Recently in Gay Rights Category

I heard about this yesterday, and could hardly believe it. Basically, as far as the U.S. Census is concerned, gay couples who are married don't exist. Read more...

The Census Bureau says the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the agency from recognizing gay marriages in the nation's 10-year count, even though the marriages are legal in Massachusetts and California.

The agency's director, Steven Murdock, said in an interview Thursday that the 1996 federal law "has that effect, in terms of being a federal agency. We are restricted by it."

The Census Bureau does not ask people about their sexual orientation, but it does ask about their relationships to the head of the household. Many gay couples are listed in census figures as unmarried, same-sex partners, though it is an imperfect tally of all gay couples.

Murdock said the bureau will strive to count same-sex couples in the 2010 census, just as it has in the past. But those people who say they are married will be reclassified as unmarried, same-sex partners.

Same-sex couples with no children will not be classified as families, according the bureau's policy. Those with children who are related to the head of the household will be classified as families. (source)

I remember putting down that we are "married". Yes I know, no one sees us that way. We are, to the law, state and federal, "legal strangers", but I said, screw it... I KNOW WHAT WE ARE. So I put down "married", and I listed Kent as my "spouse".

Now I find out that we didn't count. Not only that, gay couples who are really married by a state don't count. NICE.

Going off to a nice room somewhere and repeating 100 times, "I love my country. I do! I do! I do!"

Conservative groups are calling on the Board of Supervisors to stop same-sex marriage licenses from being issued in the county. Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett announced wedding ceremonies would no longer be performed at the county building after the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples could be married.

Since the ruling, some residents want the Board of Supervisors to create a county ordinance that would nullify the California Supreme Court's decision.

After Barnett's announcement, weddings would no longer be performed at the county building. (source)

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. I'll start with the obvious. The Supreme Court in a state is the final word at the state level for the constitutionality of a law, according to that state's constitution. County and state officials who refuse to follow a court ruling that they don't like SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, OR RESIGN, because they are unfit to do their job!

Second point, religion has it's place, IN A CHURCH. It has no place in the make up of public laws that effect everyone's quality of life. This is a law that effects the lives of millions of people. If we want to be a country that is governed by religious laws, we have a perfect template to follow by looking at Iran. There, they slowly hang people who are charged with homosexuality. Perhaps a law of that nature would be more palatable to the religious freakoids who want to make life more difficult for gay couples, many of which have children. And any way you slice that, I think they call those groups of people A FAMILY.

Mettler said he's speaking on behalf of concerned residents and the Bakersfield Republican Assembly in calling on county supervisors to create an ordinance that would prohibit the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses until California voters have the opportunity to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in November.

Pathetic. They want to create an ordinance to override a Supreme Court ruling. The ordinance would immediately be unconstitutional. But this is what really got me...

Mettler said, "We are asking our supervisors, who have sworn to uphold the constitution and to uphold the will of the people. Laws are to be made by the people, not by the judges."

WRONG. Laws are made by the legislature in your state, who are the representatives of the people. The laws they make, ALL OF THEM, are held to a higher standard than public opinion. The laws are held to the standard of the state and federal constitutions. The reason that it is set up that way is to have a standard of fairness in the implementation of the laws - so that no single group of people are held to a different standard, UNDER THE LAW. The California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22, passed by popular vote that outlawed same-sex marriage in 2000, was found to be unfair and unconstitutional because it targeted a single group of people. That is the purpose of the court. Any public official who will not or can not follow the law should be removed (or resign) from office.

On a personal note, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of these religious groups of nuts who feel that they can shove their sense of morality down the throats of everyone else. They want to protect marriage? Then try to get a law passed outlawing divorce. I know that would be unpopular, and it's not as popular as bashing gay couples who want marriage, but at least it would give you a little more credibility in the eyes of people like me.

I'd love to know how many of these people holding up the "sanctity of marriage" signs have been married 3-4 times already.

