The Boston Fire Department District Headquarters consoled me via telephone upon John's death. John's biological family had been supportive of our relationship over the years and, thankfully, was supportive of me even after John's death.

Perhaps because my lifetime of loving partnership with John was not hidden from the world during our lives, it became even more excruciating to confront the fact that, upon John's death, I lost the one person who unequivocally understood and could verify the fact that John and I cared for each other deeply and lived together as committed spouses.

I appreciate your consideration of the difficulties John and I encountered because we could not marry and, thus, could not secure legally cognizable rights with respect to each other. I am hopeful that the sharing of my experience here today will help end this continuing injustice for other similarly situated, same-sex couples. Thank you.

Testimony of Michele Granda

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this committee today about how the lack of marriage rights personally has affected my life.

In March of 2002, I was on vacation in the British Virgin Islands with my partner of twelve years, Kathleen “Kate” Hogan. While there, Kate and I went kayaking in a bright yellow, two-seater sit on top kayak off the shore of Jost Van Dyke. Tragically, a 39-foot motorboat came from behind and ran directly over our kayak without warning. I was able to get out of the way of the oncoming vessel, but Kate was not as fortunate. The motorboat apparently ran directly over Kate in the kayak, severely injuring her. Kate survived long enough to die from extreme loss of blood at the hospital a few hours after the collision.

Incidents such as this are life changing. Yet, at the time, there was very little about my life that I wanted to change. Kate was only 36 years old at the time of her death. Kate grew up in Holyoke, Massachusetts and was the successful, overachieving daughter of her father, an Assistant School Principal and her mother, a life long teacher in the Holyoke Public Schools. I met Kate in 1989 when we both taught government and politics to high school students in Washington, DC. Both Kate and I went to law school and had successful legal careers here in Boston. My life was fully interwoven with Kate's, both emotionally and financially. Though we had long before made a lifetime commitment to each other, we were just starting to create a family together – in fact, we only discovered that our third attempt at artificial insemination was unsuccessful in the two weeks preceding Kate's death. We had great relationships with each other's family.

Being lawyers and not prone to great risk, Kate and I took all the necessary steps to protect our relationship in the unlikely event of a tragedy. Kate had a will naming me as the beneficiary of 99.9% of her assets. She had a health care proxy, which designated me the decision-maker for her medical care. She had a durable power-of-attorney that gave me almost unlimited power. Kate named me the sole beneficiary of her retirement account and her life insurance. We owned our house jointly with a right of survivorship. Our checking and savings accounts were in both our names. In short, we thought we had executed all of the right legal documents to protect us in case of an emergency. At the time, we felt quite confident that our relationship would survive any tragedy. Though, truthfully, if we could have married each other, we certainly would have.

Despite all of this planning and despite our pre-existing awareness of our vulnerability as a non-married couple under the law, it was not until the accident that I came to realize how much my life had been affected by the lack of a marriage certificate. Let me list the ways:

• At the time of the incident, I was in shorts and a bathing suit, thousands of miles away from the health care proxy that would have authorized me to make decisions about Kate's care. Because I had been assisting in the efforts to save Kate by applying tourniquets to her legs, assisting with the ambu bag in the ambulance, and performing CPR at various times along the way, the hospital staff mistook me for an EMT and allowed me to continue assisting in the emergency room. When they realized that I had an intensely personal relationship with Kate, I was asked to leave the room to contact Kate's father. It was only when I left the room to contact her father that they pronounced Kate dead.
• The American Consulate learned of the incident in the local press and contacted me the next day so that they could get Kate's father's telephone number to satisfy their obligation to notify Kate's “next of kin.” They explained that I was not “next of kin” because I had no legal relationship to Kate.
• I was the designated beneficiary on Kate's retirement accounts, but the taxes I had to pay for the privilege of receiving these funds were certainly higher than the “nothing” I would have had to pay had I been married to Kate.
• I cannot receive Kate's social security pension, now or ever.
• Kate's will designated me the Executrix of her estate and the recipient of her personal assets (though, quite honesty, I already had an interest in 99% of her assets because they had been acquired throughout our 12 year relationship with commingled funds). Yet, because of discriminatory marriage laws, I was not able to pursue a wrongful death lawsuit that would benefit me. The applicable statute governing who could benefit from a wrongful death lawsuit for Kate was the Federal Death on the High Seas Statute. (This federal statute arguably applied even though we were less than 150 feet from shore and only approximately 4 miles from US territorial waters.) Much like the Massachusetts wrongful death statute, the statutory beneficiary of Kate's estate under this federal law would have been her legal spouse, if she had one. Because she had no legal spouse, however, the sole beneficiary was Kate's father. That meant that I could only pursue a wrongful death action that would benefit Kate's father. Because I could not marry Kate under Massachusetts law and further - because of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage for purposes of federal law as between one man and one woman - - no recovery for Kate's wrongful death claim could go to me, even though as Executrix, I was the only person who had standing to assert a wrongful death claim on behalf of Kate's father. Thus, because I was not legally Kate's spouse, this wrongful death statute would not consider the fact that Kate was in a committed relationship with me at the time of her death.
• Even in pursuing the claim on behalf of Kate's father, I soon learned that, under personal injury legal principles, the value of Kate's life (for crass valuation purposes) was minimal in the eyes of the law. Because Kate was essentially a 36-year old spinster in the eyes of the law - - that is, she was deemed to be “single with no dependents” - - the value of Kate's life, even to her father, was minimal under the law.
• I also could not file a claim for the associational injuries I suffered as a result of Kate's tragic and untimely death. Through the negligence of others, I was forever deprived of Kate's love, society, intimacy and companionship. These types of injuries are typically recovered through “loss of consortium” claims under state law. Under Massachusetts's law, however, loss of consortium claims are presently limited to legal spouses and dependent children only. Though I am forever deprived of Kate's love and companionship, I have no way to recover for that loss, even though my loss would be no different than that experienced by a “theoretical” husband.

