Ah, but that's the point--a privilege is not a right, and therefore does not have to be guaranteed to everyone.

Is marriage a fundamental right? If so, then gays should be permitted to marry. If not, then laws prohibiting such are permissible.

My comments on the "I'm more than just a gay man" and the "I don't define myself by my sexuality" point of view:

The West Wing advanced this point of view several years ago as one of the White House staffers tried to convince a gay republican congressman to vote against the WW version of DOMA. The Republican replied with his take on the "I don't want to be defined by my sexuality." Fine. I guess. It's a nice sentiment on the surface...

But the problem I have with this point of view is that the laws in question absolutely DO define us by our sexuality. They don't care that we are Mothers, Fathers, Sons, Daughters, Brothers, Sisters, Congresspeople, Firemen, Police Officers, Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Scientists, Democrats and Republicans. The laws are based on our sexuality and nothing else. Don't Ask Don't Tell; DOMA; Marriage Amendment; none of them care who we are, only that we are gay. So, Yes, I agree that we should not be defined by our sexuality; but that means fighting legislation that tries to diminish us because of our sexuality. Complicitness runs counter to that ideal doesn't it?

Are people clueless? I can't believe there are still debates about whether marriage is a right or a privilege under the law. Chief Justice Warren made it pretty clear in the appropriately titled Supreme Court case Loving v. Virgina:

QUOTE

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the \"basic civil rights of man,\" fundamental to our very existence and survival.

The Court overturned a state ban on interracial marriage as violative of the 14th Amendment (without a single dissenter). Loving v. Virgina, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

[ April 04, 2006, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Orsino

Is that your pic?

Two thoughts:

On economics: I actually did my Masters in Econ at Maryland in the 90s, and my Master paper looked at potential economic discrimination against women in the work force. I looked specifically at the effect of the percentage of women in an industry on the relative pay of men and women in that industry.

Interestingly, I found the same income differential between men and women in all industries, but found that both men and women make significantly less the more women in the industry. Basically, I proved "women's work" exists and is less valued for both men and women. Either women are simply welcomed more into low-paying work, or work that becomes predominantly female is then valued less by the society; it was impossible to determine.

Given that gay men likely are over-represented in predominantly female industries, and lesbians appear more likely to work in male industries, that could also account for some of the income differences between gay and straight people.

As for marriage as a right - thank you for posting that Neptune, and again that ruling brings up the intersexed issue. If every human has a right to marriage, then that has to include those who are not defined as "male" or "female." Therefore, limiting marriage to "one man and one woman" or otherwise making gender a requirement of marriage violates that right.

Neptune - Thank you for that posting.

I am just catching up on this topic so will have to weigh in here with a fairly lengthy post - my apologies. I thought it was nescessary.

The MYTH of Gays having disproportionate wealth hidden away somewhere is a vicious sterotype that has no basis in reality.

The following is an excerpt from:

Beyond Biased Samples: Challenging the Myths on the Economic Status of Lesbians and Gay Men

An Educational Pamphlet published by
National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals, Inc. and
Institute for Gay & Lesbian Strategic Studies
Copyright March 1994


The Myths:

"'A Dream Market' ...Gay households have characteristics sought by many advertisers. Average annual [gay] household income is $55,430." --Wall Street Journal, July 18, 1991.

"Are homosexuals a "disadvantaged" minority? You decide! Records show that even now, not only are gays not economically disadvantaged, they're actually one of the most affluent groups in America!" --Literature published in 1992 by Colorado for Family Values in support of Amendment 2.

"...research showed that the gay and lesbian population ... has an average income of $36,800, compared with the average single American's income of $19,082." from Advertising Age, August 9, 1993, quoted in brochure for "Targeting Gay & Lesbian Consumers," a conference sponsored by The Marketing Institute.

The Reality:

From right-wing opponents of lesbian and gay civil rights to businesses anxious to find new groups of consumers, everybody seems to be talking about how well-off and well-educated lesbians and gay men are. Many gay people themselves point to the same numbers to illustrate our ability to function in society and as evidence of our economic clout.

But before accepting these numbers as "facts," step back and consider whether they make sense. After all, why should gay people earn more and go to school longer than the average U.S. citizen? Are gay people smarter and harder workers who deserve higher salaries? It's hard to come up with a good reason to think that sexual orientation affects talent and work motivation.

Or are gay people privileged in other ways that result in better jobs? Again, this seems unreasonable when we match that argument against evidence that lesbians and gay men face discrimination in hiring and promotions and even lose their jobs simply because of their sexual orientation.

From the perspective of statisticians and social scientists who work with statistics, however, the answer to the puzzle is easy: those numbers referred to in the opening quotes do not accurately describe the majority of lesbian and gay people in the United States. Using those numbers to describe all lesbian and gay people is misleading and, in many cases, deliberately deceptive.

Those numbers are deceptive because they come from a "biased sample" of lesbian and gay people. As the next section discusses, the people who received and answered the surveys are likely to be college-educated and have high incomes, so the results are not surprising! The third part of this pamphlet describes information about gay people which comes from more reliable surveys that aren't biased in the same way. One detailed study shows a very different pattern: lesbian, gay, and bisexual people earn less than heterosexual people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where these numbers came from
The income and education figures come from two main sources. The first two quotes use survey data from the Simmons Market Research Bureau. That survey was commissioned by Rivendell Marketing Company, which used the survey results to sell advertising space in gay newspapers. The other source of information used in the quotes comes from surveys done by Overlooked Opinions, a company that sells this information. Overlooked Opinions sends surveys to people on its large list of names of lesbian and gay people across the U.S. who read gay newspapers and magazines or who have filled out questionnaires at gay events, such as gay pride festivals or the March on Washington.