There was talk that the California Supreme Court might put a hold on their ruling to allow gay couples to be married in the state until the voters could vote on a ballot initiative that would only allow heterosexual couples to be married. Apparently, that's not going to happen.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday removed any lingering legal doubts about whether same-sex couples can marry in California beginning June 17, setting the stage for a rush of gay nuptials that morning. [...]

A November ballot initiative that could restore a state ban on gay marriage could still threaten the marriages of same-sex couples such as the Speakmans and invite more legal challenges. But for now, the wedding invitations can go out - in ink. [...]

Conservative groups, as well as 11 states that ban gay marriage, had urged the justices to freeze the ruling until after voters consider the ballot measure, which would amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. Backers of the measure argued that it would create legal confusion if gay couples marry in the coming months and voters then outlaw same-sex marriage. [...]

With the legal obstacles removed for now, thousands of gay couples are expected to marry, as there are more than 40,000 same-sex couples registered as domestic partners in California. A Field Poll released last week found a majority of likely California voters for the first time favor same-sex marriage. (source)

I know... I've kind of stopped writing (or worrying) about marriage because quite frankly, it doesn't define my life and I have other interests taking my time now. But I'm wondering if it would be to our best interests to take a trip to California before the November election, and get married. Think about it. It would be a real marriage license from a state. We could return to Connecticut and have something that Connecticut is not willing to give us at this point in time.

Now, when we travel, we have to travel with all of these legal documents proving that we aren't "legal strangers" (yes, I'll take them to Idaho with me when I go in case something bad happens -- not that the state will recognize them if they are needed). I was thinking that if we added a real marriage certificate to that pile of papers, it might carry more weight.

The timing of all of this is strange to me. From my own personal little world, I hear about the California court allowing gay couples access to marriage. It's challenged, with many conservative groups, along with 11 other states, asking the court to hold off on the enactment of the ruling until the voters have a chance to vote on whether to allow this minority the rights to equal citizenship. The court dismisses the argument. The ruling will stand and on June 17, gay couples in California, and any gay couple who wants to fly to California to get married, will be able to hold a real marriage license, just like those couples in Massachusetts. Bravo. This doesn't effect me because I'm hopeful that soon my state of Connecticut will soon allow marriage for us.

But then this week, I watch this documentary about the late Lieutenant Laurel Hester. I'm extremely moved by the whole experience. I'm very sad, a lot of tears, and I'm so incredibly pissed off that two people were put through that crap. So now I'm wondering this... As of June 17, 2008, the state of California would marry Kent and me. In November, the voters could vote to overturn the wish of the high court, and abolish marriage. But, as many lawyers point out, it's highly unlikely that those marriages that the state recognized for even a short time, would be voided. There were over 4,000 marriage voided years ago when San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses. But the difference now is that the state is willingly issuing those licenses. So I guess I'm wondering, as I'm getting ready to take a trip to Idaho, if we should just get married in that five month period of time when we know for certain that we can.

I thought I gave all of this up until I saw that documentary on Lieutenant Hester's life. I find it repugnant that we should have to be worrying about crap like this. I've become so disillusioned with my country (yes Canada, YOU ROCK!). But, I have hope that in November, we will at least start to follow a different path. I don't expect President Obama to drop everything and tend to equality issues for gay Americans since he will be very busy cleaning up after President Schmuck. But at least, we will be on his list somewhere, which is more than I can say now.

I heard about this on the news on my drive into work this morning...

