Connect with us

Commentary

5 things you should know before you say ‘I do’

Published

on

To be certain, there are more than five things to consider before you decide to get married: Where are we going to live? Will we grow old together? Should we open a joint checking account? How will we file our income taxes? At which parent’s house will we spend the holidays? These are all are examples of what may come to mind.

Thankfully, gays and lesbians in the District and in Maryland now have the opportunity to consider entering a marital union that is recognized by their state of residence. In the District, the historic vote by the City Council in December 2009 allowed same-sex couples to obtain valid marriage licenses and get married effective March 3, 2010. In Maryland, Attorney General Douglas Gansler published an opinion on Feb. 23 opening the door for the recognition of same-sex marriages that are validly performed in other states.

Many gays and lesbians have never had to seriously concern ourselves with exchanging vows. Never having had a talk about marriage with a parent or other mentor may have left an information gap. Faced with the reality that we really can marry, many of us are not prepared for all that marriage offers, nor what it requires of us.

Simply put, you don’t know what you don’t know. The excitement of our newly gained right, the love, the romance, the feeling of freedom and justice may crowd out some very important questions to ask about marriage and about your soon-to-be spouse. Before you tie the knot, jump the broom, take the plunge or settle down, take time to consider and talk through the non-romantic aspects of marriage: finances, economics, and the law. Here are some considerations.

Marriage is not a cure-all to protect your partner and your relationship. Marriage is still not recognized by the federal government because of the Defense of Marriage Act. That means protections afforded to opposite sex married couples in the tax code, ERISA, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Family and Medical Leave Act, immigration laws and many other areas of the law are not available to same-sex married couples.

Many states like Virginia have draconian laws invalidating your marriage while you visit there. For example, if you and your spouse hike the Appalachian Trail and you get seriously injured near Roanoke, your spouse may not be allowed to visit you in the hospital.

Recognition of our marriages is a giant step forward in protecting our loved ones, but you should not stop at “I do” and assume your affairs are in order. You still need to put an estate plan in place, a health care power of attorney (including a HIPAA authorization and living will), a durable financial power of attorney, and a last will and testament — and for some, a revocable living trust.

Your spouse can now sue you for alimony if you get divorced. Not a pleasant thought to have as you walk down the aisle; however, the economics of marriage are important to understand. Historically, a spouse who is wealthier may get saddled with alimony payments to support the less wealthy spouse upon a separation or divorce. In addition, all the income earned by both spouses during the marriage, including wages, dividends and appreciation in investments, is considered marital property. A judge may decide how to divide your marital property at the time of a divorce regardless of who earned it or added the most equity to it.

The law looks at marriage as an economic partnership between the spouses. One may contribute money, while the other supplies sweat equity. Unless you agree otherwise before the nuptials, all the marital property is equitably divided upon dissolution. This problem can be addressed in a prenuptial agreement (a “prenup”). In some states you can make an agreement during the marriage, too.

A creditor of your spouse can take your assets. One common mistake couples make is to title assets in their names as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, but without considering the consequences. In some cases, titling an asset like a house or a checking account as joint tenants with rights of survivorship can be a good choice. For example, it can create a cohesive feeling of permanence and shared experience. It can also be a good tool to practice communication and navigate interdependence. But it comes with severe risk for the unwary.

If your spouse — or for that matter a non-spouse who is your joint tenant on an asset or account — has a judgment creditor, that creditor can come after the entire jointly owned asset — yes, even your share of it. While this may seem counterintuitive, property law determines that parties to a joint tenancy (with rights of survivorship) each own an undivided share in the whole asset. Therefore, the creditor of one of the joint tenants has a right to the entire asset.

There are other reasons to avoid joint tenancies, such as gift tax consequences and loss of control. The easiest way around this problem is to simply avoid co-mingling assets and keep your possessions in your own name. Talk to your estate planning attorney about it. Know the benefits and risks prior to changing title.

