Aside from my aforementioned busy weekend, part of the reason that I haven't commented on the whole issue in Maryland is because I've been interested in seeing how things will shake out first before I go on the tear of calling Governor Robert Ehrlich "Hitler" and suggesting that his family be stalked. It also took a while to find a copy of the text of the Maryland law for review.
After reviewing, even though this may be an unpopular position....the Maryland bill really stinks.
First off, despite the attempts to paint it as merely a "registry", the bill leaves no doubt that its sole goal is to establish the legal status of "life partner". That in and of itself would likely put it into conflict with the existing Maryland statute that defines marriage, since the bill amends several existing statutes that delineate on the basis of priority to say "spouse OR life partner".
Second off, the bill establishes the status of "life partner" for BOTH same-sex and opposite-sex couples, despite the fact that opposite-sex couples are perfectly free to marry in Maryland, and as such, receive all the benefits and privileges of marriage that a "life partnership" would grant. Why on earth, then, is a "life partner" registry necessary for OPPOSITE-sex couples? Perhaps Maryland legislators were thinking of California's far-superior domestic partnership law, which does allow for opposite-sex domestic partnerships; however, what they apparently forgot is that California's law specifically precludes opposite-sex domestic partnerships unless one or more of the participants is over the age of 62. Very sloppy. In addition, taken in combination with the first point, this gives a degree of credulity to the right-wing claim that this bill are an attempt to undermine traditional marriage (since it applies to opposite-sex couples) and give gay marriage in all but name.
Finally, the Maryland law is almost jaw-droppingly careless when it comes to issues around property. It specifically requires that individuals a) share a common residence (although it does not require that they both have claim to ownership) and b) agree to be in a relationship of "mutual interdependence", meaning that each life partner "contributes to the maintenance and support of the other life partner and the relationship" (although it's not required to be equal). Furthermore, this relationship is linked to an even greater degree to property by its association with the bill exempting property transfers between domestic partners. All of these create numerous implicit claims to real property ownership.
So where's the section on how things that were purchased as part of "maintenance and support" are to be managed in the event of a dissolution of the "life partnership"? The law is vague even on who has the right to initiate a dissolution, much less for what reasons, has no apparent method for contesting an attempted dissolution, and says nothing about property dispensation, despite creating all sorts of potential tangles to it. Again, referring to California, the law spells out specifically how these sort of issues are to be handled, logically under the same rules as already exist for heterosexual divorce. The Maryland statute lacks any of this -- presumably because tying it to the Maryland divorce code would make it blatantly obvious that it is not merely related to medical rights.
In summary, this is a half-assed attempt at pandering that would create more legal trouble than it's worth. The rights involved are wonderful and definitely needed by gay couples, but this is NOT the way to manage it. Either push for civil unions and deal with the property rights issues directly, or push for greater legal acceptance of granting and broadening of durable powers of attorney and dispensation to non-blood-relative individuals. The latter is more inconvenient than a central registry, but it doesn't conflict as blatantly with existing marriage laws, doesn't create implicit property rights, and will garner far more straight allies, especially in the post-Schiavo era, than an attempt to covertly impose "gay marriage".
In short, I don't like the fact that Ehrlich vetoed this bill. However, I dislike even more the fact that he was given such a lousy bill to sign. The gay community can and must do better than this, or we're going to find ourselves creating legal quagmires that we will have to sue ourselves out of -- possibly at the risk of invalidating the laws themselves.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query partner. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query partner. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
The Rollercoaster of Activism
Yesterday was one of those high and low days that seems to be the hallmark of being an involved and politically-aware gay man. On the upside, the lobbying effort (mine and others) to make the Texas Legislature realize that we're actually reading these bills and that Warren Chisum's idiocy in writing them will be called out seems to be working. That would have almost been worth a plane ticket to Austin to see Chisum have to backpedal and say he would try to "amend the bill later" -- which is the political kiss of death in the Legislature. I'm becoming more and more optimistic that the imperative of fixing school finance during the last eight weeks means that this bill may very quietly die in committee -- or, even better, make it out to the House floor and be torn apart for "imprecise wording", which is quickly becoming my favorite means of pinning down and blocking antigay legislation. Yes, several of the Republicans on the committee DID review a copy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer article concerning the inadvertent effect of Ohio's amendment on certain state laws -- why do you ask? (wink)
On the other hand, though, Kansas provided the low, with the passage of the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, PLUS civil unions and domestic partnerships, by a rather large margin. While I think the passage of this was to some degree a foregone conclusion, I was hoping that the margin would be lower because of the language involved and because of the opposition of some prominent Republicans. However, I think, based on what I've heard from my network of spies in the Sunflower State ("Friends of Dorothy"? Natch, LOL.), what turned people off the most was the gay activists screaming, "If you pass this, we're taking it to court, because it's unconstitutional!" Furthermore, certain glbts performed actions that bordered on the idiotic, such as this gem of attempting to argue that (major Kansas employer) SBC would stop offering domestic partner benefits, but then melting down under cross-examination and admitting that a) they were speaking for themselves, not SBC, and b) referring to the fact that the state of Kansas wouldn't recognize their registered partnership in California, so they couldn't get partner benefits -- totally ignoring the fact that the state of Kansas, because of its DOMA, already did not recognize said registered partnership, and they were STILL getting partner benefits. Unfortunately, that registration requirement is SBC's, not the state, which means that SBC can accept any fool thing they want as proof of a domestic partnership -- and indeed many employers, mine included, don't even require public registration (ours is that you have been in a committed relationship for six months, that you live at the same address, and that you're not already married to someone else or trying to claim a blood relative as your domestic partner).
What we have to be careful about in activism is realizing that, when it comes to laws and amendments, it's all about words -- and certain words are better than others.
For instance, here's Ohio's antigay state constitutional amendment (emphases mine):
Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
In short, the language in this thing is absolutely hideous, which is why many prominent Republicans in Ohio opposed it. The judge in the domestic-violence case ruled absolutely correctly -- Ohio's domestic violence law creates a legal status for unmarried abuse victims that is identical to that of married abuse victims for the purpose of extending the "effect" of marriage to unmarried couples.
Is this fixable? Yes, but it will be annoying -- they will have to go through and amend the domestic violence law to either exclude unmarried people, which may violate equal protection (remember, it's criminal law, where that is much more heavily-applied), or blow up the statute completely and revert to just plain "assault", which I doubt would fly with voters. They've created a mess, and it needs to be called out as such.
In contrast, Kansas's, while hardly desirable, has much softer and more-defensible language from a constitutional standpoint (again, emphasis mine).
(a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are to be declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."
The key difference is that word "entitling". Used in this context, you can add "automatically" to the front of it, and you can read it as simply amending equal protection to prohibit the argument that, because I have a domestic relationship, be it same-gender or otherwise, the law requires that I have the same rights as a married couple. However, the fact that it's not required does not necessarily preclude it from being given -- which, according to my reading, means that the amendment at the least does not affect legal arrangements between glbts or private companies, at the medium does not preclude the state or governmental units from offering partner benefits, and at the most would allow limited civil unions or partner registry. It also would allow the state, in my interpretation, to separately extend spouse-like protections to victims of domestic violence in a proactive fashion, avoiding the domestic violence snafu or similar situations in Ohio.
Lest I be misinterpreted, let me make it clear that I oppose state constitutional amendments and legislation that discriminate against gays, even if they provide for civil unions, because it writes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation into fundamental law. However, my point in this is that gay activists who wish to deal with constitutional amendments must stick to facts, not overdramatize the issues, not make threats, and understand the motivations people have for advancing every specific word in the amendment. Namecalling and threatening lawsuits don't work -- we've proven that already. Careful, constructive debate and airing of your concerns, backed up with facts, does work.
On the other hand, though, Kansas provided the low, with the passage of the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, PLUS civil unions and domestic partnerships, by a rather large margin. While I think the passage of this was to some degree a foregone conclusion, I was hoping that the margin would be lower because of the language involved and because of the opposition of some prominent Republicans. However, I think, based on what I've heard from my network of spies in the Sunflower State ("Friends of Dorothy"? Natch, LOL.), what turned people off the most was the gay activists screaming, "If you pass this, we're taking it to court, because it's unconstitutional!" Furthermore, certain glbts performed actions that bordered on the idiotic, such as this gem of attempting to argue that (major Kansas employer) SBC would stop offering domestic partner benefits, but then melting down under cross-examination and admitting that a) they were speaking for themselves, not SBC, and b) referring to the fact that the state of Kansas wouldn't recognize their registered partnership in California, so they couldn't get partner benefits -- totally ignoring the fact that the state of Kansas, because of its DOMA, already did not recognize said registered partnership, and they were STILL getting partner benefits. Unfortunately, that registration requirement is SBC's, not the state, which means that SBC can accept any fool thing they want as proof of a domestic partnership -- and indeed many employers, mine included, don't even require public registration (ours is that you have been in a committed relationship for six months, that you live at the same address, and that you're not already married to someone else or trying to claim a blood relative as your domestic partner).
What we have to be careful about in activism is realizing that, when it comes to laws and amendments, it's all about words -- and certain words are better than others.
For instance, here's Ohio's antigay state constitutional amendment (emphases mine):
Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
In short, the language in this thing is absolutely hideous, which is why many prominent Republicans in Ohio opposed it. The judge in the domestic-violence case ruled absolutely correctly -- Ohio's domestic violence law creates a legal status for unmarried abuse victims that is identical to that of married abuse victims for the purpose of extending the "effect" of marriage to unmarried couples.
Is this fixable? Yes, but it will be annoying -- they will have to go through and amend the domestic violence law to either exclude unmarried people, which may violate equal protection (remember, it's criminal law, where that is much more heavily-applied), or blow up the statute completely and revert to just plain "assault", which I doubt would fly with voters. They've created a mess, and it needs to be called out as such.
In contrast, Kansas's, while hardly desirable, has much softer and more-defensible language from a constitutional standpoint (again, emphasis mine).
(a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are to be declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."