For being so unlucky, I was certainly one of the lucky ones. I know that there are many similarly situated people who would not have fared so well in my situation. Unfortunately, many persons like me experience first-hand the difficulties that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community encounters when they interact with our legal system and discover that basic rights and privileges are denied them solely because they do not have a marriage certificate. I ask you to consider my testimony here today as proof that only the extension of marital rights to same-sex couples can transform gays and lesbians from second-class citizens to equal citizens in our communities. Thank you.

Testimony of Tom Ingle

Lee and I met over the internet. We are both gay dads and met through a gay father's bulletin board. When he came to sight-see in Boston, I went in to meet him. That is when I knew we would be together for a long time. When we first met, gays and lesbians had few rights as a couple. Since that time a lot has been going on within the country, and now here in Massachusetts and the right for gays and lesbians to marry might soon be possible. I never thought it possible that I might someday have a chance to marry the person I love so dearly. Being in a marriage with my wife, I took for granted how much protection we had over our relationship. Being in a same sex relationship, I have seen how we are basically legal strangers under the law.

The thought of something happening to either one of us in the case of a medical emergency, an accident, or what will happen to us when we get old and one of us dies, would leave me with no legal responsibility to him. I wouldn't be able to make medical decisions because I wouldn't be considered his family. I wouldn't be able to make funeral arrangements because I wouldn't be considered his spouse. I could even be barred from seeing him in the hospital because we aren't related. Even though we share the most intimate parts of ourselves. Here I am a firefighter/EMT protecting and keeping safe the citizens of Hanover, but the Town doesn't give me the ability to do the same for my own family.

My partner is retired and has only a small income, which makes me the breadwinner. Just this past Monday I thought I would see about getting him on my medical insurance. I talked to Blue Cross and Blue Shied who I have my medical insurance with through the Town of Hanover. They told me they offered Domestic partnerships. They told me I needed to contact the group I had the insurance through. This is the Plymouth County Insurance group. When I called them I was told they couldn't offer coverage for my partner because Massachusetts law is quite clear about not letting municipalities offer these benefits to domestic partners. Only married couples can qualify as a family. Granted I have my kids covered by medical insurance but my partner has none. And why? Because we aren't considered a family. I find this so wrong considering we plan on spending the rest of our lives together just like any other married couple. This is just one of the example of benefits Lee cannot share in. Others are my pension, line-of-duty death benefits if God forbid something happened to me at work, and my social security.

My family is no different from any other family in this country. Our daily activities always revolve around the kids, the house, the meals and what other activities might be going on. My partner is involved in the every day life of my kids. He loves them and they love him. Lee is the one who stays home with the kids when I work and is basically the homemaker. I am for the most part his financial income. I hope that the legislature will support H.3677. Then someday I will be able to marry the person I live with and love. It will not break down other marriages in anyway. If anything it will help to strengthen society by helping couples become legally recognized as a family.

Testimony of Art Sullivan

I met Robert by happenstance when we were forced to share a table together in a diner in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1980. I was twenty-two years old at the time; Robert was twenty-four. We made a joint decision to move to the East Coast in the spring of 1981, and then onto Boston in 1985. Robert and I lived together in a committed relationship for the final twelve years of Robert's life.