To apply information about some subgroup (the "sample") to the larger group (the "population"), the sample must be "representative" of the group. A sample is representative if each member of the group has an equal chance of being in the survey.

The surveys done by Simmons and by Overlooked Opinions do not meet this requirement. Only those gay people who read certain magazines or attend certain kinds of events are even eligible to be in the surveys. People who buy and read newspapers and magazines tend to have more education and higher incomes. Gay events attract people who can afford to travel or pay an entrance fee.

(In addition, reader and event surveys typically have very low "response rate." The small percentage of readers who respond to the survey may not be representative of all survey recipients, since they may have stronger opinions on the questions asked and are more comfortable with surveys. This could mean that respondents are better educated, which would also raise the average income found in the survey.)

While that might be a reasonable way to survey readers of some newspapers, common sense tells us that we cannot use those results to describe the larger target group. For instance, readers of magazines aimed at African Americans are not economically similar to the typical African American. In 1989, the Simmons Market Research Bureau did a survey revealing that readers of Ebony, Essence, and Jet magazines earn 41% to 82% more than the typical African American (2,4).

Men Women
Ebony readers $19,983 $14,361
Essence readers $20,905 $13,894
Jet readers $17,745 $14,028
U. S. African American $12,609 $7,875
Obviously, as this comparison shows, the economic status of African American magazine readers does not mirror the economic reality for all African Americans.
Nor should we survey people who read USA Today or other newspapers with national readership to find out the average incomes of all people in the United States. As the same Simmons survey shows, people who read those newspapers earn far more than the typical American (2,4).

Men Women
USA Today readers $29,428 $17,776
Wall Street Journal rdrs $42,040 $22,846
U. S. Median $19,893 $9,624
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative surveys allow reasonable comparisons
Getting a representative sample of gay people in the U.S. is no simple matter. Government agencies and academic statisticians already spend a lot of time and money to get representative samples of the U.S. population. Unfortunately, few such surveys ask the right questions that would allow direct comparison of incomes between lesbian/gay people and heterosexual people. Two recent surveys come close, however, and make it possible to make better statistical comparisons.

In the 1990 Census of the U.S. population, the Census Bureau asked unmarried people whether they had an "unmarried partner", and the gender of that partner. As a result, some lesbian couples and gay male couples can be identified. Census figures suggest that men and women in homosexual couples do not earn more than men and women in heterosexual couples.

Overall, the average gay male household earned $56,863 in 1989, the average lesbian couple earned $44,793, and married heterosexual couples earned $47,012 (3). We can split those average incomes for gay male couples and lesbian couples to get the average incomes of individual gay men and lesbians. We can get rough approximations for the heterosexual couples if we note that full-time working women earn only about 2/3 as much as men. (This will actually give us an underestimate of heterosexual men's income.) Those simple calculations give us these average individual incomes:

Men Women
L/G/B $28,432 $22,397
Heterosexual $28,207 $18,805
The apparent economic advantage for gay male couples disappears when we look at individuals. The reason that heterosexual married couples and lesbian couples have lower total incomes is sex discrimination: women earn less than men, so a family with two male earners will have higher than average household incomes! The lesbian couples had the most education of the different groups, which probably explains why lesbians earn more than heterosexual women.
Of course, many different factors determine how much people get paid. The most obvious ones that economists have identified are education and age, as well as where people live and whether they face discrimination for being black or female, for instance. To really know how gay people's incomes compare to heterosexuals', we have to compare people who are similar in all of those ways.

So far, only one study of that kind has been conducted (1). That study used data from the General Social Survey, a nationally representative sample developed by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Questions on this survey allow the identification of people who have had sex partners of the same sex-- behaviorally lesbian, gay, or bisexual people.

In this random sample, the behaviorally l/g/b people earn less on average than behaviorally heterosexual people, even before adjusting for other differences. A standard statistical technique known as multiple regression separated out the effect of sexual orientation from the effects of other factors influencing people's incomes. (The same technique is often used to measure discrimination against African Americans or against women.)

In this case, after taking differences in education, age, and other factors into account, behaviorally gay/bisexual men earned 11% to 27% less than similar heterosexual men. Behaviorally lesbian/ bisexual women earned 5% to 14% less than similar heterosexual women, but the fairly small sample of lesbians in the group means that we might see this result just by chance. (In other words, a sample of this size might show an income difference this large even if there were no salary differences in the population.)

Since these income differences are between people who are similar in the ways that indicate how productive people are likely to be, the lower incomes for gay and bisexual people indicate discrimination.

This study, which is the most reliable evidence available now, directly contradicts the currently distorted view of the economic well-being of lesbian and gay people. That distorted view mainly results from the inappropriateness of applying results from marketing surveys to the larger group of lesbians and gay men in America.