The key difference is that word "entitling". Used in this context, you can add "automatically" to the front of it, and you can read it as simply amending equal protection to prohibit the argument that, because I have a domestic relationship, be it same-gender or otherwise, the law requires that I have the same rights as a married couple. However, the fact that it's not required does not necessarily preclude it from being given -- which, according to my reading, means that the amendment at the least does not affect legal arrangements between glbts or private companies, at the medium does not preclude the state or governmental units from offering partner benefits, and at the most would allow limited civil unions or partner registry. It also would allow the state, in my interpretation, to separately extend spouse-like protections to victims of domestic violence in a proactive fashion, avoiding the domestic violence snafu or similar situations in Ohio.
Lest I be misinterpreted, let me make it clear that I oppose state constitutional amendments and legislation that discriminate against gays, even if they provide for civil unions, because it writes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation into fundamental law. However, my point in this is that gay activists who wish to deal with constitutional amendments must stick to facts, not overdramatize the issues, not make threats, and understand the motivations people have for advancing every specific word in the amendment. Namecalling and threatening lawsuits don't work -- we've proven that already. Careful, constructive debate and airing of your concerns, backed up with facts, does work.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Hi Straight Friends....
It's good to talk to you again. Yes, I know it's been a while....what with the pressures of work, church, volunteering, and so on, it seems like we hardly can find the time to see each other. Is your mom doing OK? How did your daughter's recital go? Yep, my partner's doing fine....he said to say hello and that he was working on getting that T-shirt you loved so much when you saw our picture.
Look, it's really good to catch up....but there was another reason I stopped by today. Have you been reading in the papers and seeing on the news about the vote tomorrow? Yeah, I know....another election. Seems we can't get anything done in Texas without amending the constitution, thank you very much, Santa Anna! Oh yeah, it's the usual...can the state do this, should they do that, little stuff.
But there's one big question on there.....Proposition 2....that really hits close to home for me. This one amends the Texas Constitution to permanently ban the state from recognizing any form of legal relationship except between a man and a woman. Yeah, that one -- the one about protecting families.
Look, you and I have been friends for a long time. Think back to when you first found out I was gay. I know it was a shock to you, just like it was to my mom and dad....I seem to remember you saying, "But you played football! You chew tobacco! You listen to country music! How can you be gay -- are you SURE?" Oh, don't blush....no need to apologize...heck, I barely knew what being gay was about then.
You and I have learned a lot about each other. Do you know how scared I was to tell you? After all, you're a pillar of the community -- Bible study leader, soccer coach, happily married, gorgeous kids -- it's like an advertisement for "family values". I'd heard you before clucking your disapproval about how it just wasn't right for these gays to be parading around in public. I'd even heard you and your family say, "That's so gay," or taunt each other with "Bend over and take it, ya faggot!"
Oh, that....well, yeah, I noticed too. The time we met up in the grocery store and I asked when your son's birthday party would be...I saw that little look, that little, "um..." in your speech. I know your significant other wasn't comfortable with me being around -- remember that first dinner you held where I came after they found out about my little secret? Talk about icy cold conversation (laughs).
But you know, that's not what I remember at all. I remember coming into work down about the hot guy who had just dumped me and you grabbing me and saying, "Come on, let's do lunch. My treat." I remember the look of joy on your son's face when he got to ride in my Jeep with the top down, you and your spouse sitting there watching, beaming as he laughed, the wind blowing in his hair. I remember sitting there holding you in the waiting room as they rolled your dad into the back, both of us crying, praying, hoping for the best.
So I know you're comfortable with me, at least. But I also know this whole gay marriage thing...well....that....you're not sure. There's so much displacement and destruction in today's society, so many kids without parents, so many families breaking apart, so much abortion.....I mean, I know you're not like that, but those other gays you see on the TV parading around half naked, that sort of thing....screaming about how gay rights are abortion rights, how religious people or conservatives are nothing but superstitious, ignorant idiots...I...I just can't get my head around marriage like that.
Hey, it's OK....I understand. But you gotta believe me when I tell you....what you see of gays on the TV isn't reality. Sure, the loudest of us out there never saw a Democrat they didn't like, never saw a Republican they didn't hate, and never saw a moonbat cause they wouldn't support. But most of us aren't like that. Most of us want nothing more than our slice of the American Dream -- to have a good job, a nice place to live, the chance to go out every now and again, to be involved in our community, to have good friends like you -- and to have someone special with whom to share your life.
Now the big thing about this amendment is that it's not going to stop those things. It's not going to take away my house, or my job, or my volunteer work, or you; it won't even really change what I have now with my partner. Despite what the moonbats are saying, it's not going to abolish marriage in the state, nor is it going to cause a plague of locusts. It in the vast majority of cases won't even affect the domestic partner benefits gays get from our employers, or existing legal contracts that gays have to give us a semblance of spousal rights. But what it will do....and what is most scary to me....is that it freezes things like they are forever.
Think about that -- and just how much your attitudes have changed since you found out I was gay. Before, you might not have thought it was important that someone's partner be allowed to visit them in the hospital -- but remember that ass-chewing you gave the nurse who tried to keep me out? (laughs) You, the classes I teach, several other people have all told me -- you know, it's just not fair that you can't do this or that, you and your partner are more committed than some straight couples, yada yada yada. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that you'd say, "You know, why CAN'T these guys have some kind of civil contract or something that at least acknowledges they're a couple with some rights?"
Because Amendment 2 says so.
Zero, zip, zilch, nada in the way of contracts, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or things that even LOOK like marriage. Absolutely forbidden, can't be done, get out.
Right now, you're not ready for gay marriage. Heck, I'm still reluctant on several levels to support it myself. I do think it's ultimately where we'll end up, but only in the future.....and as an overhaul of how we view BOTH gay and straight relationships. We can't continue with 24-hour Britney Spears marriages being the norm and with over half of all first marriages ending in divorce. It affects all of us, gay and straight, and most of all, it affects kids -- our futures. Radical, I know, but there's no choice -- we have to do something.
But voting against Amendment 2 isn't voting for gay marriage, or to redesign the world of marriage as we know it -- it's simply leaving our options open. We're going to keep growing as friends and as a society in how we view each other, straights and gays. To tie our hands now and to lock us down is to just perpetuate the "it's not fair" and the avoidance of the real problems that bedevil marriage and commitment in our society. It's letting the "religious" right make scapegoats of people like me that value and honor commitment between couples because they don't want to confront or challenge their beliefs and way of thinking. It's taking away the dialogue between us and our ability to be creative in fixing a lack of commitment and family life that is very threatening to our country and our way of life as a whole.
So if there's one thing I can ask you as a friend...it's to vote. Let your voice be heard on Amendment 2. All I ask is that you think through the issue....that you seriously consider the ramifications....and that you do what you think is best.
And no matter what you decide.....we're still friends.
Love,
NDT
Look, it's really good to catch up....but there was another reason I stopped by today. Have you been reading in the papers and seeing on the news about the vote tomorrow? Yeah, I know....another election. Seems we can't get anything done in Texas without amending the constitution, thank you very much, Santa Anna! Oh yeah, it's the usual...can the state do this, should they do that, little stuff.
But there's one big question on there.....Proposition 2....that really hits close to home for me. This one amends the Texas Constitution to permanently ban the state from recognizing any form of legal relationship except between a man and a woman. Yeah, that one -- the one about protecting families.
Look, you and I have been friends for a long time. Think back to when you first found out I was gay. I know it was a shock to you, just like it was to my mom and dad....I seem to remember you saying, "But you played football! You chew tobacco! You listen to country music! How can you be gay -- are you SURE?" Oh, don't blush....no need to apologize...heck, I barely knew what being gay was about then.
You and I have learned a lot about each other. Do you know how scared I was to tell you? After all, you're a pillar of the community -- Bible study leader, soccer coach, happily married, gorgeous kids -- it's like an advertisement for "family values". I'd heard you before clucking your disapproval about how it just wasn't right for these gays to be parading around in public. I'd even heard you and your family say, "That's so gay," or taunt each other with "Bend over and take it, ya faggot!"
Oh, that....well, yeah, I noticed too. The time we met up in the grocery store and I asked when your son's birthday party would be...I saw that little look, that little, "um..." in your speech. I know your significant other wasn't comfortable with me being around -- remember that first dinner you held where I came after they found out about my little secret? Talk about icy cold conversation (laughs).
But you know, that's not what I remember at all. I remember coming into work down about the hot guy who had just dumped me and you grabbing me and saying, "Come on, let's do lunch. My treat." I remember the look of joy on your son's face when he got to ride in my Jeep with the top down, you and your spouse sitting there watching, beaming as he laughed, the wind blowing in his hair. I remember sitting there holding you in the waiting room as they rolled your dad into the back, both of us crying, praying, hoping for the best.
So I know you're comfortable with me, at least. But I also know this whole gay marriage thing...well....that....you're not sure. There's so much displacement and destruction in today's society, so many kids without parents, so many families breaking apart, so much abortion.....I mean, I know you're not like that, but those other gays you see on the TV parading around half naked, that sort of thing....screaming about how gay rights are abortion rights, how religious people or conservatives are nothing but superstitious, ignorant idiots...I...I just can't get my head around marriage like that.
Hey, it's OK....I understand. But you gotta believe me when I tell you....what you see of gays on the TV isn't reality. Sure, the loudest of us out there never saw a Democrat they didn't like, never saw a Republican they didn't hate, and never saw a moonbat cause they wouldn't support. But most of us aren't like that. Most of us want nothing more than our slice of the American Dream -- to have a good job, a nice place to live, the chance to go out every now and again, to be involved in our community, to have good friends like you -- and to have someone special with whom to share your life.
Now the big thing about this amendment is that it's not going to stop those things. It's not going to take away my house, or my job, or my volunteer work, or you; it won't even really change what I have now with my partner. Despite what the moonbats are saying, it's not going to abolish marriage in the state, nor is it going to cause a plague of locusts. It in the vast majority of cases won't even affect the domestic partner benefits gays get from our employers, or existing legal contracts that gays have to give us a semblance of spousal rights. But what it will do....and what is most scary to me....is that it freezes things like they are forever.
Think about that -- and just how much your attitudes have changed since you found out I was gay. Before, you might not have thought it was important that someone's partner be allowed to visit them in the hospital -- but remember that ass-chewing you gave the nurse who tried to keep me out? (laughs) You, the classes I teach, several other people have all told me -- you know, it's just not fair that you can't do this or that, you and your partner are more committed than some straight couples, yada yada yada. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that you'd say, "You know, why CAN'T these guys have some kind of civil contract or something that at least acknowledges they're a couple with some rights?"