In Boston, I worked for a consulting firm engaged in mergers and acquisitions. It was my job to put a business plan in place for the target company following the transaction. My job required me to travel and work long hours. Robert, in turn, maintained our home. Though he also was a part-time actor, he was frequently between jobs, managing our daily lives. Financially, I supported Robert 100%. We had joint credit cards, and Robert wrote checks for home expenditures off of my bank account.

On December 19, 1992, Robert died suddenly and unexpectedly from a massive hemorrhage. I was returning home from a business trip when my upstairs neighbor contacted me at Logan to tell me that he had visited my home that morning and found Robert's lifeless body on the floor. I immediately took a taxi from Logan to our home in West Roxbury. Though I arrived home approximately an hour and a half after Robert was discovered on the floor, Robert was no longer there. The police had already arranged for Robert's body to be transported to the morgue. Rather than encountering Robert, I was greeted at the door by the police. An officer refused to let me enter my own home, claiming that they first needed to complete their investigation. Approximately seven hours later, I was finally allowed to enter my home. (Though Robert and I had been living in our home together for at least five years by then, the house was solely in my name.)

I soon learned from the police that Robert's “family” had already been notified of his death, and they had apparently requested that Robert's body be returned “home” for burial. Robert's “family” lived in North Carolina. They had not seen him since 1979, when, at the end of a shotgun, his brother (a police officer) removed him from the family homestead. That was the last time Robert's “family” saw him alive. According to Robert, his mother's parting words were, “we have no use for 'his' kind.” Perhaps in partial response, Robert legally changed his last name from “Johnson” to “York” in 1985 to further distance himself from his family.

I called Robert's “family” at their homestead in North Carolina to discuss final arrangements for Robert. Though quite polite, Robert's mother informed me that the funeral would be for family members only. I would be welcome to stay in Boston. Robert's brother, the police officer, was more direct: he threatened my life if I did anything to interfere.

I went to the morgue with two friends to see Robert's body for a first and final time. The guards at the morgue refused me entry because I had no legal relationship to Robert. After hours of pleading and persuading, an employee of the Boston morgue snuck me in to say my last goodbyes. I had only thirty minutes with Robert that night. My friends physically had to carry me out of the morgue. I was incapable of functioning on my own.

Shortly thereafter, Robert's brother called me to say that he would be traveling to Boston to identify Robert and claim his body. His brother also announced his intention to take all of Robert's possessions back to North Carolina. He again threatened me. In response, I called the Boston police. The police came over and guarded the house for the next two days. As far as I know, Robert's brother did not attempt to gain illegal entry into my home, despite his threats.

Robert and I were young and did not anticipate a premature death for either of us. At the time of his death in 1992, Robert was thirty-six, and I was thirty-four. We had not executed wills, health-care proxies or final directives. I did not then understand that I would be no one to Robert under the law without such documents.

Though Robert and I discussed our final wishes, we never attempted to memorialize our preferred arrangements. Robert had expressed a desire to be cremated. I knew that Robert's family intended to bury him, however. In 2001, after September 11th, I decided to travel to North Carolina to visit Robert's grave for the first time. Certainly, contrary to any wishes Robert would have had for himself, his grave was marked with his original family name, “Johnson,” rather than the name “York” which had had intentionally selected for himself. Of course, my name was listed nowhere on Robert's headstone.

Following Robert's death, I paid to satisfy Robert's debts on his credit cards, store accounts, and the like, even though I was not legally obligated to do so. As I supported Robert in life, however, it only seemed appropriate for me to clear his outstanding obligations upon his death.

As you might imagine, Robert's tragic and untimely death was incredibly difficult. Adding to the shock of losing my partner so suddenly was the realization that I had no rights to stand up for myself or for Robert. Had we been married, I could have entered my home sooner. I could have visited the morgue without difficulty. I could have planned Robert's funeral. I could have ensured that Robert's final wishes were fulfilled. I could have preserved Robert's chosen name for him. In short, I would have been entitled to grieve my loss without at the same time having to prove my previously unquestioned, committed and loving relationship with Robert.

Having to prove the existence of your intensely personal and intimate relationship at the same time that you are dealing with its demise is disorienting and painful. I did not work or leave my home for the first year following Robert's death. Shortly thereafter, I left my demanding consulting job, and I now work for a data center as its manager of news collection, refinery, and production operations. At forty-five, I am getting my life back together, but I still struggle to understand why my relationship with Robert was not entitled to the same respect and recognition granted to married couples of different sexes.

Gay people need laws to protect our relationships. We are not seeking “special privileges,” but it is about time we demand respect and recognition for our families.

Thank you.