Some gay and lesbian people are wealthy, just as some heterosexual people are wealthy. But some gay and lesbian people are poor, and most are somewhere in the middle along with the majority of heterosexual people. As the best available academic study shows, the real economic difference is more likely to come from the harmful effects of employment discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. That study confirms what other groups facing discrimination also know: discrimination doesn't just hurt psychologically--it hits people in their pocketbooks.
-------------------------------------------------

The Second Article I refer people to is:

The socioeconomic position of gay men; a review of the evidence

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Oct, 1995 by Christopher Hewitt

I

Introduction

"Gay Rights" have recently become a major issue in American society. Many argue that gays constitute a minority suffering from several types of discrimination and oppression, and in need of civil rights protection. This paper focuses on one aspect of this topic, and sets out to answer two questions. What is the socio-economic position of gay men, and to what extent is their position a result of discrimination? Since much of the literature on discrimination relates to racial minorities and women, comparisons will be made between the economic situation of these groups and that of gay men. In addition to reanalyzing material from existing studies, the paper contains original data based on obituaries published in The New York Times and The Washington Blade.

Examining gender or racial discrimination is easy, in one respect, since there is no problem determining who is a woman, nor how many women there are in the general population.(1) Classifying the population into heterosexual and homosexual men is obviously more problematic. Kinsey's contention that any individual was a mixture of homosexual and heterosexual elements, is still accepted by some writers.(2)

Most contemporary researchers distinguish between sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexual behavior, and point out that the three are not always the same. Some men whose sexual orientation is homosexual do not think of themselves as gay, and many young gays engage in heterosexual behavior due to cultural and social pressures (Saghir and Robbins, 1973, 184-204; Harry and DeVall, 1978, 74-78). On the other hand, many heterosexual men have sex with men without identifying themselves as gay, and even though they clearly prefer female partners. This situational homosexuality is linked to the unavailability of heterosexual outlets, and is found in all-male settings such as prisons (Gagnon and Simons 1973, 245-59) and among many married men (Humpreys, 1970). In this paper, gays are defined as men who have an exclusive or strong preference for male sexual partners, and who think of themselves as gay. In most national polls about 3% of males identify themselves as gay or bisexual.(3)

What is the socio-economic position of gays? Are they, like blacks, over-represented in the lower-paid and less skilled occupations? Are they, like women, concentrated in certain occupational sectors? Three types of data can be used to answer these questions: national surveys, surveys of gays and obituaries. It should be noted that the available data are somewhat limited, and all surveys are probably biased by the unwillingness of some gays to disclose their sexual identity. The effects of such bias will be discussed in a later section.

National Surveys

Two large national surveys, which break down respondents into "gays" and "straights," have been published. In 1986, The San Francisco Examiner, by random digit dialing, obtained a national sample of 400 gay men and lesbians. In 1992, The New York Times, in an exit poll of presidential voters, asked whether respondents were gay or bisexual. The Examiner survey found that gay men had a median income of $29,129 whereas non-gay male household heads had an income of $24,550. The New York Times survey, on the other hand, appears to show gays with lower incomes (Cronin, 1993). The New York Times comparison is misleading, however, because it uses "family income" although only a handful of gay men are married. If we make the reasonable assumption that "family income" and "personal income" are the same for most gay men, we can use census data to make a more valid comparison. This shows that gay men are more likely to have higher incomes than are heterosexual men.

Unfortunately the Examiner survey does not break down the occupational data by sex, and simply compares "gays" (including lesbians) to "straights." As a group, gays and lesbians are more likely to be in the labor force - a fact which is obviously linked to both age and marital status.(4) Thus, there are few gay retirees or homemakers. The most striking difference between the two groups is that gays are more likely to be self employed (18% as compared to 11%).

Table 1
Table 4
The most plausible explanation involves both factors; the psychological affinities of gay men and societal attitudes. Gay men spontaneously concentrate in those occupations, which require certain kinds of creative abilities, with their talents bringing them particular success in the arts and entertainment fields. Other professions, such as architecture and advertizing, which also value these abilities attract a higher-than-average proportion of gays. The general societal hostility to homosexuality serves to further concentrate gay men into these occupations through a snowball effect.(20) Those occupations with a high proportion of gay men will be tolerant of openly gay men. Therefore, many gay men without any particular artistic talents work in the theater or art world as managers or entrepreneurs, employing skills which could be used in other fields. Similarly, gay lawyers develop a clientele within the entertainment industry, and gay journalists cover the theater beat.(21) A desire to avoid hostility and discrimination may account for the greater than expected proportion of gays who are self-employed or work in universities.

The relative success of gays suggests that occupational discrimination against them is either mild and ineffective, or that it is counterbalanced by other factors. Gay sociologists sometimes argue that fear of discrimination, in itself, produced occupational success. Harry and DeVall (1978, 156) suggest that "to the extent that large numbers of male homosexuals, regardless of the occupation of their fathers, exclude blue-collar occupations from their job horizons, this would have an almost automatic effect of raising their actual occupational levels." Woods claims that fear of discrimination leads them to try harder - "to become the star performer, the top salesman, the award-winning agent" (1993, 209-10). One obvious retort to such arguments is to ask why these benign effects are not produced by racial and sexual discrimination. Since blue collar workers are racist as well as homophobic, why do blacks not also avoid blue collar work? Why does gender bias not inspire women to be super-achievers?

Becker's theory of racial discrimination (1976) can be adapted to model economic relations between gays and straights. Assume that in each group, a certain proportion of individuals have a preference for economic dealings with members [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 9 OMITTED] of their own group. The most important economic resources that affect occupational distributions and incomes are consumer purchasing power, and the power to hire, fire and promote. These resources could be distributed equally (i.e. proportionately) between straights and gays, or one group could have a disproportionate share.

