So, stumbled on a video of Governor Richardson – a presidential candidate – speaking at an HRC event. I must say, I’m impressed. I’ve thought for a while that he had a good shot, but it’s the first time I’ve really considered thinking about supporting him (still waiting for Al Gore, but how cool would a Gore/Richardson ticket be?)
Anyway, here’s the video – it’s well worth the watch.
Please share widely!
Yes, it’s great that Richardson was willing to be seen in public with LBGT people (Clinton famously has a closed-door no photo op session with HRC last month. shhh! don’t let anyone know you’re speaking with those peoples!).
<
p>
However, Richardson has some big problems for me LGBT-wise. Firts, he voted for federal DOMA. Ok, that was 10 years ago. What does he say about it today? He says he stands by that vote today. How nice.
<
p>
I understand that he has been pushing some LGBT-positive legislation in NM, most notably domestic partnerships (which flavor of non-marriage they are I’m not sure, but fairly comprehensive I think). Problem there is, he trumpeted the passage of DPs a few months ago, before they passed. Then, his senate adjourned on him this week without voting on them. He was out of state campaigning, not shepherding through the monumental law he’d already crowed about. Smart? Savvy? uh, yeah. There is still a possiblilty that NM senate will reconvene today, so this isn’t over yet. However, it shows to me that he is not in any important way committed to LGBT civil rights. Looks to me like another case of “string them along so they’ll be my ATM”. I truly hope to be proven incorrect on that, but right now that’s how it looks.
By the fact he’s from New Mexico, but he certainly made a lot more progressive than I thought (which I assumed was about zero). Perfect? No, that’s why I’m still not committed to voting for any of them yet… and hoping Al Gore drops his name in the bucket asap… but I just felt I’d post the video because it at least opened a window to gaze him in that I hadn’t seen before.
the video is definately worth the look. But the hypocracy of candidates like Richardson, who stand at the podium on The Big Night at HRC and have the nerve to say they’re all for equality and justice for same-sex families, while simultaneously supporting DOMA, is just stunning. I guess they think the non-LGBT crowd won’t notice, and the LGBT crowd won’t have a choice. Gak.
Seems to me that if Massachusetts had instituted gay marriage without DOMA, forcing the whole country to recognize same-sex marraiges, there’d have been a huge outcry for a marriage amendment right away. So DOMA was really a pro-gay strategy to insulate a state or two from the rest of the country, to make slower but steadier progress. I’ve even seen people say “we don’t need an FMA, DOMA is working”. As to him still supporting DOMA today, thats because there would still be a huge backlash. Next some EDNA and other little steps, DP’s, etc. Sheesh, you really don’t have a copy of the agenda, do you?
<
p>
I liked how he didn’t say that same-sex couples should actually have all the same rights that both sex couples have, because they shouldn’t have the right to conceive children together. Certainly not today while it is so unsafe, and I think never. It should always require both sexes consenting to share their genes with each other to have children, and people should never be a product of a lab. Maybe he is smart enough to know that.
“So DOMA was really a pro-gay strategy to insulate a state or two from the rest of the country…”
If I recall correctly, DOMA essentially provides that state X need not recognize a SSM from state Y just because State Y law allows SSM.
<
p>
Perhaps David can correct me if I am wrong, but that statute didn’t do anything at all, because State X wouldn’t have been required to recognize the SSM, under longstanding “full faith and credit” jurisprudence. The notion that SSM would sweep the nation under full faith and credit was always a myth.
<
p>
So SOMA was a sop to the bad guys, yes, but a sop devoid of any substance other than symbolism.
<
p>
You would be entirely justified in opposing him on the symbolism alone. It seems to me that DOMA was classicly Clintonian: a clear sop to the bad guys, but which has had the effect of helping stave off a federal amendment that could have done far more damage to your movement, thus permitting this little experiment in Massachusetts to exist.
It prevents married same-sex couples from being recognized as such for federal purposes. So it goes way beyond the “full faith and credit” thingie. FOr example, same-sex couples can;t file joint tax returns (they are still “legal strangers” in federal eyes), can’t sponsor each other for green card or citizensipn, have no immunity against testifying against one another in court, can’t receive the dead spouses social security benefits, can;t get health insurance for a spouse if the employer is self-insured and decides to be gratuitously anti-gay (even in MA)… The list goes on and on to cover some 1400 responsibilities and benefits that are associated with marriage at the fed level.