The case was brought by Maj. Margaret Witt (pictured), a flight nurse at McChord Air Force Base, near Tacoma, Wash., who served in the Air Force for nearly two decades, and received several medals for, among other things, saving soldiers in the Middle East. In 2004, the Air Force suspended her without pay after receiving a tip that she’d been in a longterm relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged last year, after having put in 18 years - two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

In 2006, Judge Ronald B. Leighton, of Federal District Court in Tacoma, dismissed the case. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, disagreed, reinstating Witt’s substantive and procedural due process claims (but affirming the dismissal of the equal protection claims) and returning the case to Judge Leighton for further proceedings. Here are reports from The Recorder, the NYT, the AP and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Click here for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

The Ninth Circuit didn’t strike down “don’t ask, don’t tell” (known as DADT) but it said the Air Force must prove that Witt’s dismissal furthered the military’s stated goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion — the goals that DADT was meant to further when Congress passed the law in 1993. “When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals,” Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote, “the government must advance an important governmental interest, the intrusion must significantly further that interest, and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest.” (source)

Don't Ask Don't Tell should go! This policy has done more harm to our military than the events at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. We've lost too many good people to this stupid, homophobic policy. I love what one of the commenter's stated:

I agree, DADT does not work. I was in a combat unit in early 2003, and it was quite interesting. As we were ramping up for deployment and subsequent conquest/occupation of Iraq (sold to Americans as “liberation”), we needed every soldier we had available, and DADT suddenly didn’t matter. In my unit at least, it was deliberately ignored (as in, the unit did not seek to separate known homosexuals) Sure, non-tactical, high level units still separated good soldiers because they were gay (linguists, e.g., who are often in the news), but most of the units that had boots on the ground in the fight consciously ignored DADT so that we could keep those great Americans with us. Funny that the policy is meant to maintain unit cohesiveness, morale, etc, during our war-fighting missions, but most units wait until after their deployments to start enforcing it again, when they no longer need every available soldier for a real mission. Comment by former Army Captain, current lawyer. - May 22, 2008 at 10:08 am

I can't tell you how many gay soldiers I've talked to online. They are currently serving in Iraq. We talk in code. I know what they are saying, but they can't say it. They know that even if it comes out about their sexuality, they are there to stay. The military will not discharge them, NOW. There are times, when they start trusting me as a friend, they start talking more openly. I give them a stern warning, "Be Careful!". They shut up about it. If they are found out, discharge proceedings will be held against them WHEN THIS WAR ENDS AND THEY ARE NO LONGER NEEDED (you didn't really think the military would forget about it, did you?). What the hell kind of a backwards county would do that?

My question is this. The year is 2008. We live in a "free" country where everyone is supposed to have so-called "equal rights". It's all bull. There can be no equality unless we are ALL equal. This country can not and will not be free until the freedom that the Constitution dictates is actually carried out throughout this land FOR EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN. It's not that hard to do. When are we going to get off our butts and just DO IT?

Until that happens, the United States is no better than any other third-world country that gives no regard to the rights of it's citizens.

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A same-sex marriage ban prevents governments and universities in Michigan from providing health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 5-2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, school districts and governments in Michigan with policies covering at least 375 gay couples.

Gay rights advocates said the ruling was devastating but were confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care.

The ban, a constitutional amendment approved in November 2004, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."

The court ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar because they're the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of gender and lack of a close blood connection.

Voters "hardly could have made their intentions clearer," Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law's "for any purpose" language.

Dissenting Justices Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanagh countered that statements made by backers of the measure before the election suggest they only intended to prohibit gay marriage, not take away employment benefits.

The dissent also noted that gay partners who qualify for health care aren't given other benefits of marriage — equal rights to property, for instance. [...]

At least 27 states have passed constitutional bans, mostly since 2004 in response to gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts. At least 18 of those states, including Michigan, have broader amendments that also prohibit the recognition of civil unions or same-sex partnerships.

"It's a sad day in Michigan when we decide which children and which families are valuable enough to cover," said Tom Patrick, 50, who gets health insurance through his partner, Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University. (source)

Well.............................

It's been awhile since I felt the urge to write about "marriage equality". But I felt that this was at least worth a mention because of how nasty it is. I've distanced myself from this fight considerably. Not because of all the energy it takes out of me, but because I'm so extremely disappointed in the majority of people in this nation. I mean, what kind of nation separates out one specific group of people for this kind of scrutiny. Yes, I know... we have done it before with other groups. But don't we ever learn?