Insofar as gays and straights have equally strong preferences for dealing with members of their own group, and resources are distributed proportionately, then it can be shown that discrimination will result in no change in the relative situation of the two groups. Mutual discrimination will benefit one group (and harm the other) only if one group has disproportionate resources, and/or a greater taste for discrimination.(22) Therefore, in assessing the net impact of discrimination on gays, it is necessary to take into account not only bias against gays, but also the economic resources possessed by the gay community, and gay preferences for dealing with other gays.

Certainly, being gay can be a help as well as a hindrance. Harry and DeVall (1978, 160) note that "gays often tend to hire other gays as employees, either through friendship connections or due to sympathy for gays generally." In the only survey (Bell and Weinberg, 1978, 362) which asked whether homosexuality had any career advantages, black gays reported more advantages (16%) than disadvantages (12%). White gays were more negative (28%), but a substantial minority (11%) remarked on its benefits. Woods (1993) cites instances of economic opportunities arising through homosexual contacts.(23) The disadvantages of being gay decreased, and the advantages of being gay increased throughout the 'seventies and 'eighties with the emergence of gay neighborhoods in most large cities. Lee (1979) describes how gays could live in a totally gay world. Con't
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third source I would refer people to is :

Revisiting the Income Penalty for Behaviorally Gay Men

1 Forthcoming, Labour Economics
Revisiting the Income Penalty for Behaviorally Gay Men: Evidence from NHANES III
Christopher S. Carpenter*
Assistant Professor of Economics/Public Policy
The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California at Irvine
443 GSM, Irvine, CA 92697-3125, USA
Abstract

Four studies published in the last ten years use the General Social Surveys (GSS) to show that behaviorally gay/bisexual men earn 15-30 percent less than other men. In this paper I use independent data on sexual behavior from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES III) and find that same-sex behaving men experience a statistically and economically significant income penalty on the order of 23-30 percent. Moreover, the strongest evidence for an income penalty is found for those
men most likely to have a gay sexual orientation based on their lifetime sexual behavior.
That the penalty for same-sex behaving men is robust across data sources suggests the need for more research into its causes and consequences.

------------------------------------------------

Studies of income dispaity from other countries show an even greater deficit in equality.

Anecdotally: I would defy someone to see, live with, work with, the half a million gay kids who live on the street in the US; who survive by selling their own bodies, by stealing, and by selling small amounts of drugs, and still quote those ridiculous miscomceptions.

"Speak the Truth, That is always much easier, and it is often the most powerfull argument." - Unknown

Thank you

Rob

[ April 04, 2006, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Grant,
I believe that's a picture of Jason Varitek but I could be wrong.

Interestingly enough, while discussing the enlightenment's affect on the world and minority groups in particular, my Jewish History professor pulled out this gem. He likes to speak as ____ group when discussing things. In this case, it was those in favor of Jim Crow:

"Serperate but equal was good because they're not capable of being like us".

Marriage or bust.

MIB: My rhetoric may have confused my point.

I do believe that marriage in itself is a right, simply because many states have added laws denying that opportunity to homosexuals- thus making marriage of heterosexual couples a right.

But the privileges that I listed that accompany marriage (taxation, visitation, inheritance) that homosexual couples who do not have the right to marriage creates a civil equality issue.

My question is: do the privileges provided by a given or apparent "opportunity" equate to a right?

I agree that marriage is a fundamental right, and therefore its denial is unconstitutional. I can't think of any emergency situation that would permit suspension or cancellation of this fundamental right. But opponents will argue that it's marriage between men and women that's the right protected, not G&L marriage. I disagree with that argument, but it's the only one they can make, if not in light of Loving, then in attempted reliance on Bowers. Meanwhile, check this out: Sen. Feingold supports gay marriage.

My position remains the same as it's always been: G&Ls must have the same civil rights as straights do, and if there's any difference in marriage, the churches can define what they may choose to recognize as part of their faith, but cannot define marriage for the rest of society in terms of civil rights, privileges and obligations.

orsino4:

I agree with your post completely.

In order to no longer solely be identified as gay or self-identify as gay- that requires equality in all aspects of life and equal opportunities compares to all other citizens in our nation.

So WV- you don't want to be defined as being gay, but the laws we have clearly define you and your rights. Get rid of the legal restrictions and you no longer have to be identified based on your sexual orientation- the definition would cease to exist. But in order to get there- we have to fight the system.

Go back and read my initial post. I've said this for the last time. I DON'T CARE about gay marriage. Fight for it, get married, be happy. Whatever. This issues has no bearing on MY life personally and I was stating why I don't believe it does.

It's my personal decision to be self-reliant. If I want someone to have my things when I die I can make a will. If I want benefits for myself, then I work and earn them instead of relying on someone else's work to get them. Many companies offer partner benefits anyways. If they don't, then people can find a job with a company that does if it is necessary for their partner to have them in a case of being handicapped, incapacitated or temporarily unemployed or vice-versa.

I really don't see that many other benefits in legalizing it that cannot be taken care of in other ways. There are other legal documents and laws that institute and protect most rights of a gay couples that exist that can be implememted without a marriage certificate. There are always ways to level the playing field if you take the time to look for them. They are there.

So what else is left? Recognition? If that's important to some people, that's fine. Your choice. Fight for it, but it doesn't mean there are others of us that HAVE to care just because we are also gay. I do not need a piece of paper issued by the government to make a personal relationship with a partner to have some extra added validity. Just my personal viewpoint. I didn't say anyone else should feel that way. Everyone has their own things that are important to them.