In 1997 the Gov’t Accounting Office produced a report on federal laws that have a marriage compmnent. A few years ago, they updated it. BTW I typod above – there are about 1,040 federal laws where marriage is a factor, not 1,400.
Thanks.
I just heard that Jim McDermott (D_WA) has introduced legislation described thusly:
This is interesting, since it would amount to backhanded federal recognition of same-sex relationships by removing special rights for married heterosexuals on this one narrowly-defined tax. And it wouldn’t challenge DOMA because it doesn’t attempt to call the s-s couples ‘married’. At least, that’s my take on it. I’d like to hear from any lawyerly folks out there a more learned opinion.
Laurel,
<
p>
I think this would obviously have a benefit for same-sex couples, but that would not be it’s sole effect. As we know, many companies have extended benefits to domestic partners of employees, both gay and straight. I imagine the rationale behind this was generally to allow for gay couples to get benefits even when they couldn’t get married, but companies (rightly so) extended the ability to both straight and gay couples (so as not to be discriminatory). I have lots of straight friends who actually took advantage of this…couples who were living together but not married and one had benefits and the other did not. I believe this would also benefit them.
<
p>
So while this is definitely a law that would help gay couples, the sponsors, and those who vote for it, can support it without necessarily having to make it a gay rights issue.
The bill doesn’t appear to be in Thomas yet (it’s HB935). But from the news story, you’re right, it does read like it may be orientation-neutral. I hope so. That will strengthen it greatly.
HB935 was the bill number when the legislation was introduced in 2003. no number i could find for the 2007 version yet…
Sure, maybe it would have lasted a couple years, but then there would have been an FMA and they’d be all gone.
No, wait, let me guess…
<
p>
No, wait, let me guess…
<
p>
(Rather than go to right-wing indent limbo, I’ll post the comment about the above few comments here).
<
p>
Um, er, ah, I am completely floored.
<
p>
Did you actually read the press release on the McDermott proposal that you posted above? What it said was that the value of the domestic partner’s health benefit would be included in wages for purposes of FICA (Social Security and Medicare) purposes, both to the employee and to the employer. If there is anything that will induce employers to quit giving DP benefits, it is an increase in their tax obligations.
<
p>
You can rant and rail as much as you want about DP benefits being fair–this that or the other–but them’s the facts.
<
p>
If Gary’s description of Bush’s proposal is correct (I haven’t read about it), then it seems to me that that is precisely what gay people need–an equalization of the tax treatment of health care benefits as between married couples and unmarried couples, including gay couples. Indeed, there are companies who offer health insurance to their employees, but not to the spouses, unless they pay for it themselves, and they are taxed on the value of the premium as well–they would also benefit from Bush’s proposal as Gary described it.
<
p>
Laurel, Listen up, and listen well. Your desire for a “single payer” system is noted, but it is a non-starter in the near term. The Clintonista snake-oil salespeople screwed up royally in the early 1990s regarding health care financing reform, and, as a result, they screwed up any hope for finance reform for at least a generation.** You aren’t going to get health care financing reform in the USofA any time soon. But at least you might be able to get some rationalization of the tax code that just might help same-sex couples–deductability of health care insurance costs. Isn’t that how Gary described Bush’s proposal? Do you understand, or do you need to be beaten between the eyes with a 2×4 to get you to understand?* So what do you propose? To drag the rest of us down with you while you tilt at single-payer windmills? Give me a frigging break.
<
p>
*For the horrified among you, this is a reference to an old saying about beating a donkey between the eyes with a 2×4 to get him to pay attention.
<
p>
**Number 666 out of the >1000 reasons why I have no use for Democrats at the national level. At least Republicans at the national level have brought some benefit to gay people, whether or not it was intended. Democrats–not so much. Democrats talk purty. Results: null.
is the messenger, not the message. It’s just tough to cross the aisle to support his proposal, isn’t it.
<
p>
If any Democrat advanced the proposal, it’d be a winner. The policy is sound and simple: make health insurance premiums deductible by all.
<
p>
As it stands now, I, a self-employed person, can’t take a deduction for the full amount I pay for health insurance. A person who is an employee can. Fair?
<
p>
Maybe the policy that Bush proposed was not directed toward the same sex couples, where one was covered by the other’s employer provided insurance. But, if they are accidental beneficiaries, good for them.
source
…but i have split personalities.
<
p>
could one of my personalities “hire” the other personality, who could thereby take the tax deduction?