Because Amendment 2 says so.
Zero, zip, zilch, nada in the way of contracts, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or things that even LOOK like marriage. Absolutely forbidden, can't be done, get out.
Right now, you're not ready for gay marriage. Heck, I'm still reluctant on several levels to support it myself. I do think it's ultimately where we'll end up, but only in the future.....and as an overhaul of how we view BOTH gay and straight relationships. We can't continue with 24-hour Britney Spears marriages being the norm and with over half of all first marriages ending in divorce. It affects all of us, gay and straight, and most of all, it affects kids -- our futures. Radical, I know, but there's no choice -- we have to do something.
But voting against Amendment 2 isn't voting for gay marriage, or to redesign the world of marriage as we know it -- it's simply leaving our options open. We're going to keep growing as friends and as a society in how we view each other, straights and gays. To tie our hands now and to lock us down is to just perpetuate the "it's not fair" and the avoidance of the real problems that bedevil marriage and commitment in our society. It's letting the "religious" right make scapegoats of people like me that value and honor commitment between couples because they don't want to confront or challenge their beliefs and way of thinking. It's taking away the dialogue between us and our ability to be creative in fixing a lack of commitment and family life that is very threatening to our country and our way of life as a whole.
So if there's one thing I can ask you as a friend...it's to vote. Let your voice be heard on Amendment 2. All I ask is that you think through the issue....that you seriously consider the ramifications....and that you do what you think is best.
And no matter what you decide.....we're still friends.
Love,
NDT
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Some Texas Twisting
One of the comments posted while I was out concerning the Texas antigay constitutional amendment brought up some very insightful points that I wanted to discuss on the main board.
Did the Texas GOP make a tremendous mistake with the actual wording of the "Marriage" Amendment?
The full language of the amendment is as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
Ok Part (a) is pretty clear. It defines what marriage is in Texas.
Part (b) is Really interesting. It doesn't limit its' language to same sex couples. If you read it carefully.."may not create of recognize any legal status identical .. to marriage". Does that invalidate the state recognizing ANY BENEFITS OR RIGHTS FOR ALL (GAY AND STRAIGHT) MARRIAGES)?
It seems to me that Part (b) is stating how the state shall assign rights and responsibilities from the marriages defined in Part (a). I take this amendment to mean 'Marriage is for straights only, but the state can't recognize any status for marriage anyway'
Obviously, they could go for the legislative intent ruling to get around this. But wouldn't that get them into a serious Romer issue?
Will this remove common law marriage from the books?
Does this prohibit health and pension benefits to STRAIGHT spouses of state workers?
Does it have implications for community property provisions in Texas law?
Is my reading of the Amendment Crazy?
First off, the reading of the amendment is not in the least bit crazy. On first blush, the vast majority of the state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage look roughly the same, and with the known issues caused by Michigan's and Ohio's amendments, we SHOULD be asking questions about the wording of these monstrosities.
Tom's reading of Part (a) of the amendment is spot-on -- this is the section that defines marriage as being only the union of one man and one woman. Part (b), in my opinion, simply defines that the state itself or its political subdivisions (i.e. cities, counties) may not create or recognize a LEGAL status identical or similar to marriage. This is akin to saying that Dallas County may not set up a domestic partner registry as has Cook County, Illinois; in addition, it precludes a judge from ruling that, for instance, a gay marriage made in Massachusetts must be recognized in Texas. This in and of itself also prohibits civil unions, which is the single biggest thing I found objectionable (other than the fact that it came up at all) about the amendment.
Part (b), in my opinion, does not end common-law marriage, simply because, under Texas law, common-law marriage is not a different TYPE of marriage -- it is a different way of entering INTO marriage. You can think of it in this fashion -- in Texas, you can be married instantly by procuring a license and having the civil ceremony; you can skip those and still be married, but you have to play house for at least two years. The restrictions (age, gender, blood relations, etc.) are the same for common-law as they are for regular; therefore, the two really are the same thing.
In terms of benefits, my judgment is that the Attorney General of Texas is correct and that the amendment as written would not abrogate them, even for state employees. The reason is that the offering of benefits is not dependent on (nor does it create) a legal status -- only the tax and transfer advantages of the benefits are. For instance, my company's definition of "domestic partner" does not reference any state law -- only a specific set of circumstances. It is not a legal status -- in the eyes of the law and the IRS, I remain single, and I am taxed on the additional benefit monies the company gives me for my domestic partner as imputed income. Furthermore, in an interesting twist, since discrimination in benefits on the basis of sexual orientation is not forbidden under Federal law, companies are perfectly free to offer benefits to same-sex unmarried partners that they do not offer to opposite-sex unmarried partners.
As for laws related to property, I do foresee there being some issues with the interpretation of Section 2, which states that certain rights secured by contract do not create a legal status identical or similar to marriage; however, since we already allow contracts that supersede normal laws of community property (can you say "pre-nup"?), it shouldn't be a big deal.
Again, as I said before, defeating this will be a bitch. On the one hand, I suppose we should be happy that consideration was given to protecting domestic partner benefits and allowing gays to enter into contractual forms that approximate marriage benefits; on the other, there is no way in hell that I will ever tolerate or legitimize this level of discrimination being written into state law.
Did the Texas GOP make a tremendous mistake with the actual wording of the "Marriage" Amendment?
The full language of the amendment is as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
Ok Part (a) is pretty clear. It defines what marriage is in Texas.
Part (b) is Really interesting. It doesn't limit its' language to same sex couples. If you read it carefully.."may not create of recognize any legal status identical .. to marriage". Does that invalidate the state recognizing ANY BENEFITS OR RIGHTS FOR ALL (GAY AND STRAIGHT) MARRIAGES)?
It seems to me that Part (b) is stating how the state shall assign rights and responsibilities from the marriages defined in Part (a). I take this amendment to mean 'Marriage is for straights only, but the state can't recognize any status for marriage anyway'
Obviously, they could go for the legislative intent ruling to get around this. But wouldn't that get them into a serious Romer issue?
Will this remove common law marriage from the books?
Does this prohibit health and pension benefits to STRAIGHT spouses of state workers?
Does it have implications for community property provisions in Texas law?
Is my reading of the Amendment Crazy?
First off, the reading of the amendment is not in the least bit crazy. On first blush, the vast majority of the state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage look roughly the same, and with the known issues caused by Michigan's and Ohio's amendments, we SHOULD be asking questions about the wording of these monstrosities.
Tom's reading of Part (a) of the amendment is spot-on -- this is the section that defines marriage as being only the union of one man and one woman. Part (b), in my opinion, simply defines that the state itself or its political subdivisions (i.e. cities, counties) may not create or recognize a LEGAL status identical or similar to marriage. This is akin to saying that Dallas County may not set up a domestic partner registry as has Cook County, Illinois; in addition, it precludes a judge from ruling that, for instance, a gay marriage made in Massachusetts must be recognized in Texas. This in and of itself also prohibits civil unions, which is the single biggest thing I found objectionable (other than the fact that it came up at all) about the amendment.
Part (b), in my opinion, does not end common-law marriage, simply because, under Texas law, common-law marriage is not a different TYPE of marriage -- it is a different way of entering INTO marriage. You can think of it in this fashion -- in Texas, you can be married instantly by procuring a license and having the civil ceremony; you can skip those and still be married, but you have to play house for at least two years. The restrictions (age, gender, blood relations, etc.) are the same for common-law as they are for regular; therefore, the two really are the same thing.
In terms of benefits, my judgment is that the Attorney General of Texas is correct and that the amendment as written would not abrogate them, even for state employees. The reason is that the offering of benefits is not dependent on (nor does it create) a legal status -- only the tax and transfer advantages of the benefits are. For instance, my company's definition of "domestic partner" does not reference any state law -- only a specific set of circumstances. It is not a legal status -- in the eyes of the law and the IRS, I remain single, and I am taxed on the additional benefit monies the company gives me for my domestic partner as imputed income. Furthermore, in an interesting twist, since discrimination in benefits on the basis of sexual orientation is not forbidden under Federal law, companies are perfectly free to offer benefits to same-sex unmarried partners that they do not offer to opposite-sex unmarried partners.
As for laws related to property, I do foresee there being some issues with the interpretation of Section 2, which states that certain rights secured by contract do not create a legal status identical or similar to marriage; however, since we already allow contracts that supersede normal laws of community property (can you say "pre-nup"?), it shouldn't be a big deal.
Again, as I said before, defeating this will be a bitch. On the one hand, I suppose we should be happy that consideration was given to protecting domestic partner benefits and allowing gays to enter into contractual forms that approximate marriage benefits; on the other, there is no way in hell that I will ever tolerate or legitimize this level of discrimination being written into state law.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
We Get Letters
And in several cases, they're more than entertaining.
Please. I've seen too many Lifetime Original Movies to fall for that one.
As a gay man, as an American, as an HIV physician and academician at one of the more conservative medical institutions in the U.S, I can say without hesitation that your views remind me of the sad duplicity that arises in gay men who grow up in the Bible Belt. I was born and raised in Dallas, and still reside here, and I face constant personal and professional challenges due to the indoctrinated bigotry, Red State "values" and religious and cultural philistinism that plagues this town. You seem to cling to those philistine principles, but hypocritically deny the aspects that aren't compatible with your sexuality or your chosen family. As I kept reading your blog, I felt like I was being enclosed in a progressive, suffocating hysteria that was like being trapped in a housefire with the smoke rising to my nose. I was crawling on the ceiling, desperately looking for the chimney. Your repressed shame and self-doubt was so obvious beneath the grandstanding and stident lectures that you made Mary Tyler Moore in "Ordinary People" look like Robert Mapplethorpe.Which is, of course, why they keep sending these letters telling us how they know exactly why we do what we do and how wrong our views are, how very awful of persons we are, how no one else cares about, respects, or loves us, how anyone else who says they do is just lying, and how our only hope is to do exactly what they say and be grateful that they're still willing to forgive scum like us.