My only real problem was more with the LCR than actual gay marriage. LCR made themselves into more of an advocacy group for gay marriage and taking that one issues and defining their existence and decisions on it. For example, the decision to not endorse their OWN candidates based on that subject alone.

Wvderby:

I would urge you to read the Mass. Opinion allowing gay marriage. It lists the legal benefits that are created by a recognized marriage. While you are correct that some of the benefits can be created via contract law, there are several weakness to this type of protection: (1) it is expensive to hire an attorney to prepare all of the required documents, and many attorneys do no know of the special issues affecting gay couples (e.g., gift tax and transfer tax issues); (2) any legal document can be challenged, were as through a recognized marriage, the benefits receive a higher presumption of validity; and (3) there are certain legal benefit that cannot be recreated by law (since you mentioned it, you can create a will to transfer your assets, but your will cannot eliminate the estate taxes that would be paid if you transferred the estate to a same sex partner, whereas if transferred to a spouse, there is an automatic exemption).

The Court held that there was no rational basis for denying these rights (or, imposing the obligations of marriage) upon same sex couples.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced today that he not only supports gay marriage, but is going to work to defeat the anti-gay marriage referendum in his home state of Wisconsin. I'm very happy that he's spoken out like this, and I wish more Democrats had his courage of convictions. There is no reason that some adult citizens of this country should be treated differently under the law given the very clear ideals under which the country was founded and the explicit language in the federal and most state constitutions. Anything less than equal laws for adult citizens is outright discrimination and anticonstitutional.

From the Yahoo! article:

The greatest threat to the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage is heterosexuals, not LGBTs.

[ April 05, 2006, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Unfortunately here in Canada, our new Conservative Party Federal Justice Minister has announced that the government will hold a free vote in Parliament on whether marriage should be re-defined as only happening between a man and a woman. It is unlikely that such a motion would pass given the make up of this minority Parliament but it will play well with the Conservative Party's western base. Of course if it did pass then they would have to explain what to do about those marriages that have already occurred and the inevitable appeals to the Supreme Court that would quickly follow. Even before Parliament got around to passing same sex marriage legislation the Supreme Courts of 8 provinces had already overturned legislation barring such marriages which would seem to make the governments move irrelevent.

Wow, right on Feingold. Thanks for all the information Fan. Feingold has got balls, something that alot of Dems. need to grow. I am going to be watching his efforts like alot of others I think.

WVderby,

I, like you, grew up in the South. I like you am a successful business owner. I am a 12 year Veteran of the Army. I am a huge sports fan. My ideas of a fun time are going camping in the wilderness for a weekend, working under the hood of a car I am rebuilding, riding my bike around – traveling to meet new people and see things I have never imagined before, or seeing a Red Sox game. I serve on the BoD’s of seven corporations and four not for profits. Although I have been lucky enough to travel and attend a couple of ‘circuit parties’; I quickly determined that they and the bars held nothing for me. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be. One-hundred-percent and then some. I am probably, I think, quite a bit like you in many ways. Oh Yeah - I am also GAY. Almost no one would ever guess that I am gay unless I told them or introduced them to my boyfriend.

I wrote the above for one single - sole - purpose, because I want you to read what I have to say very carefully, and give it the full credit that you would give to it if it came from a good friend. I do not want you to totally disregard it as coming from some ‘nelly queen flamer’ whom you dislike.

The problem is that it does affect your life and the lives of your friends wether you admit it or choose to live in denial.

But that will is subject to disproportionate taxes if you want to leave anything to your partner; further your family can challenge it and as family members be given preference by the courts because your ‘partner’ is not related. Yes, many companies do offer partnership benefits, and every single one of them has been hard fought for by the people you seem to despise: If those ‘nelly queens’ hadn’t stood up at Stonewall or all those hundreds of fights in between, where the hell do you think you would be today?

Oh really? In just my state of residence, VT, some of those rights include:

Laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, in testate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer (during life or at death) of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold property as tenants by the entirety.

Causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop<?>, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status.

Probate law and procedure, including non probate transfer.

Adoption law and procedure.

Group insurance for state employees.

Spouse abuse programs.

Protection against discrimination based upon marital status.

Victim's compensation rights.

Workers' compensation benefits.

Emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification.

Terminal care documents and durable power of attorney for health care execution and revocation.

Family leave benefits.

State public assistance benefits(Vermont).

State and municipal tax laws, except for estate tax provisions.

Marital privilege and testimonial immunity laws.

The homestead rights of a surviving spouse and homestead property tax allowance.

Loans to veterans

The definition of family farmer

Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts by others.

State pay for military service.

Applications for absentee ballots.

Family landowner rights to fish and hunt.

Legal requirements for wage assignments.

Affirmance of relationship.

Parties to a civil union can modify the terms, conditions, or effects of their legal relationship in the same manner and to the same extent as married people can through premarital and other agreements recognized and enforceable under the Vermont law.

In CA those benefits include:

Tort claims for spouses of injured or deceased people, including negligent infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death.

Stepparent adoption.

Continued health coverage for domestic partners and their dependent children upon the death of a covered state or local government employee.

death benefits and survivors' allowances for covered domestic partners in San Francisco (and San
Mateo County if approved by its county board of supervisors).

Health care decision-making on behalf of patients in some circumstances.

