July 9, 2011

Requiring same-sex couples to marry if they want to keep health insurance benefits they've previously enjoyed with domestic partnerships.

This issue arises in the 6 states (plus D.C.) that allow same-sex marriage.
On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.
So, when opposite-sex couples decide whether to marry, to the extent that it's an economic calculation, they are weighing a much different set of pros and cons. For example, joint federal income tax returns can save a huge (or cost) amount of money. And under federal tax law, the spouse/"spouse" who receives his/her partner's health benefits has treat the benefit as income and pay tax on it.

If one of the spouses is not a U.S. citizen and is in the country on a temporary visa, the state-level-only marriage "could flag your renewal application and reflect your more permanent decision to stay." Marriage, instead of helping you get to citizenship, would send you in the direction of losing your visa.

What if one spouse is in the military? Getting married violates Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which isn't completely gone yet.

In addition, a state-level-only marriage causes problems if the couple moves to a state that doesn't recognize that marriage (and is entitled, under the Defense of Marriage Act, to decline to recognize the marriage):
Getting a divorce can be complicated, since one member of a couple may have to return to the gay marriage state and live there before their split can be completed.

The employers making the changes [to require marriage to retain benefits] said they spoke regularly with their gay and lesbian employee groups and planned to phase in the requirement. Corning, based in Corning, N.Y., said it would offer a reasonable grace period, though it had not completed the details.

“After waiting so much time for that right, we want them to have the opportunity to enjoy that,” said Christy Pambianchi, a senior vice president for human resources at Corning, which put the policy into effect in New Hampshire and Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal there. She said employees did not raise concerns about the requirement. “They are delighted,” she said.
So the New Hampshire and Massachusetts same-sex couples didn't notice the problem? It took New York. Why was that? Are New Yorkers more legalistic and inclined toward economic analysis? Are they more likely to speak up in their own self-interest even when they are getting something they'd been asking for that's supposed to be good?

Obviously, some same-sex couples are happy to be allowed to get married, but under the law, marriage is a complicated matter. It's not just about pledging your love and devotion. In fact, you can do that without a legal marriage. As Joni Mitchell sang a long time ago: "We don't need no piece of paper. From the city hall. Keeping us tied and true."

Legal marriage is about a whole lot of other things, and the set of things is not the same for opposite sex and same-sex marriage. The decision to get married is a different decision for same-sex couples, and it's not real equality to have to decide between losing your health insurance benefits and entering into the kind of marriage that is works only in at the state level and only in some of the states.

88 comments:

Mick said...

Unintended consequences typically flow from violations of the law of nature.

a.b. said...

Oh cry me a river. I'm very tried of all the whining after they got what they wanted. Shouldn't this have been known prior to the vote and discussed? So sorry that they have to play by the rules now. I may have some slight sympathy for individual cases (maybe) but none at all for the group.

TWM said...

Few same-sex couples have thought that far ahead. In fact, my guess is that, once they can marry and lose their domestic partnership status, they will say having to marry to keep things like health insurance is some kind of discrimination against them.

Leep said...

Am I a bad person if I admit this just made my day?

Maguro said...

Gay marriage law passes; gays hardest hit.

Curious George said...

Boo. Fuckin. Hoo.

Curious George said...

AA: "As Joni Mitchell sang a long time ago: "We don't need no piece of paper. From the city hall. Keeping us tied and true."

Seems with or without a piece of paper Joni wasn't much of a "tied and true" partner. Had a kid and put her up for adoption. Then married and divorced twice. But yes, let's use her lyrics as proof. Yes.

sean said...

Equality is a vacuous concept, and "real equality" is vacuousness on stilts. Prof. Althouse should read Weston's "The Empty Idea of Equality," which was in the HLR some decades back.

MikeinAppalachia said...

"Some people are never satisfied" seems appropriate.

Shouting Thomas said...

This is really important.

Jason (the commenter) said...

I call on all pro-family Republicans to solve this matter immediately by pledging to repeal DOMA.

Of course they wont, because "pro-family" really means "anti-gay".

Milwaukee said...

"Legal marriage is about a whole lot of other things, and the set of things is not the same for opposite sex and same-sex marriage. The decision to get married is a different decision for same-sex couples, and it's not real equality to have to decide between losing your health insurance benefits and entering into the kind of marriage that is works only in at the state level and only in some of the states. "

Huh? I thought they wanted what heterosexual couples had? But now they want the same thing, only made better for them? Do straight couples get married partner benefits if they aren't married? Now they sound like feminist! 'Everything should be equal and I wanna be a ----- but I'm a girl and I shouldn't have to do all the nasty boy stuff.'