You may become disqualified to receive certain public benefits by being married. Eligibility for public benefits like Medicaid is complex. Eligibility requirements vary from state to state and can be negatively affected by either (1) marriage because of family income levels; or (2) a wealthier spouse leaving an inheritance to a less wealthy spouse.

If the couple has minor children who are dependent on public health care, it is imperative that the couple carefully weigh how marriage will impact their ability to qualify for public benefits, or to qualify in the future. In other words, do not make a quick emotional decision. Instead, get reliable advice before applying for the marriage license.

“You can’t disinherit your spouse” or “Divorce is not cheap and easy.” Marriage is an officially authorized union with a long and rich legal history. Part of that history includes laws that require that you take care of your spouse. You cannot leave them with nothing.

Consider this scenario: Chris and Kim, residents of Maryland, just got married in D.C. They are economically independent and each has their own assets. They have no children. Eight months into the marriage, Chris and Kim begin to drift apart after an argument. Kim moves out less than a year after their nuptials. Both move on with their lives, but they never officially end the marriage. Upon Kim’s death, 10 years later, Chris claims one-half of Kim’s estate.

Even if you have an estate plan in place, your spouse (or your spouse’s representatives) may un-do your plan. Generally speaking, a surviving spouse is entitled to anywhere from one-third to one-half of the deceased spouse’s property at death. In addition, a surviving spouse may have certain allowances for property against the estate. The only way to make certain that the goals of your estate plan are accomplished is by executing a prenuptial (or marital) agreement with your spouse waiving your respective rights to your estates.

Just because you can does not mean that you should get married. Many of us fight and advocate fiercely for the right to get married. Now that our community enjoys that right in some places, we must carefully consider if it is the right decision for us individually. If it is, be well prepared so that you can reduce or eliminate the unintended consequences from the legal side of marriage.

J. Max Barger, an attorney and MBA, is Senior Council at Ackerman Legal where he leads the Estate Planning, Business Succession and Probate practice group. Max will be presenting “Five Things You Should Do Before You Say “I Do” at the Hillyer Museum and Art Space on Wednesday April 7 at 7 p.m. The seminar is sponsored by Merrill Lynch, GAYLAW and Ackerman Legal.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Protecting the trans community is not optional for elected allies and candidates

One of oldest political tactics is blaming vulnerable group for societal woes

Published

on

rotester stands outside Children's National Hospital in Northwest D.C. on Feb. 2, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Linus Berggren)

Being an ally to the trans community is not a conditional position for me, nor should it be for any candidate. My allyship doesn’t hinge on polling, focus groups, or whether courage feels politically convenient. At a time when trans people, especially trans youth of color, are under coordinated attack, elected officials and candidates must do more than offer quiet support. We must take a public and solid stand.

History shows us how these moments begin. One of the oldest political tactics is to single out the most vulnerable and blame them for society’s anxieties — not because they are responsible, but because they are easier to blame than those with power and protection. In Nazi Germany, Jewish people were primarily targeted, but they were not the only demographic who suffered elimination. LGBTQ people, disabled people, Romani communities, political dissidents, and others were also rounded up, imprisoned, and killed. Among the earliest acts of fascistic repression was the destruction of Berlin’s Institute for Sexual Science, a pioneering center for gender-affirming care and LGBTQ research. These books and medical records were among the first to be confiscated and burned. It is not a coincidence that these same communities are now the first to suffer under this regime, they are our canaries in the coal mine signaling what’s to come. 

Congress, emboldened by the rhetoric of the Donald Trump campaign, recently passed HR 3492 to criminalize healthcare workers who provide gender-affirming healthcare with fines and imprisonment. This bill, sponsored by celebrity politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene, puts politics and headlines over people and health outcomes. Healthcare that a number of cis-gendered people also benefit from byway of hair regeneration and surgery, male and female breast augmentation, hormone replacement therapy etc. Even when these bills targeting this care do not pass, they do real damage. They create fear among patients, legal uncertainty for providers, and instability for clinics that serve the most marginalized people in our communities.