Domestic partnership coverage options that group health care and disability plans must offer employers and associations whose plans cover spouses.

Family and bereavement leave.

Conservatorship, property transfer, revocation of bequests, statutory wills, and some estate administration rules.

Personal income tax deductions for health insurance costs.

Unemployment eligibility when an employee quits a job to accompany a relocating domestic partner.

Disability claims-filing authority on behalf of incapacitated partners.

Please tell me – if you are a middle income, middle class worker how you hire an attorney to circumvent those laws and gain those ‘rights’ without getting the laws changed.

No, most gays do not search for ‘validity’ in the ways you describe. What we do search for is equal protection and rights before the law. Something you do not have now despite what you may think. You’re from Detroit right? Lets see - Michigan – Prior to 1997 you could not adopt a child with your partner, prior to 1992 you could not adopt a child or participate in Foster Care programs; In the last year there have been three state legislature initiatives to allow doctors and health practitioners to deny you health care – even emergency treatment – if you are gay; this year there are two separate initiatives to allow health insurers to deny you coverage of any kind based upon ‘ethical, moral or religious ground’ (your sexual preference)? Tell me please, how equal will you be if you can not – for any amount of money – buy health insurance, or find a doctor to treat you in an emergency? But then “There are always ways to level the playing field if you take the time to look for them” right?

Tell me, how much time will you have when you are lying there bleeding, the victim of an auto accident, and your ER doctor won’t treat you because your partner just rushed to your side?

You may state that you are equal to everyone else around you until you are blue in the face. But there are people who are out there who are not listening. They hate you. Some of them would gladly kill you (literally, not just figuratively). A lot of them think you should be put in prison, or castrated, for what you do in your bedroom with no one around and the lights out.

There are still over 60 countries in the world were you can be jailed for 10 years, over a dozen where you can be put to death. There are over a hundred that have no anti discrimination laws.

That’s ok, don’t worry about it. You are safe. You live in the USA, in the State of Michigan. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are fighting for you to be safe. Some have died horribly, hundreds have just been beaten senseless, many thousands more have been sent to the ER.

But never think for one single moment that they, the nelly queens, the twinks, the AIDS activists, the PRIDE people, have not fought long and hard to GIVE YOU the RIGHT to sit there ON YOUR ASS, deny you are in danger, and do NOTHING.

You are absolutely right, "Fight for it, but it doesn't mean there are others of us that HAVE to care just because we are also gay." You don't have to fight for it; the rest of us will shoulder your share too.

Those rights you scorn have been bought and paid for by viewers like us.

You are Welcome.

Sincerely,

Rob

[ April 05, 2006, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Rob, would you marry me? I am in love.

I don't care. Really. I don't. If you do, good for you.

Gay divorce court will be interesting...

I agree with you. I think we blew it by trying to call it marriage, Even tho it is the same thing. I don't care what you call it....I just want my relationship to be recognized...

I would also the right of spousal privilege (marital communication privilege) in court proceedings: a man's wife cannot be forced to testify against him in certain court proceedings (obviously the same goes for a married female defendant -- her husband cannot be forced to testify against her). By denying marital rights to gay couples, society is leaving gay people isolated even within their relationships and households. Would you tell your partner about something you did that was possibly illegal if you knew that the local DA could force him to testify against you in a court of law?

wvderby:

There are a lot of guys who have the same sentiments as you... and it is often a phase that a lot of gay men go through- feeling "f**k the queens", "f**k the homos"- "I'm just a guy who likes guys, I'm not a faggot."

It is one of the grieving phases in coming to full terms with your sexuality- and I am not telling you this to be dismissal of your sentiments- because it is a natural evolution. Being gay sucks sometimes and it really is frustrating when you want to make sure that you are treated the same as everyone else and deep down you know that isn't possible...

Maybe in time you can come to the point where you can relate to the thoughts of some of the viewpoints in this thread... or maybe not.

These are all nice guys who are on your side- some who have been where you are but have more life experiences...

You have expressed a desire to be treated just as a typical guy- and all of the people on this site want just that.

We just can't get it automatically by flipping a switch. Equality takes a long time and everyone deserves that opportunity. Just take some time to reflect on that... you seem like a really nice guy and I hope that over time you realize that these people are on our side and fighting for a better life for all of us.

Amen, Kick! Well stated.

WOW _ WHAT A WELL WRITTEN RESEARCHED LETTER! eek! IT JOCK, My hat is off to you. You must be very well read - I read a lot and haven't gotten half the info you have in one letter. But if its OK with you I still wouldn't date a nelly-queen twink.

wvderby, after looking at your profile, I have to say, you are one big muscle hunk stud. And you're young. You'll come to understand in your own time and your own way. It's good that you have opened the discussion for yourself, and can take the heat thrown your way. Don't sweat it.

What is powertumbling? Is that some form of rough wrestling?

I just wanted to state that wvderby has shown a lot of strength of character by sticking to his guns.

That strength of character has and will suit you well throughout your life.

The attitude of "I don't plan on marrying so the discussion does not affect me" reminds me of some lesbians saying legalizing birth control/abortion did not affect them since they don't sleep with men. They (mostly) learned that issues of women's rights affect ALL women either directly or indirectly and that advancing any right for women improves the lot of all women. The reverse is also true.
Same applies to gays. Those who want to pervert the Constitution are not stopping with marriage! They have a program that opposes any and all civil rights for gays (and for women, minority relgions, etc.) I also don't plan on marrying. But I cannot say that it does not affect me when filth is talked about gay men and lesbians in order to justify our permanent Constitutional second class status. Conversely, gains in marriage equality make it harder to fire us, evict us, take away our children, kick us out of the military, etc. EVERY step towards equality benefits ALL of us and every step back hurts us all.