This is reminiscent of a comic a whiles ago: Two old guys are at a bar and one of them says "Of course gays should be allowed to marry. Why should they be able to get out of that when the rest of us have to suffer?"

Shouting Thomas said...

Speaking of things that are actually important:

I read a few articles recently that lead me to believe that this is the reality of our current "medical insurance" system:

Of every dollar spent:

o 18% goes to actual medical care
o 82% goes to the medical and insurance bureaucracy

That seems about right.

Now back to really, really important stuff... the latest injustice suffered by poor gays.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Shouting Thomas: 82% goes to the medical and insurance bureaucracy

Oh, someone lives in a fantasy land. (I note the lack of links to your claims!)

nevadabob said...

Less than 2% of your readership is gay.

NOBODY. CARES.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm eating at Chic-fil-A this month.

Here's one of the links on health insurance and medical costs.

How long before Christian ministers are arrested for preaching the Gospel about homosexuality? (Already a reality in Canada.)

How long before the Catholic Church is sued for discrimination for not performing gay weddings?

Place your bets.

Calypso Facto said...

So the New Hampshire and Massachusetts same-sex couples didn't notice the problem? It took New York. Why was that?

It took happening in New York for the NEW YORK TIMES to notice. Cuz little happens in those backwater or fly-over or low-slope states that is worthy of notice to the Graying Lady.

Michael said...

I think they should be afforded the Option to have it any way they want for any purpose they want on the condition that they shut the fuck up. Although that is probably the one thing they will not give up.

JAL said...

The decision to get married is a different decision for same-sex couples, and it's not real equality to have to decide between losing your health insurance benefits and entering into the kind of marriage that is works only in at the state level and only in some of the states.

And why is that? Because heterosexual couples who live together without being married haven't been granted the same rights as gay same sex couples!

If "gay marriage" means the states have to give up states rights in order to make things go smoother for gay marriagees that is a major forgeddaboutit for most of us.

Stay in the state where it "works."

Seems like a "want the cake and to eat it too, and we get to lick out the bowl besides" kind of complaint.

And all those other things that make life hard for married couples? The marriage and divorce laws vary from state to state too.

Why was it Meadehouse went to Colorado to get married again?

Such is life. And it ain't fair. Never has been, and most importantly, never will be.

Shouting Thomas said...

Less than 2% of your readership is gay.

NOBODY. CARES.


True, but Althouse lives in Madison and works in a university.

For reasons that I cannot begin to explain, promoting and glorifying homosexuality is an obsession in the sort of environments where Althouse lives. Has been my entire life and I'm 61 years old.

I'm not talking about "tolerance," which has always been the reality. (The great myth of gay oppression and the genocidal campaign against gays... well, that was just fabrication. For an example of how that mythology is fabricated, read this.)

Surprisingly, when you promote and glorify something, you get more of it.

The Crack Emcee said...

As Joni Mitchell sang a long time ago: "We don't need no piece of paper. From the city hall. Keeping us tied and true."

Legal marriage is about a whole lot of other things,...


Still nothing about staying together. Hmmm. Reading between the lines, you don't know the first thing about it. You're an expert on Dylan and Joni Mitchell. But not marriage.

A few days before NY granted "gay marriage" they also granted no-fault divorce, so the whole point is mute.

That should make you, and gays, very happy.

Fuck Dylan and Joni Mitchell. Take advice from the true hippie genius:

"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. You gotta have something, if you wanna be with me."

I gotta go to work - hold my spot.

Ann Althouse said...

"Huh? I thought they wanted what heterosexual couples had? But now they want the same thing, only made better for them? Do straight couples get married partner benefits if they aren't married? Now they sound like feminist! 'Everything should be equal and I wanna be a ----- but I'm a girl and I shouldn't have to do all the nasty boy stuff.'"

You need to reread the post. They can't currently get to what opposite-sex couples have!

"Equality is a vacuous concept, and "real equality" is vacuousness on stilts. Prof. Althouse should read Weston's "The Empty Idea of Equality," which was in the HLR some decades back."