What staggers me is that you abandoned the struggle for progress here in the South in favor of the tolerant comforts of San Francisco--a city whose inhabitants bled for the acceptance you enjoy there--and with staggering condescension and arrogance, you trash and condemn those who still fight for your freedom. It must be intensely empowering to write your judgmental blog--which is essentially a courtroom with a jury of one--with the city without a priori rejections right at your doorstep. You, sir, are guilty of the worst form of Uncle Tomism, and belong to a small, infuriating sect of gay men who make life exponentially harder for the rest of us.
I have some unfortunate news for you: your political party only approves of you until the election is over--after that they're embarrassed by you. Your church may "hate the sin and love the sinner", but most of them think you represent the sickest form of pathology and evil, and if it were socially-acceptable and legal, you and your partner would be hanging from a tree. Meanwhile, those idiot liberals you so hatefully condemn elected a mayor who is fighting for your right to have the love between you and your partner recognized in the eyes of society, the government, and God. There is true spirituality in that fight--if Jesus is your thing, he'd be standing by your mayor, not by the privileged polish and sanctimony of Sarah Palin.
I can only theorize that you're wearing Republicanism and Christianity and Conservatism as a facade to convince yourself that you can be gay and "normal" at the same time--and honestly, I think that's why the majority of Republicans cling to that party. For men at least, it's a form a hormone replacement therapy--it's all about guns and Biblical patriarchy and the expensive suit that hides the paunch. For both sexes, having that Bush '08 sticker on the minivan is an excuse to behave with reprehensible hypocrisy and still keep the membership in the country club. I know one thing--if Palin had won (McCain won't be around much longer, so let's dispense with the fiction), my partner of four years, who is from Germany and working to get a green card, would be sent home in a rowboat, and you and I would be tattooed and sweeping floors in a concentration camp. She's the political equivalent of Nurse Ratched, and when you're dealing with the company woman incarnate, the only way to keep order in the commune is to silence those that don't play by the rules. This means you, no matter how many quaint homilies you post on your blog. There's no room for gay couples on the Ark, big guy. You can try to outsmart them with the khakis and top siders and the short haircut, but they know how to smell a fox.
Of course you're entitled to your views. The liberals out there will make sure you always will be.
Please. I've seen too many Lifetime Original Movies to fall for that one.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Misguided Angst
There is always a reason to read the fine print.
At the same time, though, the company involved is playing games that can only be described as chickens--t.
Simple fact of the matter: the constitutional amendment does not preclude companies from offering domestic partner benefits in Idaho. The reason Konica Minolta is not doing so is because they are choosing not to extend domestic partner benefits to couples that aren't legally registered as domestic partners in the state in which they live.
But of course, both sides are more than happy to blame someone or something else for the problem.
A 2,400-mile move west that once seemed like a chance at a fresh start, has instead delivered some hard lessons -- especially about moving from a state that recognizes same-sex unions to one of the 21 states that don't.
The couple was stunned when Ryan was dropped from the company insurance plan the two shared in New Jersey, where they were able to register as domestic partners. Idaho does not formally recognize same-sex couples.
"It didn't even dawn on us that this would have an impact," Ryan said.
At the same time, though, the company involved is playing games that can only be described as chickens--t.
A number of private insurance companies cover same-sex partners in Idaho, said Rep. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, who is the state's only openly gay legislator and is covered by a Wells Fargo insurance policy with her partner of eight years.
LeFavour said she called Konica Minolta on behalf of the couple and the company cited the constitutional amendment.
Simple fact of the matter: the constitutional amendment does not preclude companies from offering domestic partner benefits in Idaho. The reason Konica Minolta is not doing so is because they are choosing not to extend domestic partner benefits to couples that aren't legally registered as domestic partners in the state in which they live.
But of course, both sides are more than happy to blame someone or something else for the problem.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Breaking News
Tonight, since it was Dining Out For Life night here in San Francisco, I met my partner down in the Castro proper at Starbears (which, for those of you not familiar with our furry subculture, is the correct name for the Starbucks located on 18th Street at Castro), planning to go grab a bite to eat at one of the participating restaurant.
My husbear is an inveterate conversationalist, especially with other cute bears, and I was more than a bit impatient to get going, certain we were not going to get a table. Finally, he wrapped up, and we headed back up 18th to the Castro intersection. While we were waiting for the crosswalk signal, I turned to speak to one of our friends who had accompanied us to the corner.
Suddenly, from up Castro towards Market -- behind me -- I heard a noise -- squealing of brakes, the slamming of metal. I distinctly remember thinking, "Great, another grocery truck. Why do they always sound like they're falling apart?"
Then the loud BOOM of an explosion echoed down the street.
I spun instantly and saw the unthinkable; a car, facing us, going the wrong way on Castro, smashed hood and headlights...and off to one side raging angrily, an orange glow that immediately sent fear stabbing through my back at a remembered memory.....gasoline fire.
"Come on, get across," I said, grabbing my partner's arm as he stared at the fire, virtually pulling him across Castro, instincts driving me to move, get the hell away. In what seemed like an instant, we were across; I turned to look back -- and saw a long tongue of fire pouring down Castro, racing under the cars parked along the curb, their tires starting to smoke, running towards the corner on which, seconds ago, we had been standing
Fear gripped me. I expected a hail of exploding metal any second.
"Get moving! We've got to get AWAY from this!" Slowly I herded them up 18th, the crowds slowly backing away from the blazing inferno. Sirens wailed; the buzz of a news helicopter who happened to be in the right place at the right time echoed off the buildings as we ducked through the Walgreens's back parking lot and up Collingwood. The fire engines were racing down Market as we re-crossed Castro, and they were more than needed -- the smoke was thickly billowing over the front of businesses, the single engine that had instantly responded from the nearby house valiantly pumping foam onto the licking flames.
Later, after a nervous dinner at Blue, we walked back towards the Castro, not sure what we were going to see, worried about our friends, and fearing the worst.
At the corner, we met one of our acquaintances comforting another man, who gave us more details. As it turns out, the car facing the wrong way had turned left from Market onto Castro, running the red light, careened out of control, and struck a row of motorcycles. That had triggered the fire; the gas torn out of the bikes kept it going. His bike had been completely destroyed; others were badly damaged. One person who had been sitting in a parked car and was struck was confirmed dead; the driver of the wrecked car was badly injured. Fortunately, most people who had been on the sidewalk were able to get inside, into one of the near storefronts....it could have been a lot worse.
Crowds were gathered along the police tape as we crossed over to the west side of Castro, looking almost in disbelief at the damage. A row of cars were parked askew along the curb, hoods torn open, some with crumpled bodies, blackened with smoke and soot. Fuzio's looked OK, All-American Boy wasn't showing much damage, but the famous red awning above Clift's Variety Store, a Castro icon, was melted and falling, and the paint on the building was yellowed with the heat and fumes. Next to it, the white lettering on A Different Light's black awning was grayish and coated with charred particles.
As we stood there staring, my partner said very quietly, "Do you realize that we were just seconds away from walking right into the middle of that?"
We, and likely a few hundred others.
With the density of the Castro's population, plus the fact that it was a nice evening with several people out for the Dining Out for Life event, someone or something was definitely looking out for the homosexuals tonight. My sympathies and prayers are with the victims and their families.
A video of the fire and aftermath is on the Channel 5 site; the San Francisco Chronicle site has more details. I'll let you know more as information is made public.
My husbear is an inveterate conversationalist, especially with other cute bears, and I was more than a bit impatient to get going, certain we were not going to get a table. Finally, he wrapped up, and we headed back up 18th to the Castro intersection. While we were waiting for the crosswalk signal, I turned to speak to one of our friends who had accompanied us to the corner.
Suddenly, from up Castro towards Market -- behind me -- I heard a noise -- squealing of brakes, the slamming of metal. I distinctly remember thinking, "Great, another grocery truck. Why do they always sound like they're falling apart?"
Then the loud BOOM of an explosion echoed down the street.
I spun instantly and saw the unthinkable; a car, facing us, going the wrong way on Castro, smashed hood and headlights...and off to one side raging angrily, an orange glow that immediately sent fear stabbing through my back at a remembered memory.....gasoline fire.
"Come on, get across," I said, grabbing my partner's arm as he stared at the fire, virtually pulling him across Castro, instincts driving me to move, get the hell away. In what seemed like an instant, we were across; I turned to look back -- and saw a long tongue of fire pouring down Castro, racing under the cars parked along the curb, their tires starting to smoke, running towards the corner on which, seconds ago, we had been standing
Fear gripped me. I expected a hail of exploding metal any second.
"Get moving! We've got to get AWAY from this!" Slowly I herded them up 18th, the crowds slowly backing away from the blazing inferno. Sirens wailed; the buzz of a news helicopter who happened to be in the right place at the right time echoed off the buildings as we ducked through the Walgreens's back parking lot and up Collingwood. The fire engines were racing down Market as we re-crossed Castro, and they were more than needed -- the smoke was thickly billowing over the front of businesses, the single engine that had instantly responded from the nearby house valiantly pumping foam onto the licking flames.
Later, after a nervous dinner at Blue, we walked back towards the Castro, not sure what we were going to see, worried about our friends, and fearing the worst.
At the corner, we met one of our acquaintances comforting another man, who gave us more details. As it turns out, the car facing the wrong way had turned left from Market onto Castro, running the red light, careened out of control, and struck a row of motorcycles. That had triggered the fire; the gas torn out of the bikes kept it going. His bike had been completely destroyed; others were badly damaged. One person who had been sitting in a parked car and was struck was confirmed dead; the driver of the wrecked car was badly injured. Fortunately, most people who had been on the sidewalk were able to get inside, into one of the near storefronts....it could have been a lot worse.
Crowds were gathered along the police tape as we crossed over to the west side of Castro, looking almost in disbelief at the damage. A row of cars were parked askew along the curb, hoods torn open, some with crumpled bodies, blackened with smoke and soot. Fuzio's looked OK, All-American Boy wasn't showing much damage, but the famous red awning above Clift's Variety Store, a Castro icon, was melted and falling, and the paint on the building was yellowed with the heat and fumes. Next to it, the white lettering on A Different Light's black awning was grayish and coated with charred particles.
As we stood there staring, my partner said very quietly, "Do you realize that we were just seconds away from walking right into the middle of that?"
We, and likely a few hundred others.