You’ll have to pay quite a bit of cash to a tax lawyer to find out. I know one if you need a referal.
Maybe the policy that Bush proposed was not directed toward the same sex couples, where one was covered by the other’s employer provided insurance. But, if they are accidental beneficiaries, good for them.
<
p>
I’d use “incidental beneficiaries” but otherwise you are exactly correct.
<
p>
Give us our tax benefits. Screw the other stuff, which the Democrats aren’t going to give us anyway.
is going on with Laurel regarding my civil union proposal! She refuses to see that it might actually help millions of gay people to step back from marriage and accept civil unions, at least for as long as the only practical difference remains infeasible. She should accept that – right now certainly, and for the forseeable future – same-sex couples should not have the same rights as both sex couples. The distinction between their unions should reflect that, especially seeing as the right in question is the essential right granted by marriage.
<
p>
But here again, Laurel would rather grasp at some ideologically pure but completely impractical world, where not only is there universal health care, but it pays for perfectly safe same-sex conception, too. She should come down to earth and survey real people’s lives and try to help get what is important to them.
if i’ve made a mistake and you want to point that out, fine. but no need to whack me over the head. sheesh.
<
p>
as for what you claim is in the press release i linked to, i can’t find it. can you please provide a fresh link to what you’re reading? unfortunately, the bill (hb 1820) text is not yet available on thomas, so let’s just cool our jets until we can read what is actually there.
<
p>
as for my support of universal health care, that is where my support lies. disagree with it, fine, but berating me for my philosophy will not a supporter for bush’s bill make. if you and gary want support for the bush bill, write a diary explaining it and how wonderful it is. let’s all discuss it. you want bipartisan support? create it.
as for what you claim is in the press release i linked to, i can’t find it.
<
p>
This is the URL of what you had posted above and that I was referring to
<
p>
http://www.edgebosto…
<
p>
as for my support of universal health care, that is where my support lies. disagree with it
<
p>
I don’t disagree with it. But, I believe I have made clear, that it is not capable of being accomplished in the near term–not even within a generation. The snake-oil Clintonistas squandered that possibility. And the way that they did that was not only unforgiveable, it was criminal. And that’s one reason why I have not interest in sHillary.
<
p>
I believe that I have made clear is the fact that I would prefer the German system, a mix between government organized (Gesetzlich) and Privat systems, with everyone who is working paying into the system, and everyone who is a legal resident being covered by the system. Nothing more, nothing less.
<
p>
Let’s understand something. There really is no difference between private health and public health. It is a continuum. Anyone who wants to make a distinction damages the Publicum.
<
p>
I know that, and so should everyone else. Why they don’t understand that, I have no idea.
Let me just put this in real terms for you, so that you understand better how DOMA affects me, personally and specifically. When I was married in MA in 2004, I put my wife on my health insurance plan through the state. Because of DOMA, the value of that benefit (which the state determined through some convoluted process) accrues to me as income on which I am taxed. So on an annual basis, I am taxed on $8138.00 of income that I never receive.
<
p>
If my wife predeceases me, I am ineligible to collect social security survivor benefits.
<
p>
This is DOMA. It should be repealed. It’s a red herring to say that without it, Massachusetts would never have legalized equal marriage.
<
p>
Under the Bush proposed health insurance plan, the “tax penalty” would be eliminated by making health insurance deductible. Seems like a proposal you’d be interested in supporting.
1, some of us don’t make enough money for deductions, and even if we do, deductible amounts are not 100% recovered.
2, who cares what his plan is. it is a plan, not reality. meanwhile heteros are enjoying this special right right now.
1: The proposal is to allow health insurance to be deducted “above the line”. That is, deductible whether you itemize or not. Deductible amounts are 100% recovered.
<
p>
2: Married men and women are enjoying this right now. Fair enough. The Bush proposal is a plan and proposed legislation which would benefit the gay community, and eliminate the ‘tax penalty’ on employer provided insurance. So, if you can’t get DOMA overturned are you dismissing the Bush proposal out of spite? Why not support both?
I’d rather support Jim McDermott’s bill (see above). If Bush is really behind making health care equitible for everyone, he will sign it gleefully.
It has the effect of a bandaid, fixing the inequity of employer provided health insurance, NOT working toward disentangling it from employers.
mcdermotts bill does not address the employer disentanglement problem. that’s ok with me. we don’t have to solve all health care problems in one bill.