I know how I feel and what defines me. I don't NEED to be told by someone whether I have "come to terms" with being gay because of what I say on a message board by people that don't know me whatsoever. There are factors that I observe that make me wary of marriage no matter whether it is between a gay or straight couple.

You guys know nothing about my past. Maybe something happened in my past that makes me wary or distrusting of marriage. Maybe I see it around me every day all around me-- when I work, in the kids faces I teach that are left with single parent families and parents fighting legal battles over custody and money. The products of a society that no longer sees marriage as something sacred and lasting, but something that is abused and manipulated for an individual's personal gain.

Even for marriages in straight couples, the divorce rate has topped 50%. I honestly do not see it getting any better with gay marriage. There are always exceptions to any rule, but there is a serious decline in the sanctity of a lasting relationship no matter what a person's sexuality.

Call me a cynic or skeptical, but what I observe has made marriage a non-factor for me. I've seen more people hurt by it than something that has made their life complete. I see it as something that will just perpetuate the problems that we see with straight marriage. These are the reasons I am apathetic and choose not to participate. It is MY opinion and MY choice not to and I have never said that those who do believe in it should not continue to fight for it. If you feel it will add meaning to your life and fulfill your personal goals or destiny, go for it.

Rob

Great post. Thank you for saying what most of us want to say.

As for other people who "don't care".

I am not nearly as erudite as Rob, and tend to talk plain. Hopefully you'll understand.

I don't know how young you are, and frankly I don't care.

It is because of people of my generation, and the ones before me (I am 51) that you have the opportunity. So you don't care? Big f**king hairy deal, but understand this. Right now, I have a succesful career. I earn a f**k of a lot more than the national average.

BUT I still care.

I had a fairly normal upbringing for a gay man who realized his sexuality in the late 1960's, and came out in the early 1970's.

And then it all changed in 1974.

It started with my lover being beaten to death. To this day, his murder remains unsolved. The TV show Cold Case is an ideal. Trust me, it doesn't happen that way. The last time someone tried to get his case re-opened (his brother) was about 10 years ago. The response from the cops? No one remembers the murder of a "queer".

I have been fired for being gay. I have been denied housing for being gay.

Now I work for a company that has anti discrimination policies that specifically mention sexual orientation. I'm damn proud of them. My husband and I own our own home as well. I;m not bragging, just letting you know that I refuse to let that shit drag me down. It's the Scot in me.

I have been bashed while on my way home from work. Imagine having a large man kicking you in the face, while yelling Die you f**king faggot, die! . When the police finally stopped him, (after watching for a while), I had an orbital fracture of my right eye socket. My right jaw was broken in 2 places, numerous broken ribs, bruises, contusions etc.

The first cop's reaction? f**king Faggot, you got what you deserve

THe second cop on the scene did the arrest. NEITHER of them took me to the hospital until my statement was taken, typed and signed.

Oh, and the guy who bashed me? He got off with a peace bond, because the crown attorney didn't want to fight a gay bashing. He said he had more important things to do.

Me? My glasses were always thick, but now my right lens is almost 1/2 inch thick. I have a partially detached retina. My bite still isn't the same, and will probably end up having the teeth on my right side removed. AT MY COST.

So you go ahead and sit in your world and say you don't care.

Be successful in business, have a great group of friends, go to restaurants, bars, shows, secure in the knowledge that you are a successful self employed business man, who happens to be gay..

It was my generation that f**kING WELL DIED for you to be able to do it.

And you still say you don't care?

Oh, and I don't hate cops. Quite the opposite.

As to what happened to me and Danny, it was a different time, with different attitudes. Our fights to be recognized as equal have had an effect on the law enforcement community.

They're not perfect, but then no one is.

Strength of character? "Sticking to your guns" does not prove that. It can just as well prove that someone is simply hard-headed. And I'm not referring to derby, but a certain President who refuses to budge on any issue once he's made his stand, no matter how ill-informed that stand is.

Sometimes in life we need to take the time to listen in order to learn.

So my questions to those so adamant that marriage or equality is a non-issue for them...

When your life partner dies and the house you built together and invested in for 20 years is taken to court by greedy family members who you thought were open but really only cared to your fac want to find a quick buck.... will equality and inheritance rights be important to you then?

I am so frustrated. It seems that the queens and fags who are the self centered and self absorbed and loathed by the straight-acting macho men are actually the ones with hearts and the ability to see beyond their own self and fight for all of us.

I will take strength of heart and character with a feather boa over a scared,greased up body-building, deep voiced pretty boy any day.

The issue is CHOICE. Of course many gay men and lesbians, given the choice, will choose NOT to marry. That is fine. They don't have to defend or explain or justify that choice. It's their choice. But right now we don't have the legal right to make that choice. That choice has been made for us by a bigoted state. We need to have the right to choose to marry or to choose not to; otherwise we are legal and social inferiors. Whether marriage is or is not your personal choice, is being legally and socially inferior acceptable to any of us?