With the density of the Castro's population, plus the fact that it was a nice evening with several people out for the Dining Out for Life event, someone or something was definitely looking out for the homosexuals tonight. My sympathies and prayers are with the victims and their families.
A video of the fire and aftermath is on the Channel 5 site; the San Francisco Chronicle site has more details. I'll let you know more as information is made public.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Brains vs. Boycotts
The latest kerfluffle to hit the gay blogosphere seems to be the fight picked over at Americablog, where John Aravosis seems once again, with cheers from the usual suspects, to be bent on taking an American corporate giant down, in this case Ford Motor Company, for supposedly "caving" to right-wing antigay bigots by making the decision to no longer advertise their Jaguar and Land Rover brands in gay publications, allegedly under pressure from the homophobic American Family Association.
However, there are gays with clearer heads taking a good look at the situation out there, notably Blog Allies Christian Grantham, Robbie at The Malcontent, and the ever-intrepid information gatherer Lloydletta, and coming up with roughly the same conclusion -- this is more about a need to play the victim than it is an intelligent reaction to the issues.
To support their reasoning, I will put forward another one....the actions these overstimulated "activists" are taking, if successful, will ultimately result in the outcome the AFA wants.
How, you ask?
Right now, Ford is not on what could be called "sound financial footing". Their corporate bonds are at junk bond level, the high price of gas is drastically cutting into sales of their bread-and-butter SUVs and trucks, their spree of incentive offerings this summer has tapped out the market, and they're reportedly getting ready to close several plants.
Now, consider the AFA's goals from its boycott last summer. It wants Ford to stop supporting ANYTHING gay, period, not just advertising -- hiring gays, diversity training, community support, partner benefits, you name it.
Now, as any businessperson knows, what happens when you're in financial trouble? You cut back on advertising and community support, especially to niche markets and communities with minimal returns on your dollar, and focus on your core. You cut training to the bare essentials. You slow down or stop hiring completely. You lay off workers, or you keep workers, but cut pay and benefits. Most importantly, if financial trouble gets worse, you accelerate the pace of these.
In short, what better way to get Ford to stop doing all the things you want them to stop doing than to push them deeper into financial trouble -- especially when yours isn't the group doing it?
This is so beautifully Machiavellian from a strategic standpoint, it's amazing. In exchange for a minor concession, the AFA has managed to turn the whole "gay community" against Ford, and in the process, strike at the taproot of Ford's ability to support the "homosexual agenda" -- vehicle sales. The less cars and trucks Ford sells, the less money they have to devote to gay community events and advertising -- assuming they are willing to give any money to a group that is the cause of their financial problems in the first place AND wasn't very receptive when they WERE being nice to it. That neatly solves those two problems for the AFA.
The employee benefits issue can be handled via another wrinkle that comes into play with the Ford situation -- the religious right's overtures toward unions. As I pointed out this summer, the religious right is well-aware of the disconnect between the political activity of unions and the political beliefs of union members. When you apply this to what's going on with Ford, all the AFA has to do is to point out to the workers losing their jobs because of Ford losing sales that the same "gay rights activists" who union leadership is supporting with the union dues these workers pay are the ones whose boycott is causing these workers to lose their jobs or take massive pay and benefit cuts. The word "cataclysmic" is not strong enough to describe what will be taking place. How long do you think union members will continue to contribute to support people who are making them unemployed? More importantly, how hard do you think union members will push to protect "gay rights" or to sacrifice their own family benefits for domestic-partner benefits when these same people are costing THEIR families benefits?
Finally, consider the obvious. Every plant, every office, every position that Ford is forced to close or eliminate does three things -- put glbt workers out of a job, takes away job opportunities for glbt workers, and in either case, takes away benefits from glbt workers and their families. If the idea is to protect glbt workers and their benefits, forcing Ford to do any of these is completely counterproductive.
In short, this boycott, if successful, will push Ford into severe financial distress or completely out of business, thereby eliminating Ford advertising in gay publications, Ford supporting community events, Ford offering employment opportunities to glbts, and Ford giving glbts partner benefits -- everything the AFA wants, all wrapped up in one nice, neat package, and handed to them. Best of all, the AFA's hands are clean -- it was those godless homosexuals who were doing the boycotting, just like they will do to you if you don't do exactly what they say and run your business in a totally-irrational fashion to please them. Look at all the straight workers and their families who these homos made lose their jobs -- do you want the same thing to happen at your business?
If the gay community wanted Ford's continued support, we could have rallied around them when the AFA first announced their "boycott" back in May. We had more than ample opportunity to take advantage of the fact that, as my previous link mentioned, Ford was giving money to gay organizations for every Jaguar they sold, and reward them for doing so. However, the difference between us and the AFA is that the AFA acts; show me where John Aravosis, HRC, or any of the numerous others put even a tenth of the effort they are now putting into bashing Ford into praising Ford when they WERE advertising in gay publications and getting a perfect HRC score.
Ford made a decision to go with what made the most sense for their business. What these "activists" are doing is saying that they would rather run Ford out of business, costing thousands of glbt workers and their families their jobs, their benefits, and their livelihoods, than go without ads or with "generic" ads in gay magazines.
That's just plain sick. But it's also what happens when people whose only concern is justifying their victimization are the public spokespeople for glbts. Even with the example of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton before us, gays seem bent on repeating the mistakes of the black civil rights movement; until we realize that and take action, people will continue to ignore or disregard us.
However, there are gays with clearer heads taking a good look at the situation out there, notably Blog Allies Christian Grantham, Robbie at The Malcontent, and the ever-intrepid information gatherer Lloydletta, and coming up with roughly the same conclusion -- this is more about a need to play the victim than it is an intelligent reaction to the issues.
To support their reasoning, I will put forward another one....the actions these overstimulated "activists" are taking, if successful, will ultimately result in the outcome the AFA wants.
How, you ask?
Right now, Ford is not on what could be called "sound financial footing". Their corporate bonds are at junk bond level, the high price of gas is drastically cutting into sales of their bread-and-butter SUVs and trucks, their spree of incentive offerings this summer has tapped out the market, and they're reportedly getting ready to close several plants.
Now, consider the AFA's goals from its boycott last summer. It wants Ford to stop supporting ANYTHING gay, period, not just advertising -- hiring gays, diversity training, community support, partner benefits, you name it.
Now, as any businessperson knows, what happens when you're in financial trouble? You cut back on advertising and community support, especially to niche markets and communities with minimal returns on your dollar, and focus on your core. You cut training to the bare essentials. You slow down or stop hiring completely. You lay off workers, or you keep workers, but cut pay and benefits. Most importantly, if financial trouble gets worse, you accelerate the pace of these.
In short, what better way to get Ford to stop doing all the things you want them to stop doing than to push them deeper into financial trouble -- especially when yours isn't the group doing it?
This is so beautifully Machiavellian from a strategic standpoint, it's amazing. In exchange for a minor concession, the AFA has managed to turn the whole "gay community" against Ford, and in the process, strike at the taproot of Ford's ability to support the "homosexual agenda" -- vehicle sales. The less cars and trucks Ford sells, the less money they have to devote to gay community events and advertising -- assuming they are willing to give any money to a group that is the cause of their financial problems in the first place AND wasn't very receptive when they WERE being nice to it. That neatly solves those two problems for the AFA.
The employee benefits issue can be handled via another wrinkle that comes into play with the Ford situation -- the religious right's overtures toward unions. As I pointed out this summer, the religious right is well-aware of the disconnect between the political activity of unions and the political beliefs of union members. When you apply this to what's going on with Ford, all the AFA has to do is to point out to the workers losing their jobs because of Ford losing sales that the same "gay rights activists" who union leadership is supporting with the union dues these workers pay are the ones whose boycott is causing these workers to lose their jobs or take massive pay and benefit cuts. The word "cataclysmic" is not strong enough to describe what will be taking place. How long do you think union members will continue to contribute to support people who are making them unemployed? More importantly, how hard do you think union members will push to protect "gay rights" or to sacrifice their own family benefits for domestic-partner benefits when these same people are costing THEIR families benefits?
Finally, consider the obvious. Every plant, every office, every position that Ford is forced to close or eliminate does three things -- put glbt workers out of a job, takes away job opportunities for glbt workers, and in either case, takes away benefits from glbt workers and their families. If the idea is to protect glbt workers and their benefits, forcing Ford to do any of these is completely counterproductive.
In short, this boycott, if successful, will push Ford into severe financial distress or completely out of business, thereby eliminating Ford advertising in gay publications, Ford supporting community events, Ford offering employment opportunities to glbts, and Ford giving glbts partner benefits -- everything the AFA wants, all wrapped up in one nice, neat package, and handed to them. Best of all, the AFA's hands are clean -- it was those godless homosexuals who were doing the boycotting, just like they will do to you if you don't do exactly what they say and run your business in a totally-irrational fashion to please them. Look at all the straight workers and their families who these homos made lose their jobs -- do you want the same thing to happen at your business?
If the gay community wanted Ford's continued support, we could have rallied around them when the AFA first announced their "boycott" back in May. We had more than ample opportunity to take advantage of the fact that, as my previous link mentioned, Ford was giving money to gay organizations for every Jaguar they sold, and reward them for doing so. However, the difference between us and the AFA is that the AFA acts; show me where John Aravosis, HRC, or any of the numerous others put even a tenth of the effort they are now putting into bashing Ford into praising Ford when they WERE advertising in gay publications and getting a perfect HRC score.
Ford made a decision to go with what made the most sense for their business. What these "activists" are doing is saying that they would rather run Ford out of business, costing thousands of glbt workers and their families their jobs, their benefits, and their livelihoods, than go without ads or with "generic" ads in gay magazines.
That's just plain sick. But it's also what happens when people whose only concern is justifying their victimization are the public spokespeople for glbts. Even with the example of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton before us, gays seem bent on repeating the mistakes of the black civil rights movement; until we realize that and take action, people will continue to ignore or disregard us.
Friday, February 09, 2007
True Courage.....
is being willing to speak out.
Especially in light of this.
Or, more troubling, this.
Especially in light of this.
Females between the ages of 16 and 24 are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence than any other age group -- at a rate almost triple the national average, according to a 2001 U.S. Department of Justice report.