Here in D.C., organizations like Planned Parenthood and Whitman-Walker Health are lifelines for many communities. They provide gender-affirming care alongside primary care, mental health services, HIV treatment, and preventative medicine. When healthcare is politicized or criminalized, people don’t wait for court rulings — they delay care, ration medication, or disappear from the system entirely.

As a pharmacist, I know exactly what that means. These are life-saving medications. Continuity of care matters. Criminalizing and politicizing healthcare does not protect children or families — it puts lives at risk.

Instead of centering these realities, political discourse has been deliberately diverted toward a manufactured panic about trans women in sports. Let me be clear: trans women deserve to be protected and allowed to compete just like anyone else. Athletics have always included people with different bodies, strengths, and abilities. Girls and women will always encounter competitors who are stronger or faster — that is not a gender or sports crisis, it is the nature of competition.

Sports are meant to teach fairness, mutual respect, and the shared spirit of competition — not suspicion or exclusion. We should not police young people’s bodies, and we should reject attempts to single out trans youth as a political distraction. Families and doctors should be the authority on sex and gender identity.

This narrative has been cynically amplified by the right, but too often Democrats have allowed it to take hold rather than forcefully rejecting it. It is imperative to pay attention to what is happening — and to push back against every attempt to dehumanize anyone for political gain.

Trans people have always been part of our communities and our democracy. Protecting the most vulnerable is not radical — it is the foundation of a just society. My work is grounded in that commitment, and I will not waver from it. I’m proud to have hired trans political team Down Ballot to lead my campaign for DC Council At Large. We need more ally leaders of all stages to stand up for the LGBTQ+ community. We must let elected detractors know that when they come for them, then they come for all of us. We cannot allow Fox News and social media trolls to create a narrative that scares us away from protecting marginalized populations. We must stand up and do what’s right.

Anything less is not leadership.

Rep. Oye Owolewa is running for an at-large seat on the D.C. Council.

Continue Reading

Commentary

America is going in the wrong direction for intersex children

Lawmakers are criminalizing care for trans youth, while permitting irreversible harm to intersex babies

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

I live with the consequences of what America is willing to condone in the name of “protecting children.”

When I was young, doctors and adults made irreversible decisions about my body without my informed consent. They weren’t responding to an emergency. They were responding to discomfort with innate physical differences and the social and medical pressure to make a child’s body conform to a rigid female-male binary. That’s the part people like to skip over when they talk about “child welfare”: the harm didn’t begin with my identity. It started with adults deciding my healthy body needed fixing.

That’s why the hypocrisy unfolding right now from statehouses to Capitol Hill feels so familiar, and so dangerous. 

While harmful medical practices on intersex children, the nearly 2 percent born with differences in one or more of their physical sex characteristics, have been ongoing in the U.S. for decades, until recently, there was no law specifically condoning it. 

This month, House Republicans passed one of the most extreme anti-trans bills in modern American history, advancing legislation that would criminalize gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth and threaten doctors with severe penalties for providing evidence-based treatment. The bill is framed as a measure to “protect children,” but in reality, it weaponizes the criminal legal system against families and providers who are trying to support young people in surviving adolescence.

At the same time, the administration has proposed hospital and insurance policies designed to choke off access to affirming care for trans youth nationwide by making providers fear loss of federal funding, regulatory retaliation, or prosecution. This is a familiar strategy: don’t just ban care outright; instead, make it so risky that hospitals stop providing it altogether. The result is the same everywhere. Young people lose access to care that major medical associations agree can be lifesaving.

All of this is happening under the banner of preventing “irreversible harm.”

But if America were genuinely concerned about irreversible harm to minors, the first thing lawmakers would address is the medically unnecessary, nonconsensual surgeries still performed on intersex infants and young children, procedures that permanently alter healthy tissue, often without urgent medical need, and long before a child can meaningfully participate in the decision. Human rights organizations have documented for years how these interventions are justified not by medical necessity, but by social pressure to make bodies appear more typically “female” or “male.” 

Here is the uncomfortable truth: all of the state laws now banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth explicitly include exceptions that allow nonconsensual and harmful intersex surgeries to continue.

