When I was asked to think of a policy that affected me or my community, I found it difficult. I personally haven't had many problems or interesting stories related to politics. However, my LGBT friends did. This is a policy that affects my entire Massachusetts community, as well as the close community of friends I have around me. The policy I decided to analyze is same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. In the rest of the country, it's still an issue that gay and lesbian people struggle with every day. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To analyze a policy, you need to go back to its roots. Where did it all begin? You could argue that it all started with marriage, or that it started when men and women started coming out. In the case of Massachusetts, however, it all started with a lawsuit. Like many policy or legislative changes, there was a lawsuit against a state department demanding changes. In the case of same-sex marriage, this cause is Goodridge et al. against the Department of Public Health. The court case began on March 4, 2003, and ended on November 18, 2003. On November 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the state constitution. (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, n.d.). How did you come to this decision? Who was involved? What issues surround the policy that arose? This is a complex issue that many people are still fighting for or against across the country. In the case of Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health, GLAD represented seven couples who were denied marriage licenses in Massachusetts. The seven couples were Hillary and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies. All of these couples faced unique challenges due to the lack of a legal marriage. Same-sex couples have faced these challenges for a long time and are still facing them in many states across the country. These couples and many others in the state are major stakeholders in MA's policy of allowing same-sex couples to marry. What are some of the benefits and basic rights they were missing out on before getting legally married? When Julie gave birth to her and Hillary's daughter, their daughter had trouble swallowing birth fluid and had to be admitted to the NICU. Hillary had difficulty seeing her daughter or Julie (she was also recovering from a difficult birth) simply because they were not legally married. They also have their respective health care proxies, but Hillary has not yet been allowed to see Julie or her new daughter. In the case of Rob and David, Rob has heart problems. David also has some health problems. Insurance companies would not talk to the partner simply because they were not legally married. In Michael and Edward's case, they were able to get health insurance for Mike through Ed's job, but they had to pay income tax on the value of the coverage; legal spouses are not required to do so. In 1999, Ellen Wade was diagnosed with breast cancer. Due to same-sex marriage laws, she was uncertain whether her partner and daughter would be provided for financiallyand emotionally if she were dead. Gary Chalmers was unable to add his partner Rich to his family health insurance plan because they were not legally married. As a result it was necessary to take out a separate health insurance policy, which would not have happened if his partner had been his spouse. Heidi Norton and Gina Smith have two children. The children were carried and borne by Heidi and given the surname Norton Smith to show that they were the children of both women. Gina had to file adoption papers because Heidi and Gina were not married; therefore Gina had no parental rights. Gloria and Linda met in 1970 and worked at the same mental health agency. Because their relationship would cause problems in the workplace, they set up their own psychotherapy practice, rather than live in secret. Gloria and Linda faced many financial difficulties, especially when they tried to buy a house: the bank would not finance them together because they were not related. They also couldn't purchase joint health insurance. These are just a few examples of the difficulties same-sex couples go through when they cannot legally marry. (All anecdotes adapted from the filings of Good Ridge et al. v. Department of Public Health) Along with these specific challenges, it is a basic human right to feel accepted. All the couples described want to get married for the sake of the word marriage: they want legal recognition of a real relationship. Some wonder why they couldn't settle for a civil union. The answer is simple: they are not the same thing and in some states civil unions are not even legal. To understand the differences between the two, we must first understand what a civil union is. According to GLAD, a civil union “provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security, and power of the word “marriage.”” (December 2011). created by Vermont in 2000 and has been adopted by New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Delaware, and Illinois. A civil union is NOT a marriage, as some state leaders would have us believe. Many of the couples I described above have had commitment ceremonies, similar to weddings, which are confusing to people. Although in any state and country a same-sex couple can promise each other, in many states and countries this is not legally binding. One of the main differences between marriage and civil union is the word itself. When you fill out any type of form for work, school, government there are always boxes for single, married, widowed or divorced. There is no box for civil unions. Aside from the legal forms, one difference in the words is that marriage has a certain connotation. We all know what it means to be married, and we all know the rights that come with a wedding ring and a marriage certificate. Couples living in civil unions do not have the opportunity to experience everything that a wedding entails. Civil unions are extremely limiting in several respects. According to GLAD, there are several factors that limit couples' rights in civil unions that are not present in legal marriages. These factors are: Portability – A marriage is usually respected regardless of the state you go to, civil unions are not, as not all states have them. Ending a Civil Union – “If you are married, you can get a divorce in any state where you reside. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no other way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a state that respects civil unions.” (GLAD, December 2011) Federal taxes and benefits: theLegal marriage entitles couples to 1,138 federal benefits, including work leave to care for a family member and Social Security benefits for survivors. They are also limited in some tax functions, since civil unions are not recognized at the federal level, but at the state level. This can cause problems in some systems, such as Medicaid and government assistance such as food stamps. Forms: I've talked about this before, but there is usually no box on federal or state forms for "civil union," so couples are often left in limbo because they are neither married nor single. Some forms have new options such as "living with partner", but this is not the same as marriage or civil partnership. Second class status: a civil union was created only for same-sex couples. This is separate and unequal treatment. The United States Constitution requires equality for all, and people continue to use it to fight for federal recognition of same-sex marriage. All of these factors contributed to Massachusetts' decision to take a step forward and make same-sex marriage legal. But how exactly did it happen? We have already identified the stakeholders in this policy: the seven couples who went to court over this and LGBT people across the country. And we all know what's at stake: equal rights for everyone to marry the man or woman they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with. Also at stake is adoption and child-rearing – currently, two people can be legal parents of a child but there is a rigorous amount of paperwork involved – If marriage were legal everywhere, there would be less paperwork bureaucratic and much less discrimination. But how is it possible that Massachusetts has taken this great step forward? To answer this question we need to look at the framework provided by Deborah Stone in Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. According to this framework, there are five fundamental steps to form a policy, they are: Identify the objectives Identify alternative courses of action to achieve the objectives Predict the possible consequences for each alternative Evaluate the possible consequences of each alternative Select the alternative that maximizes the achievement of the objectives (Stone, p.8)Although not all policies follow this pattern exactly, we can use it as a starting point in almost any policy you can think of. Massachusetts has come a long way toward same-sex marriage equality, but it succeeded when Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health was decided in favor of Goodridge. Identify the goals The goals in this case were very clear from the beginning, the main goal was equality for all men and women. BUT she has been at the forefront of many civil rights issues, so it made sense that they would lead on this one as well. Many couples, like the Goodridges, had been together for many years and even had a child or two who grew up together as if they were their own flesh and blood. However, without any legal recognition of their family unit, couples, and often children, were subject to feeling like strangers in their own community. Children can be especially cruel when one of the children does not have a married couple of parents. Adults in same-sex relationships are often sidelined in matters involving spousal benefits, such as health insurance or life insurance. In a nation like the United States, where our Constitution says it values ​​equality, it is as baffling as theHomosexual relationships can be a problem. To put it simply, the seven-pair goal, and GLAD in the case of Goodridge et al. al. against the Department of Public Health, was to ensure equality, that is, to guarantee marriage to all people. In doing so, this would cover several smaller goals: making children feel like a whole family, providing health and life insurance to couples of all orientations, reducing confusion about legal and federal forms, and ensuring full, non-discriminatory status for any couple who has chosen to be together out of mutual love and respect. Identify alternative courses of action to achieve goals For many people, the only obvious course of action would be to remove the part of the law that says marriage is just one man and one woman. In essence, this is what Massachusetts has done, with the repeal of Section 28A of Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts Constitution. But there were other options. Massachusetts also could have established civil unions, as Vermont did. BUT he could also have kept the marriage as it had always been. As you can see, there are not many alternatives to ensure complete equality for all people in the state of Massachusetts. Predict and evaluate the consequences of each alternative There are positive and negative consequences for almost every action or policy in the world. It's something like “every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” Every proposed policy has an intended and an actual consequence. Let's take a look at each alternative and the specific changes it would bring with it. If Massachusetts had adopted civil unions, changes would have been made to the state constitution, as well as city offices and courts. Even in the Vermont case, civil union law began with a court case, Baker vs. Vermont. In the case, it was decided that “same-sex couples are entitled, under Chapter I, Article 7, of the Vermont Constitution, to the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to opposite-sex married couples” (Baker vs. Vermont, 2000). This decision created an entirely new family unit, which presumably paralleled civil marriage. The Civil Union was created specifically for same-sex couples. The positive consequences of this are the legal rights afforded to couples within states. Almost all the same rights apply to a marriage, except where legally affected. This would be a step forward from a total ban on same-sex couples marrying, but it still has its flaws. For example, if residents of Vermont, who entered into a civil union there, wanted to move to another state, such as Kentucky, their civil union would be invalid and they would not be recognized as a couple because Kentucky has no such laws type. .A marriage, however, would be accepted, at least socially, almost everywhere. Another consequence of the adoption of civil unions would be that they are not federally recognized statuses. There would still be issues like taxes and if a partner like in the military (for example), his civil union partner would not receive any benefits. So, to summarize civil unions, the negative consequence would be no federal recognition or benefits, and the positive consequence would be that at the state level, same-sex couples in civil unions would have the same rights as heterosexual couples in a civil marriage. the marriage laws would have remained unchanged and that would have meant no progress. It would mean being stuck in an era of discrimination and inequality. Even if it was a possible option, it wouldn't have been right. Perhaps.