About 1 in 3 teenagers reported knowing a friend or peer who had been hit, punched, kicked, slapped, choked or physically hurt by their partner, according to a February 2005 study on teen dating abuse from Teenage Research Unlimited, a national research firm specializing in youth.
Or, more troubling, this.
"No one really believed me," Sarah said. "Even though I had the bruises on my stomach, no one really cared."
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Misguided Ardor
I have to wonder what Michael over at GayOrbit is thinking with this post.
The story he links to is about the attempt being made by the heirs of a wealthy family to prevent the lesbian lover of one of them, who was legally adopted by her partner as a means of supposedly protecting the lover, from collecting on trust payouts to be made to all grandchildren -- obviously, another case of a hateful and homophobic family trying to prevent a poor helpless gay partner from receiving their legal due.
Except when you read this part.
As far as I can tell, the logic here is that, if Olive Watson and her lover would have been allowed to marry, the family wouldn't be going through the legal mess to nullify the claim of a "granddaughter" who is one year older than her "mother", hasn't been in a relationship with her "mother" for fifteen years, and about whom the "mother" apparently forgot to tell her family.
Or put differently, "Marriage will cure stupidity in gays and lesbians."
The lengths gay couples will go to protect themselves, and how it’s not enough. Anyone that says signing contracts and entering into other agreements is all we need to do is simply wrong.
The story he links to is about the attempt being made by the heirs of a wealthy family to prevent the lesbian lover of one of them, who was legally adopted by her partner as a means of supposedly protecting the lover, from collecting on trust payouts to be made to all grandchildren -- obviously, another case of a hateful and homophobic family trying to prevent a poor helpless gay partner from receiving their legal due.
Except when you read this part.
Spado and Olive Watson aren't together anymore. They separated in 1992, and while Spado received about $500,000 from Watson, there is nothing in court records to show any arrangement beyond that.
As far as I can tell, the logic here is that, if Olive Watson and her lover would have been allowed to marry, the family wouldn't be going through the legal mess to nullify the claim of a "granddaughter" who is one year older than her "mother", hasn't been in a relationship with her "mother" for fifteen years, and about whom the "mother" apparently forgot to tell her family.
Or put differently, "Marriage will cure stupidity in gays and lesbians."
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Really, It IS Simpler Than It Looks
Chris Crain, the former editor for the Washington Blade, has on his blog a piece discussing the impending retirement of Republican House member Jim Kolbe and the issues on which Chris feels Kolbe should speak out more.
By and by, it's fairly even-handed; however, there's one thing that caught my attention.
Actually, that's not quite the case.
DOMA, as Chris correctly points out, prevents the Federal government from recognizing anything that isn't a man-woman coupling as a spouse or married.
However, that only causes a problem if Social Security conditions survivor's benefits on spousal or marital status.
Many private pension and retirement plans do not; they allow an employee to designate beneficiaries, who may or may not be related or married to them, to receive their accrued benefit upon their death. This process was made even easier and simpler by the past year's pension reform bill, which allowed such transfers to take place without an immediate tax hit regardless of the individual's relationship to the beneficiary.
Congress is more than capable of changing Social Security to match that; instead of requiring "spouse", they could with perfect right institute a beneficiary system in which you designate someone to receive your survivor benefits from Social Security regardless of their relationship or other status. Since you would no longer need to be a "spouse" to receive these benefits, DOMA would not be violated.
However, it kind of begs the question.......why bother?
To explain why, one need only take a look at what would happen under Social Security if my partner and I were married and I died. First off, because he isn't old enough or disabled, my partner would not have immediate access to my survivor's benefits in the first place; he would only be able to claim them if he were of a certain age and/or disability status. Second, even if he were of age or status, any amount that he could collect would be reduced relative to his income if he continued to work. If he begins to collect Social Security -- or is already collecting Social Security -- he gets the better of his direct benefits or what he can collect of my survivor's benefits, not both of them; in either case, he must take them as a cash distribution and be taxed accordingly. Finally, if he were to remarry, the government could with perfect right immediately terminate any survivor's benefits he was receiving.
In contrast, if I were to die, my private retirement plans would immediately pay out my accrued benefit to him as my beneficiary as he preferred, either as a taxable cash distribution or as a tax-free transfer into his own retirement account, there for him to invest as he sees fit and use when he needs it. He doesn't have to choose between his own retirement funds and mine; he gets both. Furthermore, he gets to keep both regardless of whether he remarries or not with no dimunition in their value.
This convoluted mess is why we found straight couples arguing for domestic partnerships in last year's battle over the Arizona marriage amendment; they're trying to dodge the fact that, if they get married, their Social Security payouts drop, either by the negation of survivor's benefits or the fact that the Social Security limit on payouts to their household is lower than the combined value of their benefits if considered separately.
In short, until meaningful reform to Social Security takes place, the argument over gay couples needing marriage to get Social Security benefits is pointless AND contradicted by the fact that straight couples are avoiding marriage so as not to lose Social Security benefits by getting married.
And the chances of a Democratic lapdog group like HRC advocating for meaningful changes to Social Security are about the same as that of Perez Hilton advocating for restraint in journalism.
By and by, it's fairly even-handed; however, there's one thing that caught my attention.
Ironically, Kolbe complains later in the interview that the Human Rights Campaign hasn't devoted more energy to extending Social Security survivor benefits to gay couples — a move that would require repealing the half of DOMA that goes unmentioned in the article.
Actually, that's not quite the case.
DOMA, as Chris correctly points out, prevents the Federal government from recognizing anything that isn't a man-woman coupling as a spouse or married.
However, that only causes a problem if Social Security conditions survivor's benefits on spousal or marital status.
Many private pension and retirement plans do not; they allow an employee to designate beneficiaries, who may or may not be related or married to them, to receive their accrued benefit upon their death. This process was made even easier and simpler by the past year's pension reform bill, which allowed such transfers to take place without an immediate tax hit regardless of the individual's relationship to the beneficiary.
Congress is more than capable of changing Social Security to match that; instead of requiring "spouse", they could with perfect right institute a beneficiary system in which you designate someone to receive your survivor benefits from Social Security regardless of their relationship or other status. Since you would no longer need to be a "spouse" to receive these benefits, DOMA would not be violated.
However, it kind of begs the question.......why bother?
To explain why, one need only take a look at what would happen under Social Security if my partner and I were married and I died. First off, because he isn't old enough or disabled, my partner would not have immediate access to my survivor's benefits in the first place; he would only be able to claim them if he were of a certain age and/or disability status. Second, even if he were of age or status, any amount that he could collect would be reduced relative to his income if he continued to work. If he begins to collect Social Security -- or is already collecting Social Security -- he gets the better of his direct benefits or what he can collect of my survivor's benefits, not both of them; in either case, he must take them as a cash distribution and be taxed accordingly. Finally, if he were to remarry, the government could with perfect right immediately terminate any survivor's benefits he was receiving.
In contrast, if I were to die, my private retirement plans would immediately pay out my accrued benefit to him as my beneficiary as he preferred, either as a taxable cash distribution or as a tax-free transfer into his own retirement account, there for him to invest as he sees fit and use when he needs it. He doesn't have to choose between his own retirement funds and mine; he gets both. Furthermore, he gets to keep both regardless of whether he remarries or not with no dimunition in their value.
This convoluted mess is why we found straight couples arguing for domestic partnerships in last year's battle over the Arizona marriage amendment; they're trying to dodge the fact that, if they get married, their Social Security payouts drop, either by the negation of survivor's benefits or the fact that the Social Security limit on payouts to their household is lower than the combined value of their benefits if considered separately.
In short, until meaningful reform to Social Security takes place, the argument over gay couples needing marriage to get Social Security benefits is pointless AND contradicted by the fact that straight couples are avoiding marriage so as not to lose Social Security benefits by getting married.
And the chances of a Democratic lapdog group like HRC advocating for meaningful changes to Social Security are about the same as that of Perez Hilton advocating for restraint in journalism.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
And Mary Shall Be With Child....
Sorry, couldn't resist the Christmas reference. :)
Congratulations to Heather Poe and Mary Cheney on their announcement today that they are having a baby.
Of course, this news was greeted with the usual spitting and vitriol that comes from the gay left whenever Mary is mentioned; summing it all up, I think, is this lovely post wishing that the baby would be deformed and that Mary be rendered painfully infertile. Particularly amusing is their attempt to quote a piece from 2004 to prove how awful Virginia is for gays because state law allegedly prevents private businesses from extending domestic partner benefits -- despite the fact that said law was undone last year.
But this sort of thing is, after all, expected from those folks; what is more entertaining is when the sanctimonious "spokesperson" gays enter, such as Jennifer Chrisler, head of theDemocratic money-laundering organization gay group Family Pride.
Of course, what is left out is that Chrisler and her partner, former Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques, previously dismissed the need for marriage to protect their children -- and, more amusingly, during the time their group and they were pumping money and endorsements to Democratic candidate John Kerry in support of his position on gay issues.
Which was?
According to Kerry, the same as Cheney's and, most interestingly..... Bush's.
And, given his enthusiastic support of constitutional amendments to ban it, he followed through on that.
Yet Chrisler, Jacques, HRC, and the rest of the gay left called that position "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive", and gave tens of millions of dollars in cash, endorsements, staff time, and support to promote and push it -- all the while claiming that the "same position" on the other side was an "attack" causing "irreparable harm" to gays and lesbians.
It makes one think of the post-"Jews suck" cut-budget ending for Apocalypto.
Let's face facts. Mary Cheney takes a lot of sh*t from hypocritical activists like Chrisler, knows that every move she makes is going to be met with hate......and still has the strength and willingness to be public with her life.
I admire that.
Good luck, Heather and Mary.
Congratulations to Heather Poe and Mary Cheney on their announcement today that they are having a baby.
Of course, this news was greeted with the usual spitting and vitriol that comes from the gay left whenever Mary is mentioned; summing it all up, I think, is this lovely post wishing that the baby would be deformed and that Mary be rendered painfully infertile. Particularly amusing is their attempt to quote a piece from 2004 to prove how awful Virginia is for gays because state law allegedly prevents private businesses from extending domestic partner benefits -- despite the fact that said law was undone last year.