A recent JAMA Health Forum analysis found that 28 states have enacted bans on gender-affirming care for minors that carve out intersex exceptions, preserving doctors’ ability to perform irreversible “normalizing” procedures on intersex children even while prohibiting affirming care for trans adolescents.

This contradiction is not accidental. It reveals the real priority behind these laws.

If the goal were truly to protect children from irreversible medical interventions, intersex kids would be protected first. Instead, these policies target one group of children, transgender youth, while continuing to permit permanent interventions on another group whose bodies challenge the same rigid sex and gender binary that lawmakers are trying to enforce.

Intersex people are routinely erased from American policy debates, except when our bodies are invoked to justify harmful laws, warning that intersex children are being used as legal loopholes rather than protected as human beings. This “protect the children” rhetoric is routinely deployed to justify state control over bodies, while preserving medical practices that stripped intersex children like me of autonomy, good health, and choice. Those harms are not theoretical. They are lifelong.

What makes this moment even more jarring is that the federal government had finally begun to recognize intersex people and attempt to address the harms suffered.

In 2024, at the very end of his term, the Biden administration released the first-ever intersex health equity report — a landmark admission that intersex people have been harmed by the U.S. health care system. Issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the report documents medically unnecessary interventions, lack of informed consent, and systemic erasure and recommends delaying irreversible procedures until individuals can meaningfully participate in decisions about their own bodies.

This should have been a turning point. Instead, America is moving in the opposite direction.

On day one, President Trump issued an executive order defining “sex” in a way attempting to delegitimize the existence of transgender Americans that also erased the existence of many intersex people. 

When medicine is used to erase difference, it is called protection, while care that supports self-understanding is treated as a threat. This is not about medicine. It is about control.

You cannot claim to oppose irreversible harm to children while legally permitting surgeries that intersex adults and human rights experts have condemned for decades. You cannot claim to respect bodily autonomy while denying it selectively, based on whose bodies make lawmakers uncomfortable.

Protecting children means protecting all children, transgender, intersex, and cisgender alike. It means delaying irreversible interventions when they are not medically necessary. It means trusting and supporting young people and families over politicians chasing culture-war victories.

America can continue down the path of criminalizing care for some children while sanctioning harm to others, or it can finally listen to the people who have lived the consequences.

Intersex children deserve laws that protect their bodies, not politics that hurt and erase them.

Kimberly Zieselman is a human rights advocate and the author of “XOXY: A Memoir”. The author is a co-author of the JAMA Health Forum article cited, which examined state laws restricting gender-affirming care.

Continue Reading

Commentary

Stand with displaced queer people living with HIV

Dec. 1 is World AIDS Day

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

Today, on World AIDS Day, we honor the resilience, courage, and dignity of people living with HIV everywhere especially refugees, asylum seekers, and queer displaced communities across East Africa and the world.

For many, living with HIV is not just a health journey it is a journey of navigating stigma, borders, laws, discrimination, and survival.

Yet even in the face of displacement, uncertainty, and exclusion, queer people living with HIV continue to rise, thrive, advocate, and build community against all odds.

To every displaced person living with HIV:

• Your strength inspires us.

• Your story matters.

• You are worthy of safety, compassion, and the full right to health.

• You deserve a world where borders do not determine access to treatment, where identity does not determine dignity, and where your existence is celebrated not criminalized.

Let today be a reminder that:

• HIV is not a crime.

• Queer identity is not a crime.

• Seeking safety is not a crime.

• Stigma has no place in our communities.

• Access to treatment, care, and protection is a human right.

As we reflect, we must recommit ourselves to building systems that protect not punish displaced queer people living with HIV. We must amplify their voices, invest in inclusive healthcare, and fight the inequalities that fuel vulnerability.

Hope is stronger when we build it together.

Let’s continue to uplift, empower, and walk alongside those whose journeys are too often unheard.

Today we remember.

Today we stand together.

Today we renew hope.

Abraham Junior lives in the Gorom Refugee Settlement in South Sudan.

Continue Reading

Popular