<
p>
i will be honest, gary, i am not familiar with the details of bush’s bill. my lack of support for it is due to it’s basic philosophy (single-payer instead of universal), which i can’t get passed. but here is a question for both of our pet bills: what is the reality of bush’s getting through a dem-controlled congress, and what is the reality of mcdermott’s being signed by bush? i’d say low probability of either becoming law, but much, much lower probability for bush’s bill because it seeks to make big changes. mcdermott’s is tiny in scope (huge for domestic partners, but no affecting others much if at all). if it gets a veto this year, it’s all set to get a signature by the next pres, who will be a dem (all dem candidates are for limited fairness, they just won;t go so far as to be completely fair = marriage).
Universal Health: a ZERO chance of passing at the Federal level within, say 3 years. UH is the holy grail of the left, so disagree with me if you will, but UH is a political non-starter. I’ve set out the reasons on this Blog a number of times, and am happy to find the post.
<
p>
Bush Proposal: make health insurance premiums deductible for all, not just employees. Possibly DOA because of the Democrat control. But, it’s a bipartisan issue that many Democrats could easily sign onto. Some chance of passing. Would result in savings for self-employed and also same-sex couples where one of the couple covers the others’ health insurance.
<
p>
McDermott bill: No landmark legislation. It’s really just a nit in the entire tax bill that will be drawn up this year or next and it’s revenue negative. Seems to me it has the same chance as the Bush proposal–that is, it has a chance.
<
p>
So, looking at the 3 bills, politically speaking, why should I (a self-employed guy) support your McDermott bill. It won’t help me.
<
p>
Alternatively, why should you refuse to support my Bush Proposal, when it will help both of us.
“why should I (a self-employed guy) support your McDermott bill. It won’t help me.”
<
p>
it’s hard for me to proceed after hearing that utterly selfish remark. supporting the mcdermott bill would in no way undermine the bush bill.
You want me to support every soft and fuzzy piece of legislation out there? What do you think I am, a Democrat?
<
p>
The McDermott bill absolutely undermines the Bush proposal. The Bush proposal virtually elimiinates cafeteria plans and section 125. The McDermott bill amends sectcion 125.
…Your youthful exuberance is…shall I say…interesting, but understand that no hopeful of the US presidency of either of the major parties is going to come out in favor of equal rights for gay people. None. Zero. Zilch. I figured that out long before you were born. The Jesusland electorate is too dear to them.
<
p>
So, I ignore the gay rights issues at the federal level, and instead focus on what is most useful to me and mine. The Republicans are the only ones who have provided me and mine with any benefit–the elimination of the federal estate tax and the lowering of the federal income tax. What have the Democrats done? Nothing, except bitch and moan about the elimination of the federal estate tax and the lowering of the federal income tax, which might have advantaged gay people. That means that the Democrats want to treat me and my same-sex spouse more harshly than they want to treat opposite sex spouses. I’m sorry, Ryan, but I’m not about to be BSed to.
<
p>
Ryan, understand something, and understand it well. The Democrats at the nation level don’t give a tinker’s damn for you. The Republicans have given us faggots at least a benefit, regardless of whether they had intended to.
<
p>
If I were to vote in a primary election, I would probably cast a vote for Richardson in the Democratic primary. Not because I would vote for him in the general (I’d cast my usual ballot for the libertarian, as a protest vote), but the other people on the Dem side are either snake-oil salespersons (sHillary) or enigmas (Obama). And the lead candidate on the Republican side (Giuliani) is nothing more than a brownshirt–a thug. In the general, I’ll cast a ballot for the libertarian–a protest vote, of course.
Republicans Kyl and Frist were forcefully pounding the podium and saying “we must help gay couples by repealing the estate tax” and Kerry and Clinton argued against it, saying that they’d support it but it would help gay couples too much.
(the correct answer is almost nothing).
Example 1: man and woman marry. Man dies leaving wife $10 million dollars. No estate tax.
<
p>
Example 2: 2 men marry in massachusetts. One dies leaving the other $10 million dollars. Estate tax is $3 to $4 million.
<
p>
With the above math in mind, and Republican advocating no estate tax, it wouldn’t surprise me that married same-sex couples–particularly older ones–vote Republican.
With the above math in mind, and Republican advocating no estate tax, it wouldn’t surprise me that married same-sex couples–particularly older ones–vote Republican.
<
p>
Gary gets it again.