But this sort of thing is, after all, expected from those folks; what is more entertaining is when the sanctimonious "spokesperson" gays enter, such as Jennifer Chrisler, head of the
The couple "will quickly face the reality that no matter how loved their child will be. ... he or she will never have the same protections that other children born to heterosexual couples enjoy," Chrisler said. "Grandfather Cheney will no doubt face a lifetime of sleepless nights as he reflects on the irreparable harm he and his administration have done to the millions of American gay and lesbian parents and their children."
Of course, what is left out is that Chrisler and her partner, former Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques, previously dismissed the need for marriage to protect their children -- and, more amusingly, during the time their group and they were pumping money and endorsements to Democratic candidate John Kerry in support of his position on gay issues.
Which was?
According to Kerry, the same as Cheney's and, most interestingly..... Bush's.
"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position."
And, given his enthusiastic support of constitutional amendments to ban it, he followed through on that.
Yet Chrisler, Jacques, HRC, and the rest of the gay left called that position "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive", and gave tens of millions of dollars in cash, endorsements, staff time, and support to promote and push it -- all the while claiming that the "same position" on the other side was an "attack" causing "irreparable harm" to gays and lesbians.
It makes one think of the post-"Jews suck" cut-budget ending for Apocalypto.
(line of captives inches towards altar, head bowed, sobbing, as blood gushes by their feet, each one being sliced open and having his heart cut out, still beating.
Jaguar Paw reaches front of line; as priests reach for him......)
Jaguar Paw: Wait! No! It is horrible and repressive for you to cut out my heart and offer it to the god Snaky-Haired Monkey With Finger In Nose!
Head Priest: But we must, otherwise we will get no rain and our land and empire will crumble.
JP: I don't care. It's ALWAYS wrong to kill another human being! Your actions endanger my family and all others. I must protest and label you as evil, wicked, and smelly.
HP: All right, all right already, quit yelling! How about we sacrifice you and your family to the god Buck-Toothed Lemur With Horrible Anal Warts, who despite having the same position on human sacrifice, opposes everything which Snaky-Haired Monkey With Finger In Nose supports?
JP: Now THAT'S more like it! (jumps up onto altar)
(Horrible natural disaster intervenes, priests scream and go running away, Jaguar Paw chasing after them)
JP: Wait! WAIT! YOU FORGOT TO KILL ME!
Let's face facts. Mary Cheney takes a lot of sh*t from hypocritical activists like Chrisler, knows that every move she makes is going to be met with hate......and still has the strength and willingness to be public with her life.
I admire that.
Good luck, Heather and Mary.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Trying For That 16th Minute
Poor Jim McGreevey.
His book isn't selling well, the talk show circuit is wearing thin, and the reception he received in our gay city-state wasn't quite what he expected.
So what's a washed-up gay celeb supposed to do? Try to catch the latest wave.
I have to admit, McGreevey's gotten good at knowing which buttons activate the brain bypasses wired into most gay activists. Appeal to "commitment", talk all lovey-dovey about your partner, and play to the fantasy that the only reason people don't support gay marriage is because they're really closeted homosexuals -- the old tried-and-true methods, all there.
However, hearing a Democrat claim they voted against gay marriage because they were terrified people would find out they were gay means one of two things -- either the Democratic Party is not as friendly to gays as they would like us to believe, or the dating pool for homosexuals is a majority of the people in both New Jersey and the United States.
I lean towards the former.
And as for "blessing our relationship in a committed way", I think the last paragraph of the article says it all:
McGreevey now lives with Mark O'Donnell, a 43-year-old Australian businessman. Before they could marry, the former governor would have to finalize his divorce from his second wife.
Third time's a charm, maybe?
Two words of advice for O'Donnell.....prenuptial agreement.
And, as an engagement present, here's a couple of handy boyfriend locators for him.
His book isn't selling well, the talk show circuit is wearing thin, and the reception he received in our gay city-state wasn't quite what he expected.
So what's a washed-up gay celeb supposed to do? Try to catch the latest wave.
Former Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned after acknowledging a gay affair, said he would tie the knot with his partner if state lawmakers decide to allow gay marriage.
"Marriage would offer the ability to bless our relationship in a committed way," McGreevey, 49, told The New York Times............
Some gay-rights advocates said the decision didn't go far enough. McGreevey, who told The Associated Press last month that he had publicly opposed gay marriage while in office as a way to keep his homosexuality hidden, hailed the ruling.
"I applaud the court's courage," McGreevey told the AP. "I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor."
I have to admit, McGreevey's gotten good at knowing which buttons activate the brain bypasses wired into most gay activists. Appeal to "commitment", talk all lovey-dovey about your partner, and play to the fantasy that the only reason people don't support gay marriage is because they're really closeted homosexuals -- the old tried-and-true methods, all there.
However, hearing a Democrat claim they voted against gay marriage because they were terrified people would find out they were gay means one of two things -- either the Democratic Party is not as friendly to gays as they would like us to believe, or the dating pool for homosexuals is a majority of the people in both New Jersey and the United States.
I lean towards the former.
And as for "blessing our relationship in a committed way", I think the last paragraph of the article says it all:
McGreevey now lives with Mark O'Donnell, a 43-year-old Australian businessman. Before they could marry, the former governor would have to finalize his divorce from his second wife.
Third time's a charm, maybe?
Two words of advice for O'Donnell.....prenuptial agreement.
And, as an engagement present, here's a couple of handy boyfriend locators for him.
Friday, February 10, 2006
No Thanks, We'd Rather Rot than Cooperate
Thanks to Robbie of The Malcontent, I was made aware of the latest twist in the case of the Colorado domestic partner activity -- namely, that an alternative has been proposed, and -- surprise! -- Focus on the Family is supporting it.
Of course, the gay left has an explanation:
Michael Brewer, public policy director for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center of Colorado, said the Christian group’s support is not ironic, but a “political reality.”
“[Focus on the Family] realizes that domestic partnership is popular in Colorado,” Brewer told this newspaper. “I think they’re definitely afraid that Colorado could be the first state where the voters themselves would pass it.”
Right. But in order to do so, as the article conveniently leaves out, both houses of the Colorado legislature must pass the domestic partner referendum by two-thirds in order to get it onto the ballot. Creating domestic partnerships will not get that; on the other hand, the reciprocal benefits bill, especially with the support of groups like Focus on the Family, likely would.
So of course, which horse is the gay left backing?
The one most likely to lose.
And why are they doing so?
Because, they say, the reciprocal benefits bill wouldn't grant all the benefits of marriage and gives mostly things that gays can already manage through existing legal means.
Just like the domestic partners bill they're backing.
I mean, really. Is the gay left even TRYING to be relevant? Or are they just going to sit there as Democrats dangle bills they know will never pass so that gays obligingly open their pocketbooks, rather than taking the opportunity to really do something towards getting the legal benefits they claim to crave?
Once again, gay lefties would rather have no progress than progress that involves cooperating with the wrong kind of people.
Figures.
Of course, the gay left has an explanation:
Michael Brewer, public policy director for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center of Colorado, said the Christian group’s support is not ironic, but a “political reality.”
“[Focus on the Family] realizes that domestic partnership is popular in Colorado,” Brewer told this newspaper. “I think they’re definitely afraid that Colorado could be the first state where the voters themselves would pass it.”
Right. But in order to do so, as the article conveniently leaves out, both houses of the Colorado legislature must pass the domestic partner referendum by two-thirds in order to get it onto the ballot. Creating domestic partnerships will not get that; on the other hand, the reciprocal benefits bill, especially with the support of groups like Focus on the Family, likely would.
So of course, which horse is the gay left backing?
The one most likely to lose.
And why are they doing so?
Because, they say, the reciprocal benefits bill wouldn't grant all the benefits of marriage and gives mostly things that gays can already manage through existing legal means.
Just like the domestic partners bill they're backing.
I mean, really. Is the gay left even TRYING to be relevant? Or are they just going to sit there as Democrats dangle bills they know will never pass so that gays obligingly open their pocketbooks, rather than taking the opportunity to really do something towards getting the legal benefits they claim to crave?
Once again, gay lefties would rather have no progress than progress that involves cooperating with the wrong kind of people.
Figures.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Virginia's On a Roll
Having just spent two weeks in Virginia -- and having had to explain to a few prospective local employees that my company's domestic partner benefits are legal in Virginia because we're not based there and we self-insure them -- I am overjoyed to see Ken Sain's latest item in the Washington Blade that the Virginia House voted 49 - 48 to allow private companies to offer domestic partner benefits. Since the bil has already passed the Virginia Senate, it goes to the governor's desk, where there is every indication it will be signed. This caps off a series of events, one of which I already blogged and mentioned elsewhere, that ended up blocking attempts to ban gay adoption and fostering, school gay-straight alliances, and putting "Traditional Marriage" on license plates.
It's amazing how quiet the gay left has been on this particular group of issues. Perhaps they don't like the fact that, since the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate both have Republican supermajorities (60%), that means Republicans in Virginia HAVE voted in favor of gay rights -- which neatly blows their stereotype and victimization complex that all Republicans hate gays out of the water. In addition, as Sain pointedly states, gay activists "hid" while business lobbyists brought this forward -- again, a body blow to the moonbat lefties who try to blame all their problems on "evil corporations".
There are two lessons to be learned here. First, arguing that nondiscrimination makes good business sense is more convincing than even the most rabid wingnut in swaying votes. Second, and perhaps more damning -- when the gay left, its agenda, and its rhetoric stay away, progress is made.
It's amazing how quiet the gay left has been on this particular group of issues. Perhaps they don't like the fact that, since the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate both have Republican supermajorities (60%), that means Republicans in Virginia HAVE voted in favor of gay rights -- which neatly blows their stereotype and victimization complex that all Republicans hate gays out of the water. In addition, as Sain pointedly states, gay activists "hid" while business lobbyists brought this forward -- again, a body blow to the moonbat lefties who try to blame all their problems on "evil corporations".
There are two lessons to be learned here. First, arguing that nondiscrimination makes good business sense is more convincing than even the most rabid wingnut in swaying votes. Second, and perhaps more damning -- when the gay left, its agenda, and its rhetoric stay away, progress is made.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Blind Hatred Makes You Miss Targets
The best example so far: the discussion that ensued over at Box Turtle Bulletin upon my banning.