To the gay couples in Michigan who are losing their health benefits because of the sanctimonious self righteous bastards who passed the so-called marriage protection amendment, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you live in a state populated by people who can let this happen to supposedly "protect marriage", while many of them are out getting divorces and what not.

I honestly think that if this happened in Connecticut and one of us lost our health benefits because of this, I think we would start looking for another place to live. Losing your health benefit coverage is no small deal. You can talk to me all day long about how you want to protect marriage from the likes of me, but when you start taking that to the level of cutting people off from health coverage... well, it becomes quite personal.

I say leave the state. They've made their point. For the people who want to stay and put up the fight for change, my hat is off to you. I just hope that you are young and in good health, because with the cost of medical care these days, you are playing a dangerous game.

In a larger sense, this is a black eye on the state of Michigan. I'm sure that the state will lose people because of this, and those who are considering jobs at one of the universities or state agencies there will think twice before agreeing to have no access to medical benefits for their partners.

I suppose everything equals out in the end.

I read about issues like this more and more. I read here and there that the gay couples who have opted to go ahead and get a "civil union", are now sorry that they made that decision. It supposedly gives you marriage equality in the state of Connecticut, IN EVERY WAY. At least, that's the bill of goods that we bought into when this state passed it's so called "civil union" bill. From the actual bill itself:

Sec. 14. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman. (source)

We don't plan on getting a civil union. We don't plan on our state or anyone else forcing us into something that's just not equal. We are happy right where we are.

So, now that tax season is upon us, we of course filed separately with the state and the federal government. It's not as if we have any options. But when Kent went to file with Tax Cut, the software we've been using for a few years now to prepare our taxes with, it had a button for information for those in "civil unions" in Connecticut. Basically, it simply stated that if you actually are in a Connecticut civil union and want to file jointly in Connecticut, you are welcome to do that, BUT, you first had to file a fake federal return pretending like you were married, so that you could indicate the federal calculation for the the state filing. You would then use that information to file the state return. Then, when you did your federal return, you would redo the whole thing separately and without the marriage calculations, since the federal government does not honor civil unions, or apparently marriage (Massachusetts) for that matter for gay couples.

Bottom line is, when Kent explained all the hoops we would have to go through to file a joint tax return in Connecticut under the civil union law, my reply was, "SCREW THAT!". Now, I'm more convinced than ever that I don't want a sham marriage that civil unions provides.

This morning, I came across this bit of information....

HARTFORD, CT – The American Civil Liberties Union sent a demand letter to H&R Block today demanding that it change its online tax preparation system to accommodate gay couples in Connecticut with civil unions. The ACLU is representing a couple with a civil union who attempted to file their taxes on the company’s website through their online service, TaxCut Online, but were told, “We don’t support Connecticut civil union returns.” Through its website, the company said the couple would have to work with one of their professionals, by phone or at one of their office locations, which would be more time consuming and substantially more expensive. (A PDF with screen captures of the messages is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/34632res20080325.html)

“This is yet another example of the many ways that civil unions just don’t live up to marriage,” said Jason Smith of Hartford, who has been with his partner Settimio Pisu for six years. “It really stung when I realized it would cost an additional $150 dollars to have our tax returns prepared. We’re saving for a house and hoping to start a family, so every penny counts right now.”

According to the letter the ACLU sent to H&R Block, failing to provide gay couples with civil unions the option of filing their taxes online as it does for married couples is in violation of a state law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and civil union status. The letter demands that the company adapt its website to accommodate couples with civil unions and to reimburse all couples who were forced to pay the additional charges due to H&R Block’s discriminatory practices.