<
p>
That’s true at the federal level, but not necessarily at the state level, as I’m sure Gary recognizes.
<
p>
The Democrats have done nothing for gay people at the national level, and they have made it clear that they aren’t going to.
<
p>
But, the Republicans have, even if incidentally.
<
p>
So, which party is more gay friendly? The party that did nothing for gay people and wants to whack them steuerlich? Or the party that has incidentally done something for gay people, even if it was part of their larger agenda?
And neither do you. (No offense)
<
p>
The problem isn’t the estate tax, it’s marriage rights. I absolutely agree that married gay couples shouldn’t have to pay estate taxes when a spouse die. Marriage is a partnership and as such, each partner owns the estate equally.
<
p>
However, when both are deceased, then it’s absolutely appropriate that their estates are taxed. Also, remember the threshold for estate taxes to kick in are very high – even for a Massachusetts resident.
<
p>
A quick google search:
<
p>
<
p>
I’m sorry, but any family worth a million dollars – gay or straight – should have to pay an estate tax when both partners are dead.
So, the Republicans have been ever-so-helpful by destroying fiscal sanity – and you’re happy about that? You’re happy about the estate tax repeal? Seriously? Maybe if I had a multi-million dollar trust fund, I’d be concerned, but – like most normal people – my inheritence won’t be anywhere near the estate tax threshold.
<
p>
Meanwhile, Republicans slander you and yours on a daily basis – blocking antidiscrimation bills, hate crime legislation and lots of other things the Democrats WOULD pass and WOULD support at the national level (look for some of it this term). Heck, it was Trent Lott who prevented there being hate crime protection.
<
p>
Keep casting your vote in protest. Lots of people believed Nader when he said that was a good idea too…
<
p>
One, regarding the estate tax, I’ll just let you know that neither I nor my spouse have a trust fund. What we have is a house, numerous investments that we have acquired over the years (we’re self-employed, but we have several IRAs, 401Ks and Keogh plans), and several life insurance policies. If I were to kick off tomorrow, my estate would be measured, not by my non-existent trust fund, but by my share of the house (whose value increased substantially since we bought it–together–in 1983), the value of my investments, plus the value of my life insurance. That would be what my estate would be taxed at.
<
p>
Not on my non-existent trust funds. And, yes, it is worth a substantial amount. But we worked together to make it so.
<
p>
If my spouse were an opposite-sex spouse, my spouse would inherit the estate free of tax. But my spouse is not opposite sex, and what the Democrats want is to have him inherit it with substantial tax. I guess that, to you, that is parity, but to me it isn’t.
<
p>
Two
<
p>
So, the Republicans have been ever-so-helpful by destroying fiscal sanity – and you’re happy about that?
<
p>
Don’t be silly. I’ve lampooned the Republican anhaenger hither and yon about that. But the Republican anhaenger don’t care. They want to live off their credit cards, passing the burden off to their nachfolger–their descendants. We don’t have any descendants, so why should we care? I could probably do a book about the number of people in the USofA who are making money off the current situation there–not only the CEOs, but down to the line workers, and it has become clear to me that in the absence of a panic things aren’t going to change over there. Whether or not we rail against it, things aren’t going to change.
<
p>
Three
<
p>
Meanwhile, Republicans slander you and yours on a daily basis – blocking antidiscrimation bills, hate crime legislation and lots of other things the Democrats WOULD pass and WOULD support at the national level (look for some of it this term).
<
p>
As to the first, sticks and stones, you know. If you’re going to be gay, you really do have to have a thick skin.
<
p>
As to the second, I have no information that Democrats at the national level would do anything. As far as I can tell, the Dems are as about ready to pass gay-rights legislation as Republicans are to get rid of Roe vs. Wade. Zero, Zilch, Null.
<
p>
Regardless, keep your eye on those windmills. Anders, schluss.
Raj, you are often infuriating, and often interesting. Sometimes simultaneously.
<
p>
I think what you are saying is that a gay family has, at least so far, and all other things being equal, been statistically more likely to accumulate wealth over their lifetimes because they are statistically less likely to have the most wealth-destroying thing in America– children.
<
p>
So, if we compare the hypothetical you and the hypothetical striaght, married guy with three kids, each of whom has by some miracale had exactly the same income over the years: by the time for estate planning, you will have a lot more estate to plan.
<
p>
Of course, if SSM and attendant adoption rights (or same sex conception– take that John Hosty!) ever go mainstream, this statistical benefit of Republican is diluted.