In short order, the people there:
-- Accused me of being a pedophile
-- Questioned my sexual orientation
Confused me with someone else entirely -- and then proceeded to publish that person's profile and information
Now consider Box Turtle Bulletin's "comment policy".
What makes this really funny is that a simple thirty-second check of my blogsite would have made it clear that, if that's my Gay.com profile, it's in the wrong city, wrong physical description, wrong age, and totally unaware of the partner I already have. But why be accurate, when you know that you'll never be held accountable for such behavior by Jim Burroway, Daniel Gonzales, and Timothy Kincaid? It's all about the smearing, and these blog owners are more than willing to aid and abet such things when it's their ideological allies that are doing it.
As I said yesterday, gee, it's almost like they care less about content and what a person actually does than who that person is.....
UPDATE: Grabbed the Google Cache of the comments in question.
Second Update: Not surprisingly, Jim Burroway tried erasing the comments (which is why I grabbed the Google Cache).
Not good enough. As I pointed out above, their idiot commenters not only made all sorts of nasty remarks about me, but, in their attempts to do so, directly smeared someone who is in no way connected with me AND everyone over at GayPatriot. There needs to be a public retraction and an apology made to that person and the GayPatriot blog.
In short order, the people there:
-- Accused me of being a pedophile
I hope nobody is ever stupid enough to leave their little boys alone with him.
But no, I wouldn’t leave my nephews around him either.
-- Questioned my sexual orientation
If he’s really gay, then he has serious emotional problems, and I feel bad for him.
ND30, along with other kooks like former gay porn actor turned flop wannabe-FOX pundit Matt Sanchez, and a “michigan matt” all come from the “Gay Patriot” blog - aka the deranged sisters of Log Cabin Republicans.
The guys from that particular website has some issues - nothing more than walking Paul Cameron advertisements, and believing your average gay person is inferior to them.
Confused me with someone else entirely -- and then proceeded to publish that person's profile and information
You can’t get any gayer than gay.com! LOL:
Now consider Box Turtle Bulletin's "comment policy".
While we value a range of opinions, we may delete comments and/or ban or moderate commenters who engage in:
-- Threats, direct or implied. This can include implied threats through the posting of phone numbers, addresses, or places of business or employment.
-- The use of derogatory terms. Prohibited terms include (but are not limited to):
-- Terms which demean one’s personal appearance or mannerisms
In addition, commenters may be moderated or banned for persisting in any of following behavior:
-- Defamation against entire categories of people. This includes members of religious groups and political parties.
-- Unsubstantiated claims, for example, claims which are not backed by direct quotes, links, or bibliographic references from independent sources
-- Unsubstantiated rumors or speculations, particularly where sexuality or sexual behavior is concerned
What makes this really funny is that a simple thirty-second check of my blogsite would have made it clear that, if that's my Gay.com profile, it's in the wrong city, wrong physical description, wrong age, and totally unaware of the partner I already have. But why be accurate, when you know that you'll never be held accountable for such behavior by Jim Burroway, Daniel Gonzales, and Timothy Kincaid? It's all about the smearing, and these blog owners are more than willing to aid and abet such things when it's their ideological allies that are doing it.
As I said yesterday, gee, it's almost like they care less about content and what a person actually does than who that person is.....
UPDATE: Grabbed the Google Cache of the comments in question.
Second Update: Not surprisingly, Jim Burroway tried erasing the comments (which is why I grabbed the Google Cache).
Not good enough. As I pointed out above, their idiot commenters not only made all sorts of nasty remarks about me, but, in their attempts to do so, directly smeared someone who is in no way connected with me AND everyone over at GayPatriot. There needs to be a public retraction and an apology made to that person and the GayPatriot blog.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Not Quite What I Preferred.....
but so it goes.
DelD over at Ace of Spades expresses my feelings nicely.
And on the bright side, my partner got who he wanted. :)
DelD over at Ace of Spades expresses my feelings nicely.
And on the bright side, my partner got who he wanted. :)
Monday, May 07, 2007
Warning to All Gay Conservatives and Republicans
Express your opinion like this......
and expect a wonderful and loving response from the community which you supposedly belong and forever are encouraged to support, regardless of their opinions, because you share their sexual orientation.
Not that this is in any way unexpected; it's just a good reminder of the fact.
David Keeton, a small-business owner in Dallas, and his partner, Rob Schlein, said they supported Giuliani because of his record as New York mayor and his response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
"I'm an American first, then a Republican second, and gay falls in third or fourth," said Keeton, who wore a Ronald Reagan pin on his lapel.
and expect a wonderful and loving response from the community which you supposedly belong and forever are encouraged to support, regardless of their opinions, because you share their sexual orientation.
Not that this is in any way unexpected; it's just a good reminder of the fact.
Friday, December 14, 2007
In The Moon of Converging Bloggers
My blogging, as a few of you have noted, has been a bit more sporadic of late, primarily because the past two months have been a whirlwind of trips for myself, trips by my partner (which means twice as much housework), and trips for both of us (well, someone has to use the hotel room). But, oddly enough, through a cosmic convergence of epic proportions, I have managed to meet more bloggers with whom I've previously communicated over the past three or so months than I have managed in the previous three or so years of North Dallas Thirty's existence.
-- In middle August, GayPatriotWest (who, admittedly, I had met before, but humor me) came up the coast from the City of Angels to admittedly non-sunny San Francisco to brunch with me and GayPatriot commentor ILoveCapitalism in the Castro.
Notable phrase: "I'm from LA. We drive."
-- In late October, I dined with not one, but two bloggers of high repute -- Famous Author Rob Byrnes and Aatom -- on a subtropical Saturday in the heart of the steamy isle of Manhattan.
Of course, all we did was gossip about Matt and Robbie. And drink. Not necessarily in that order.
-- In early November, while perusing which candy would represent the best dollar and going-off-my-diet value in the Walgreen's at Castro and 18th, I moved just in time to see two handsome men in Southern Cal red come running in -- and it turned out to be Boi from Troy and his sidekick Keenan, hoping to find some marvy new plastic ponchos to survive that night's game in what we northern Californians euphemistically call a "less dry evening".
They chose fab white, I chose Junior Mints.
-- Finally, this past weekend, I klatsched over kaffee in downtown SF with visiting expat, genius, and all-around great guy Kevin of Club Whirled -- who graciously forgave the fact that the first thing out of my mouth was the utterly-brain-dead phrase, "God, you look like a Kennedy."
Maybe that, or he figured that someone who was wearing shorts and flip-flops in December was just not all there in the first place.
At any rate, every one of the encounters was a great experience, and several of them have written glowing and extraordinarily-flattering bits about our meetings.
The rest is strictly secret. :)
Let's see, that leaves Matt and Robbie, QuakerJono, Jamie, John in IL, GayPatriot.......
UPDATE........and Chad....(rubbing very sore behind).......
-- In middle August, GayPatriotWest (who, admittedly, I had met before, but humor me) came up the coast from the City of Angels to admittedly non-sunny San Francisco to brunch with me and GayPatriot commentor ILoveCapitalism in the Castro.
Notable phrase: "I'm from LA. We drive."
-- In late October, I dined with not one, but two bloggers of high repute -- Famous Author Rob Byrnes and Aatom -- on a subtropical Saturday in the heart of the steamy isle of Manhattan.
Of course, all we did was gossip about Matt and Robbie. And drink. Not necessarily in that order.
-- In early November, while perusing which candy would represent the best dollar and going-off-my-diet value in the Walgreen's at Castro and 18th, I moved just in time to see two handsome men in Southern Cal red come running in -- and it turned out to be Boi from Troy and his sidekick Keenan, hoping to find some marvy new plastic ponchos to survive that night's game in what we northern Californians euphemistically call a "less dry evening".
They chose fab white, I chose Junior Mints.
-- Finally, this past weekend, I klatsched over kaffee in downtown SF with visiting expat, genius, and all-around great guy Kevin of Club Whirled -- who graciously forgave the fact that the first thing out of my mouth was the utterly-brain-dead phrase, "God, you look like a Kennedy."
Maybe that, or he figured that someone who was wearing shorts and flip-flops in December was just not all there in the first place.
At any rate, every one of the encounters was a great experience, and several of them have written glowing and extraordinarily-flattering bits about our meetings.
The rest is strictly secret. :)
Let's see, that leaves Matt and Robbie, QuakerJono, Jamie, John in IL, GayPatriot.......
UPDATE........and Chad....(rubbing very sore behind).......
Monday, September 03, 2007
Random Kosmicity
Labor Day weekend is drawing to a close here in San Francisco, the temperature gently falling from a toasty Indian-summer 80 to a thoroughly pleasant 60; a reminder indeed to all of us why, in addition to better architecture, finer culture, and less plastic surgery, we live here and not there. It was indeed a wonderful time, filled with visits from friends, delectable meals out, and the burly bearded bacchanal that is the Hairrison Street Fair.
Chief among these pleasures, though, was three consecutive days of more than eight hours of sleep -- a rare and exciting thing that has left me with a feeling I'm not sure I've had since high school. Normally, I function on a generous seven, sometimes six, and, too often than I should, five; this is like David Banda Mwale Ciccone Ritchie walking into his new bedroom.
As a result, though, I've had the occasional random odd thought, and one of them is this: I have never been single ever since I started blogging. And, oddly enough, both of the people I've been with -- the boyfriend I hooked up with almost the minute after I assumed the mantle of North Dallas Thirty, and then my partner who followed, have been liberal Democrats.
I'm not sure what the implications of this are, but if the general principles hold true.............GayPatriotWest and QuakerJono are in for one hell of a surprise.
Chief among these pleasures, though, was three consecutive days of more than eight hours of sleep -- a rare and exciting thing that has left me with a feeling I'm not sure I've had since high school. Normally, I function on a generous seven, sometimes six, and, too often than I should, five; this is like David Banda Mwale Ciccone Ritchie walking into his new bedroom.
As a result, though, I've had the occasional random odd thought, and one of them is this: I have never been single ever since I started blogging. And, oddly enough, both of the people I've been with -- the boyfriend I hooked up with almost the minute after I assumed the mantle of North Dallas Thirty, and then my partner who followed, have been liberal Democrats.
I'm not sure what the implications of this are, but if the general principles hold true.............GayPatriotWest and QuakerJono are in for one hell of a surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)