“The civil union law has been in effect for nearly three years now, yet companies still aren’t taking it seriously,” said Andrew Schneider of the ACLU of Connecticut. “There is no excusable reason why the company that likes to claim it’s the world’s largest tax services provider shouldn’t make its products available to everyone.” (source)

This doesn't really effect us at all. We are not part of a sham marriage called a civil union or domestic partnership, or whatever the hell you want to call it. Marriage is simply not available to us. We have accepted it and moved on. We filed separately since we have no choice. It's not clear we would be at an advantage to file jointly, but it would be nice to have the option available to us. But I do understand that there are selfish pricks amongst us who don't want to see that. That's fine I suppose. We've moved on. I simply find articles like this interesting because it really proves what I've been saying all along.

We got a lot of yard work done yesterday. It was warm, around 75 degrees. We took the opportunity to get the patio furniture out on the deck for the summer. I spent the afternoon cleaning up around the year, washing down the furniture, and grill, in preparation for dinner. I bought steak, potatoes, and vegetables for grilling. We made everything in the grill. I love grilled vegetables.

Tonight, we are having grilled chicken breasts, grilled vegetables, and fresh sour dough bread that is rising as I type this. Some months ago, we made a sour dough starter. It's really coming into its own now, and giving us some really great bread. From start to finish, a loaf of sour dough bread takes 5 hours. It's not quite as bad as all that. I let the bread machine to all the heavy work.

Along with the grilled chicken, vegetables, and bread, I'm having a peach salsa with the chicken. And along with all of that, I'll be grilling pear. I know it sounds strange, but grilled pear is really amazing. The vegetables are grilled 10 minutes, tops. The pear will only stay on the grill for a few minutes. It intensifies the flavor.

And I think I will repeat what I did yesterday. After all the yard work, I was all sweaty and hot. I took a cool shower, dressed in to summer clothes (short sleeve shirt and cut offs), and made a tall, ice cold red grapefruit margarita. Grapefruit juice and tequila. I use top shelf tequila, sipping quality. I don't skimp on the quality of any drink. If it's worth making, it's worth the best ingredients.

Well, after two of those, I could swear that it was getting cooler. :-)

I also want to say to Jeff and Moe up in Massachusetts, who got married yesterday, CONGRATULATIONS. I wish you both all the best. You make a great looking couple.

Cheers! Have a nice day.

I received this in my email box this morning from the Human Rights Campaign Fund. We are members of their organization. They strive for equality for gay people, and gay couples. I thought I'd relay the information to those of you who are not members. You may find some of the information interesting and helpful.

Dear Bill,

In every paycheck you've ever received, you've been contributing to Social Security. Imagine knowing that, should you die, your partner won't receive the survivor benefits you've paid for.

Or imagine moving to another state, only to find that your partner will be kicked off of your health care plan.

Situations like these happen every day to GLBT people across the country. So HRC is launching a national effort TODAY to give same-sex couples and GLBT individuals the tools to navigate tax laws and ensure good financial decision-making.

HRC presents: 7 Days to a Better Financial You

I have pretty much stopped writing about discrimination and violence towards our community. Once in awhile, it will surface in an entry such as this, but I've gone through a change in my life. I've made a decision to let go of a lot of things. I no longer write about my governments complete inability to recognize our contributions to society. It's not as if we are asking for a National Gay Day. But social security survivor benefits, funeral and bereavement leave, joint tax filing, making spousal medical decisions, permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation of a partner, right to inheritance of property, visitation privileges to a spouse in a hospital... would be nice.

So, we kind of live life to the fullest. We love taking trips. We love being together and working on projects together. But there's this cloud of uncertainty over our heads. Basically, if something bad happens, will we be at the mercy of some stranger who is extending the courtesy of decency to us not because he/she has to by law, but because it's what he/she wants to do? That's not much to depend on, but that's where we are at.

My challenge, and my change in attitude is that worrying about all of that is detracting from getting as much out of life in the here and now, that I can. In other words, you can spend your whole life worrying about, "what if". I decided not to do that, and one of the ways I did that was to stop writing about it, reading about it, or actively caring about it. I support organizations who do care about it, like the Human Rights Campaign Fund. And, I support a state organization working to make marriage equality a reality in our state. But other than that, I live my life day to day, without worrying about tomorrow.

