Posted on 02/06/2004 6:47:14 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies laugh when they recall singing The Beatles' ``When I'm 64'' to one another when they fell in love as closeted social workers in Massachusetts.
Looking back, they say their younger selves could never have imagined they'd one day be openly gay, let alone one of the seven high-profile couples who persuaded Massachusetts' top court to rule they can marry beginning May 17.
But just as unfathomable, the couple of 32 years says, is that they'd ever be 64.
Growing old seemed to Linda and Gloria like something other people did. Or, more specifically, something older people did. But Gloria turns 64 next year and Linda is not far behind at 58.
``I'm happy to say I still love her,'' Linda says, breaking off to sing a few lines from the old Beatles tune. ``But the years have gone by too fast.''
With the years came a vacation home on Cape Cod, a fishing boat called the Glory B and a four-wheeler they drive along the beach. But also came Linda's double hip replacement, Gloria's high cholesterol and blood pressure, and membership in the AARP.
When the nation's top advocacy groups for seniors think of the folks they're representing, Gloria and Linda probably aren't the first faces that come to mind. But as a new report by the Human Rights Campaign shows from Census Bureau data, at least one out of every 10 gay couples includes someone 65 or older, and nearly one in four same-sex couples includes someone 55 or older. The Stonewall generation is, well, now part of the Viagra generation.
And because older gay couples' relationships aren't recognized by the federal government, they face unique hardships right at the time they're experiencing the health and financial challenges that come with aging, HRC notes. Unlike with married heterosexuals, a surviving gay partner is unable to receive survivor Social Security benefits, which works out to be an average loss of $5,528 each year.
A surviving gay partner also faces a big tax bill on an inherited retirement plan - 401(k) or individual retirement account - and even on a jointly owned home.
And if one older gay partner needs Medicaid assistance to enter a nursing home, the couple can be forced to sell their home in order to qualify financially. (See the report at www.hrc.org/.)
These hardships on older Americans solely because they're gay are simply unacceptable. That's far from a radical statement: 62 percent of Americans said in a Gallup Poll last May that same-sex couples should have equal ``health care benefits and Social Security survivor benefits.'' They felt that way even without fully understanding the heart-breaking financial consequences of current law on older gays.
The nation's top seniors groups could make a huge difference by adding their clout to the push to end this shameful treatment of a segment of America's elders. As the second-largest senior group, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, rightly notes on its Web site: ``Congress and the White House listen when the National Committee speaks.''
Those of us who want gay elders protected need to encourage the AARP and the National Committee to throw their considerable clout into erasing inequities.
The National Committee can be reached at 10 G St., NE, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20002, or through its Web site at www.ncpssm.org/. The AARP can be contacted at 601 E St., NW, Washington, DC 20049, or through its Web site at www.aarp.org/.
Linda and Gloria look forward to the marriage certificate that will put them under the umbrella of state law protecting married couples. But until Congress changes federal law, the couple's marriage won't give them access to federal safety nets available to their heterosexual counterparts.
If Congress won't listen to its gay elders, perhaps it would listen to the advocacy groups whose mission it is to ensure no senior is left behind.
On the Web:
There is an old saying in the Gay community...,"Nobody loves an old fag." I'm sure the "old saying" wouldn't have sprung up if there wasn't some truth to it..
No kids and no marriage penalty will do that.
Excuse me but given the fact that queers are so high risk for physical and mental health problems, I seriously doubt old age is when most of them are experiencing health problems and the financial difficulties that go with them. What we are looking at is collectively funding the gay community each time someone dies of AIDS.
Of the many other scenerios, one of the second biggest public expenses will be in the area of mental health. When a homosexual gets despressed and cannot work, should we be forced to support his butt-buddy and whatever unlucky child HHS placed with the pair? I mean, I can live with the counseling they already qualify for (I do not like providing that for anyone, to be honest), but extending benefits to their imaginary family is asking too much.
Privatize Social Security and shift health care away from third party payer to a market oriented, voucherized system, and these problems take care of themselves.
So many of these stupid little policy quarrels arise from collectivist arrangements that make government the arbiter of what should be our private arrangements. The same point applies in spades to the schools.
Sounds like an argument against the death tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.