You're barking up the wrong tree. The problem presented in the article is a problem of not being able to get to formal equality. It's not an attempt to argue for some special, re-imagined idea of equality.

Ann Althouse said...

"For reasons that I cannot begin to explain, promoting and glorifying homosexuality is an obsession in the sort of environments where Althouse lives. Has been my entire life and I'm 61 years old."

Oh, bullshit. It's just about accepting the reality of how people experience sexual orientation and treating them according to simple principles of decency.

Class factotum said...

Do straight couples get married partner benefits if they aren't married?

They do if the Milwaukee County Board gets its way. No potential for abuse there!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/125161014.html

Ann Althouse said...

They're here, they're queer, and we've been used to it for decades.

Move on.

MayBee said...

This is the issue that made me decide gay marriage was the only thing that made sense, decades ago. It was when companies like Disney were being boycotted for giving same sex live-in partnerships health insurance and people were all like "What's to stop everyone with AIDS from moving in with someone to get health insurance?"
Make is serious like marriage and the problem goes away.
Now I believe in gay marriage just because I think it's time and it's right. It's about love.

I do think once a state has marriage, the domestic partnership benefits go away. Otherwise your advocating a two-tier marriage system.

People do not and should not get married for the tax benefits and health insurance benefits. Even as we speak, Obama is proposing giving single people a higher threshold for "wealth" than a married couple or family ($200,000 for a singleton , only $50,000 for a married couple). I wouldn't advocate a bunch of people get divorced for that tax benefit.

Shouting Thomas said...

Oh, bullshit. It's just about accepting the reality of how people experience sexual orientation and treating them according to simple principles of decency.

Oh, bullshit. No, it isn't.

It's about kissing gays' asses. You've already noted how this phenomenon dominates public discussion about the poor, oppressed women.

Can you do 2 + 2?

Althouse, I've lived all my life in the same environment you life in. I've got a gay daughter. Don't feed me that bullshit.

Sassenach said...

The opening arguments cited against requiring marriage in order to get benefits is that it makes it more difficult to lie about immigration status/intent to overstay a visa and to lie to adoptive agencies and governments in order to adopt a child.

This is supposed to be persuasive to whom, exactly? Yeah, yeah, never mind.

Shouting Thomas said...

Ten years from now, Althouse, you will agree with me.

Intellectualism leads to blind alleys. Human traditions exist for a reason, although sometimes the reasons are difficult to see or enunciate.

Your intellectualism is your Achilles Heel in this area.

Sort of like when you thought that your vote for Obama was based on cold hard reason.

You were deceived by your own intellectual brilliance.

sean said...

I don't follow Prof. Althouse's comment above. The point of Weston's article is that the question of what justice requires in regard to gay couples cannot be usefully analyzed by reference to the concept of "equality" (real or otherwise). It's a rhetorical trick, common in legal and political debate, to try and make it sound as if people who disagree with you are against "equality." It shouldn't fool anyone.

Bruce Hayden said...

Less than 2% of your readership is gay.

I don't know about actual readership, but for those posting here, long term, I think that number is quite a bit lower than the reality.

Rather, I would suggest that this is a relatively gay-friendly venue. Where else could someone like Titus get away with entertaining us with his sexual exploits? Maybe not as much though, since he got married last year to his Indian boyfriend. Nevertheless, there is a core gay component to Ann's contributors here, who don't make it obvious on a daily basis, as Titus does, but also aren't hiding their orientation.

And, then there is the aging baby boomer crowd here who may be a bit more conservative... Yet, you find that mostly only those who are fairly new here want to get Titus banned for his contributions.

Skyler said...

As I recall from the briefings they gave us for ending Don't Ask, homosexual marriages are not recognized by the military because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

G Joubert said...

They're here, they're queer, and we've been used to it for decades.

I dunno. I try to be open-minded, I really do. But I keep wondering about how for the 3,500 years of recorded human history marriage has never meant this or been defined this way, but comes now the vagaries and vicissitudes of pop culture in the last 15 or 20 years, and those 3,500 years of received wisdom are rubbished. And I'm betting there was homosexuality 3,500 years ago too.

Chuck66 said...

Will they have time to get married now that all the gays are running out to join the armed forces?

Shouting Thomas said...

And I'm betting there was homosexuality 3,500 years ago too.

Yes, and I'm betting that 3,500 years ago people noticed that men butt fucking each other led to epidemics that killed people.