I'm fine with that, until tomorrow comes due. I'll worry about that then, and hopefully, I will be at the mercy of someone who understands just how vulnerable we are as a couple. And hopefully, that person will have the power to do the right thing. Unfortunately, I won't have federal benefits and no matter who is elected President, I don't honestly trust that they are going to give my community time of day, once they get our vote. Just like Bill Clinton. He went on and one about what he would do for our community. We ended up with Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- a policy that has been responsible for the discharge of over 10,000 gay soldiers, and the Defense of Marriage Act -- an act that prevents married gay couples from receiving federal benefits of marriage. Will that change in the new administration? Maybe, but what will take it's place? It's all a game to these people, and we are the pawns.

I'm sick of it. I've stopped worrying about people who care nothing for us. And what is left is my nice small world where I call the shots. And I'm having a good time doing that!

Well.... before you throw mud on someone, you want to make sure that you don't have mud on yourself.

"...and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Tony] Rezco in a slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." That is what Hillary Clinton said to Barack Obama in the last debate. I was totally turned off. Is anyone else? Hey, if we want McCain to be our next President, this is a good start.

But I understand that this is just politics as usual. This is what we've come to. It's not as if our current President has set the bar very high. But, I'd like to think that the Democrats could at least be a bit better than this.

However, with a few quick keystrokes on the Internet, what do I turn up? You got it... a photo of Tony Rezco with Hillary and Bill Clinton. Hillary explains this away saying, "I've probably taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don't have a 17-year relationship with him."

An opinion piece put it this way, "Frankly, Clinton's line doesn't cut it. When you attack your opponent for his ties to a "slum landlord," it is always a good idea to make sure you didn't pose for grips-and-grins with, er, well, a "slum landlord. Obama's still got some explaining to do. But so does Clinton."

Perhaps Hillary should explain, but she won't. The damage to Obama has been done. She is off campaigning in New Jersey, and Obama is still dealing with defending his character, whether it's true or not. Hillary knew this. Bill knew this as well. So, when Hillary is not attacking Obama on stage in a debate, Bill Clinton is doing so in front of the camera. The result, Barack Obama is using his energy to defend himself against Bill Clintons accusations - true or not. He should ignore Bill Clinton and stay on target. The target is Hillary Clinton and what she is saying.

Sounds easy doesn't it? But it's not that simple. Bill Clinton is formidable because he's an ex-President, and, most importantly, when he talks, the cameras roll. But my question is this. This will probably work. Hillary will probably win the nomination because Baracks message will simply be lost. Now, I ask you, is this the kind of character that we want for President? Do you have to resort to any means necessary to obtain power, even if it means that you can't argue on the merits of what you can offer, so you have to resort to discrediting your opponent?

That sounds a lot like the kind of game that Dick Cheney runs. It doesn't make me want to vote for Barack. It doesn't make me want to vote for Hillary. It just makes me want to not even show up to vote! It disgusts me. If the best that Hillary can do is to throw crap like that at Barack Obama, I seriously have to wonder if she has any answers at all. I wish they would stop it and talk about ISSUES.

And as long as I'm talking about the "issues", the "issues" that I'm talking about are not the issues of the gay community. You will not hear any of our progressive candidates talk about gay marriage, marriage equality, hate crimes against our community... unless they are directly asked a question about it. And then, they try to skirt the issue with ambiguities that can later be explained by, "... well, that's not what I meant...". The only time a candidate has talked about us, was when Obama talked about how we had been excluded and hated by the religious community. He did not talk about equality for us.

So simply ask yourself when you pick one of these candidates, who will work for me when the become President? Who will really work to kill Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Who will really work for marriage equality in this country? Who will really work for hate crimes where are community is concerned?

I think the answer to all of those questions is, none of them. Don't expect it and you won't be disappointed. I'll try to vote for the one who will be best for our country (hey, any of them are better than what we've had the last eight years!), if I can bring myself to vote for one of them after the mud slinging settles down.