This is the heart of the issue. I don't think much of the institution of marriage. For millenia, it was nothing but a legal transfer of "property" between straight men. However, there is no denying that it has evolved into a union that provides benefits, both legal and emotional. I look at it the same way I do the right to serve in the military. I'm strongly anti-war and I don't support the glorification of the military. There is not a single reason that would have ever moved me to join. However, that does not make the current discriminatory policies of the military any less repugnant to me.

Yep- I have REALLY seen the change in police depts. over the last 20 plus years of my career. I could never have come out 25 years ago! Now I'm just "one of the guy" who is a little unique. :cool:

[ April 07, 2006, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: copman ]

Another positive court decsion in Ontario: a lesbian couple can both register as parents on a child's birth certificate. I think this further reinforces the idea that gay & lesbian families are legitimate and equal to hetero ones.

Globe and Mail article

Toronto Star article

Great news from Canada!

Obviously, you've never been in the position of dealing with DP benefits, or of needing them in the first place. My partner's employer offers NO healthcare benefits WHATSOEVER. When I signed him up with my employer for benefits, corporate HR tried like hell to talk us out of signing up for them. Once we were on the books, we found out that all monies spent on partner coverage by the company are considered taxable income to me. But we're dealing with that issue, because we've got to have the coverage.

Why should we have to pay a small fortune to do this, when all our siblings had to do was say "I do"? Sounds like second-class citizenship to me.

There are a lot of impressive posts on this topic! ITJock, thanks for correcting my thinking on the income issue. I had accepted that myth without bothering to investigate and would have gone on in ignorance indefinately had it not been for your quite considerable effort. Thanks also for your very important reminder:

It is something we should remind ourselves of everyday. I would like to add that the reason 'gay culture' seems to be defined by this group is that they are the ones with the courage to live an honest life and fight for what is right. I would also include those big burly dykes et. al. in your list.

Lksimcoe, thanks for sharing your painful story and reminding us all why our struggle for equality is so important.

Wvderby, I don't share your attitude but I think it is a fairly common one. My thought is that there is a difference between choosing not to avail oneself to a particular right and being denied that right. Even people who choose not to vote might object if they weren't allowed to vote. I won't be satisfied with anything less than perfect legal equality.

Here's a good op-ed from the WSJ on this topic. Link to editorial.

I need to ask some questions of those who claim "judicial activism" at the drop of a hat.

Let's assume women X and Y seek a state issued marriage license and are denied because licenses can only be issues to M-F couples based on state laws. X and Y then file suit and the case eventually makes it to the state supreme court which is asked to judge whether or not the state law violates a certain clause in the state constitution (equal protection, whatever). If the court, upon applying the appropriate test to each side's argument, agrees with X and Y that the state law violates the state's constitution... is the court supposed to do nothing? Is any judgment that does not uphold the state law "judicial activism"?

Let's assume that the court issues its decision in favor of X and Y and the decision is widely viewed as having been soundly based on state constitutional issues. The only remedy, as I see it, is that the state cannot deny X and Y a marriage license, ergo, by finding that the state law restricting marriage violates the state constitution, any judgment against the law results in gay marriage. How is this judicial activism?

I often think that conservatives view the role of the judicial branch as only to rubber stamp and to validate legislative action and forget that it is one third of the government.

And it also puzzles me how conservative claim with a straight face that liberals (and Democrats) can't get laws passed so they seek their aims through the courts. I suppose if someone gets the sharp end of the stick when it comes to an unconstitutional state action, he should just take his lumps and not assert his rights?

In the nearly 40 years since 1968, the GOP has "owned" the executive branch for all but 12 years (4 under Carter, 8 under Clinton), yet somehow the entire judiciary -- the majority of which was put in place by Republicans -- is somehow beholden to some liberal agenda.

When I hear the words "judicial activism," I immediately think of a particularly "activist" judicial opinion, Brown v. Board. But I suppose segregation (or antigay legislation) is a-ok as long as its the product of federalism and the discrimination of the general public.

First and ten, guys:

Editor, Wall St. Journal
200 Liberty St.
New York, NY 10281

Walk it over during a break, Neptune. The fresh air will do you good. Just make sure you sign your name - no hiding behind screen names allowed!

Rob - Your posting reigns supreme. It is a beautifully written manifesto and well, I'm in love with you too after reading it -
It's too bad that wverderby has such an incredibly selfish point of view though we have seen that frequently in his postings. Youth and denial go together as destructively as Bush and Rove.

Conservatives aren't so concerned about an individual state's high court to approve gay marriage (though I'm sure there are many conservatives who'd not like to see this outcome). Where many complain about activism is when a federal judge steps in and approves it, or when a federal court steps in and claims that the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause mandates the acceptance of gay marriage in a non-gay marriage state. The latter hasn't happened--yet.

Which just goes to show you that the Left's incessant panic-mode screaming about GOP presidential judicial appointments is such a waste of time.

Another good editorial telling why the FMA is bad from a perspective other than that clung to by the left - and therefore likely to be rejected by them as well. Link to op-ed.

We have never been a true democracy, and the judicial branch is meant to be a check on the legislative branch. Thus, in a representational democracy the judicial branch is a check on the legislative branch. In our current system, the legislative branch is an extension of the general voter power, thus the judicial branch should be allowed to rule on the constitutionality of amendments passed even by popular vote.

What's popular is not always right, and what is right is not always easy.

I like how people on the right claim that "imperial judges are imposing their own personal beliefs on the public and calling it constitutional law", yet any attempt to label opponents of gay marriage as bigots is met with immediate howling that their accusers don't understand what's truly inside the conservative heart.