<
p>
Ryan-
<
p>
The point is that, as many money managers, financial planners, estate planners, and sellers of high-end anything know, the gay community has a lot of disposable income. JP and the South End didn’t become unaffordable all by themselves, you know.
<
p>
Two things for you to understand before using the words “statistically less[more] likely”:
1. Correlation does not imply causality.
2. Probabilities aren’t independent.
<
p>
What the heck am I talking about? Well, it’s true that kids cost a lot of money. But it’s also true that many parents — once they have kids — stop spending as much on themselves, and start investing/saving more for their kids’ educations, etc. One wonders: if they didn’t have kids, would they still be as frugal with their own wants and needs?
<
p>
My point: the assumption that a gay couple will have more wealth when they turn 55* than a straight couple because the gay couple is much less likely to have kids is bogus. It ignores the very different non-kid spending habits that no-kiddie-couples have. It also ignores all other mountains of data and legislation — the former include issues where gay couples don’t have the financial or legal protection that hetero spouses have, and that is a drain on a gay marriage/partnership. Furthermore, I wonder: does the health care burden of a gay person (who I’d bet isn’t exactly as likely to have health care as a hetero with similar other stats) the same? Even in light of AIDS and related diseases? I don’t have any idea. How about the idea that the most “gay friendly” areas also tend to have high costs of living (NYC, SF, MA, bits of FL, etc)?
<
p>
In short, your “statistically less likely” claim is crap, and one that raj wouldn’t likely make, due to his deep scientific understanding.
* arbitrary age, etc.
In short, your “statistically less likely” claim is crap, and one that raj wouldn’t likely make, due to his deep scientific understanding.
<
p>
but I will tell you something that perhaps you don’t know.
<
p>
Have you ever read a company’s business plan? I have. Several of them. And they are replete with references to the company’s management team. Almost always “married, with Kinder.” I understand what that was supposed to mean–stability, even though that was stupid (how many wives has Jack Welch had?). But it was true. It was another of the little fraud that the investment community inflicted on the rest of us.
<
p>
Gays? Single? No children? Need not apply. And that was the long and the short of it.
As raj woud say, lets get something straight. The gay communiy is not a monolith. Don’t forget that half of the community is women, who still make 74cents to the male dollar. DIsposable income? Hear me laugh!
<
p>
Many gay women have children, whether from a previous hetero relationship or other arrangement. Forty percent of gay couples, whether male or female, are raising children. The stats are ususally census-based, and so fail to capture the single-parent gay households, of which there are many both male and female (personal observation).
<
p>
Not all gay Americans live in JP. Did you know they’re in TN too?!! And SC and OK and, jeepers, there everywhere! And they’re working the same 7-11 jobs the straight people are working.
<
p>
Please, before you’re tempted to paint again with a broad brush, do a little homework.
you’re confusing him with John Howard.
One, a number of same-sex couples are raising children. Yet they would be taxed the same way for estate tax purposes as if they were not married.
<
p>
Two, same sex couples’ taxes in many ways go to subsidize the lifestyle choice of opposite sex couples to have children. Education at all levels, welfare, and I could go on and on. We who choose not to raise children don’t have a choice in your lifestyle choice to have children, and we have little say in how we’re taxed to support your lifestyle choice.
<
p>
Three, opposite sex couples who choose not to have children are taxed–for estate tax purposes–in the same way as opposite sex couples who choose to have children.
<
p>
Let’s put it all together. The “but we’re raising children” plaint of a member of what is probably an opposite sex couple, regarding estate taxes is a red herring, pure and simple.
<
p>
Regarding your aside to Ryan
<
p>
the gay community has a lot of disposable income. JP and the South End didn’t become unaffordable all by themselves, you know.
<
p>
Horse manure.
<
p>
One, the idea that the gay community has a lot of disposable income came from a survey that one gay publication, the Advocate, did in the 1980s of its readership. The purpose of the survey was to persuade advertisers, who had thentofore been reluctant to advertise in the magazine, to advertise there. The survey was never of the “gay community” (which does not really exist), it was of the readers of the magazine. Don’t believe everything you read on FreeRepublic.com.
<
p>
Two, regarding the South End and JP, gays went into those (basically) slums because they were cheap and, through–in many cases–sweat equity, renovated the buildings there. The SE and JP became unaffordable because, subsequently, young straight couples wanted to move there, after the gays had renovated the place. The gays who lived there, and who did the renovations, did very well selling to the straight couples, but it was the straight couples who bid up the prices there. That’s when they became unaffordable.
<
p>
I suppose that the gays could have avoided the SE and JP, and let the buildings continue to go to wrack and ruin. Would you have preferred that?
You originally wrote that the only good thing that anytone has done for gay couples is the estate tax, to which someone responded, in essence, “WTF?”
<
p>
I attempted to extrapolate a reason, and evidently became the Bad Guy of the Day for it. And then you pissily post how wrong wrong wrong I am.
<
p>
I should have just assumed that your original assertion was bogus nonsense.
And something a lot of people have talked about in this thread, so I’ll let their arguments stand. However, the estate tax doesn’t kick in until a very high threshold, even for Massachusetts. I’m not going to argue anyone should be able to give all their money to their children. If Raj was that concerned about his spouse, he’d attack the real problem: politicians who don’t allow his marriage rights to stack up to the federal standard. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the estate of a married couple is together… and thus he’d have no reason to worry of his estate partners if his partner was considered the co-partner of the estate in federal terms.
My comment upthread ridiculed the idea that Republicans got rid of the estate tax because it benefited gay couples, but now that I think about it, that is probably what tipped the scales. Combined with the stories about the “GOP closet” it is very enlightening.
<
p>
And a wife doesn’t “inherit” her husband’s estate, she already owns it. The estate doesn’t change hands, there’s just fewer hands that own it. Marriage is a legal entity that subsumes the spouses. This principle has been watered down recently, but apparently this is one area where it still applies. This is also why a spouse can’t be compelled to testify against the other spouse, because it would be self-incrimination.
If your property and assets put you in range of kicking in the estate tax, my apologies, but the federal government ought to tax the crap out of it. However, they shouldn’t take it from your spouse – and perhaps they wouldn’t if we didn’t have so many Republican-loving gay people who allow them to strip our rights. The problem here isn’t the estate tax, it’s the fact that they don’t treat us like they treat straight people. When both you and your spouse are gone, then that’s when the government should tax the hell out of it, if you exceed the treshold. Otherwise, rich people have rich children, who have richer children… who become an aristocracy.
read the last paragraph.
of where the candidates stand on civil unions and related.
The most useful part of that video to me was the realization that George Takei was gay. I didn’t know. In any case, I like that after he “came out”, Takei still landed a decent role in Heroes, one of NBC’s bigger shows.
<
p>
As for the rest, it’s a remidner of why I like Richardson — more than nice talk or neat triangulation.
I didn’t think it was a huge surprise to many when he came out a few years ago. It was one of those things where, if he was a really big star, it might’ve come out long before or been bigger news when he came out. But he’s been with his partner for close to 20 years.
<
p>
Takei is very politically active in California on gay rights issues and active on…the Howard Stern Show. Since Stern went to Sirius, Takei comes on for the full show for a week every three or four months. He’s a very good addition to the cast.
<
p>
He credits his visibility on the Stern show with helping him get jobs, including Heroes. Truth be told, he’s only been in, I think, two episodes so far. And while his character is significant and will come back when the show comes off hiatus in April, he’s not one of the main characters thus far. But he could be in the future.
<
p>
Do you think Hollywood keeps gay actors from getting work? That’d be the first time I heard that.
I’m not in any way a celebrity watcher, so I guess the “news” didn’t really impact me that Takei was gay. And while it’s less of a risk to come out after one’s career is quieting, still gld he did it. Didn’t realize he was on Stern’s show either — another surprise to me.
<
p>
I don’t think Hollywood keeps actors from getting roles per se, but I think there is a hesitation to cast declared homosexuals in products designed to appeal to certain audiences out of fear that the troglodyte portion of the population would boycott.
He got into show business while in college, where he answered an ad to dub the english version of Rodan – and he did voices for 8 different characters!
<
p>
And Heroes is like his only significant role since Star Trek 30 years ago. Coming out is clearly a career move for celebs in his position.
None of the current Democratic front runners support gay marriage, in fact out of the field only long shots Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have pro-marriage positions. Also the gay marriage issue being on the ballot simultaneously with John Kerry doomed him in swing states such as OH, FL, and IA and was a completely morally reprehensible and disgusting but tactically brilliant political play on the part of Mr. Rove. So understand me I support marriage for gays 100%, always have always will, I understand the anger and the frustration that gays feel when others do not think they deserve the same rights, but things take time. It took this country 90 years to go from recognizing that whites couldn’t own blacks to also realizing that blacks deserve the same education as whites, over 90 years. To say that as late as the 1980’s being openly gay could get you fired, could get you beaten even by police, etc. and now we are beggining to accept gays on tv and in movies and more importantly into our families as well through civil unions. And every singly conservative Republican in my college at the least supports civil unions, that means that in 10-20 years the situation will improve drastically and we can start running pro-marriage candidates nationally.
what issue could democrats use through ballot initiatives to similarly impact state-by-state results in 08?
<
p>
something that’s that direct, that polarizing (in our favor) and inspires poeple to come out.
The most common attempt from the left are initiatives to raise the state minimum wage. This was done in a number of states. Also, stem-cell research was used in Missouri I believe.
You can deduce a candidate’s position on same-sex marriage and same-sex conception from their position on stem cell funding. This is how same-sex conception is being made “safe and affordable” without anyone knowing that there is such a thing as same-sex conception.
<
p>
This is true even though Amendment 2 is strangely the nation’s first egg and sperm law! In addition to the promise of cures, it was sold as an anti-cloning law, like the Feinstein-Hatch “anti-cloning” stem cell bill is. But A2 used the blanket egg and sperm language that bans all genetic engineering and same-sex conception, whereas F-H prohibits only implanting embryos that are strict SCNT, and doesn’t prohibit implanting genetic engineered embryos.
<
p>
But since A2 only prohibits the actual implanting of non egg and sperm conceived embryos, and only inside state lines, gays weren’t threatened by that at all, they’ll hire a surrogate in New Jersey anyhow. Oh, but suggest a national egg and sperm law, and of course that would defeat the whole purpose of the ebryonic research, hence Feinstein-Hatch changing the language from Missouri’s law.
“To say that as late as the 1980’s being openly gay could get you fired, could get you beaten even by police, etc. and now we are beggining to accept gays on tv and…”
<
p>
Being openly gay still gets people fired and denied services in public places like restaurants and hotels. Maybe you don’t realize this because 1) you live in a state like MA that has an anti-discrimination law (many still don’t), or 2) you’re not gay so not tuned into this type of discrimination. Last week, for example, a group of lesbians were thrown out of an IHOP in Indiana because when one arrived to join the group, she gave her partner a peck on the cheek. Shocking! Also last week, a gay couple in SC were no allowed to rent a room in one of those Executive Suites type places because, they were told outright by management, they didn;t rent to gay people. It happens all the time.
<
p>
Even in MA today, gay people are openly and legally being discriminated against by employers who are self-insured for health insurance. Being self-insured, they fall under federal instead of state guidelines. Since there is no federal anti-discrimination law for gays, these businesses are free to discriminate when it comes to allowing gay spouses to be covered by the employee’s insurance. Notable examples in MA are the Catholic hospitals and Cumberland Farms (you know, the business that treats you “like family”).
Yet another reason to disentangle health insurance from employers, make it payable by the individuals and deductible from taxable income.
i agree that it should be disintangled from employers, but i support universal health care.
Same argument as elsewhere in the thread. You support universal health care. It may not pass. Why wouldn’t you support Legislation that would benefit same-sex couples? In the meantime, you could continue to press for Universal, but would bear no “tax penalty” for carrying medical insurance for your same sex partner.
As shocking as the incidents you pointed at to me are and as much as I wish they were not true, I cannot deny that attitudes even in our enlightened state or on my enlightened campus are still lightyears away from where they should be. Certainly I have many friends who have been kicked out of their families for being gay, or are afraid to come out for that very real fear. So definitely I over generalized in my statement, so let me modify what I said to say that at one time firing, insulting, beating gays was the rule and now prevalently across the country it is still a very real problem, but now an exception to the norm which is that in the very least these people deserve the same dignity and soverignity over their lives and personages as everyone else.
thank you for your clorification. i just came across this – you may find it interesting.
You are right that none of the major candidates supports marriage right now. But I hope you would agree that they still need to be pressed for taking more honest stances on equality. If the demand eases up, there will NEVER be a positive change. ANd the pressure for positive change must be coupled with real repercussions for ignoring it: gays and other people who actually care about equality need to cut off the cash flow and let the enablers of discrimination do the candidate’s leg work. I’ll show up and vote, but that’s all.