You know, like the AIDS epidemic.

So, maybe... just maybe... those proscriptions against men butt fucking each other didn't originate in prejudice.

Ann Althouse said...

"I dunno. I try to be open-minded, I really do. But I keep wondering about how for the 3,500 years of recorded human history marriage has never meant this or been defined this way, but comes now the vagaries and vicissitudes of pop culture in the last 15 or 20 years, and those 3,500 years of received wisdom are rubbished. And I'm betting there was homosexuality 3,500 years ago too."

This post is raising a more precise topic than whether same-sex marriage should be permitted. It is about the problems arising from the partial recognition of same-sex marriage. It's a federalism/uniformity problem. I'm calling attention to the problem of state-level-only marriage. (My coinage.)

edutcher said...

As any number of feminists have learned, equality isn't as much fun as it's cracked up to be unless equality means all sorts of special treatment.

Jason (the commenter) said...

I call on all pro-family Republicans to solve this matter immediately by pledging to repeal DOMA.

Of course they wont, because "pro-family" really means "anti-gay".


Where did he get that, Kos or Puffington?

And when did two homosexuals shacking up make a family?

Bruce Hayden said...

I really don't have as much sympathy here as I maybe should. I would say, welcome to the real world.

For one thing, I have been fighting for domestic partnership benefits for awhile now. Officially, my employer provides them on a sexually non-discriminatory basis. The reality though is that it appears that it is easier for a gay couple to get them. If I got married, that is the sort of significant life event that allows change of coverage immediately, but there are a lot of other concerns that have kept us from getting married.

I am finding that in becoming a seasoned citizen (about a year older than Ann), a lot of people find a lot of reasons not to get married, even if they are cohabiting. For example, my grandmother gave up one of her pensions when she remarried (at 80). So, I know an increasing number of (straight) couples who are electing to cohabit, but stay unmarried. Some, for decades - I know of one couple who have done so for better than 25 years now, both previously married with kids, pensions, etc.

I do think that ultimately there isn't going to be much difference between gay marriage and straight, at least in terms of the government. I think that it will come, just probably not as quickly as gays would like. And, mostly, I think that it will be because the rest of us see that when gays get these rights, it just doesn't matter to the rest of us in our daily lives all that much.

If I sound a bit blasé, indifferent, and insensitive, then so be it.

Shouting Thomas said...

Have you ever read A Hero of Our Time, by Mikhail Lermontov, Althouse? It's the classic treatise on how intellectuals can be blinded by their own brilliance.

Curious George said...

AA: "I'm calling attention to the problem of state-level-only marriage. (My coinage.)"

Hardly anything new about this. It's been discussed for as long a SSM has been.

G Joubert said...

This post is raising a more precise topic than whether same-sex marriage should be permitted.

Yeah, I know. But I wanted to get that said. Sorry.

miller said...

"It's just about accepting the reality of how people experience sexual orientation and treating them according to simple principles of decency. "

This is a very good line.

As far as 3500 years of history - well, it's been a stated principle as well as the enforced policies of most societies during most times that most people don't have full rights. That's changed only recently.

Maybe we're starting to see what it means when we say all men are created equal.

Phil 3:14 said...

ST;
Of every dollar spent:

o 18% goes to actual medical care
o 82% goes to the medical and insurance bureaucracy

That seems about right.


You've got that backwards (and even then not quite right). You're alluding to medical loss ratio (i.e. the percent of premium paid that goes to enrollee medical care.)

If you like, here's the Admin's fact sheet on medical loss ratio (which a healthy dose of PPACA advocacy) The "worst" are the individual policies that spend ~30 cents per premium dollar on admin, marketing, profit etc.

Here's a bigger picture view in graphic format (from 2007)

For every dollar spent on healthcare in the US 7 cents goes to administrative costs (including profit)

meanwhile,the average American spends over 50% more per year for health care than the citizen of the next highest country (graph here)

So you could eliminate ALL administrative overhead (including governmental overhead), profit etc. and you still wouldn't have put much of a dent in overall health care spending.

Phil 3:14 said...

And as for the original discussion re: consequences of NY's same-sex marriage bill: I'm sorry but this seems like so much hand-wringing. Isn't it too soon to take a bill that was all about equal rights and turn it into a whine-fest regarding healthcare benefits, taxes etc.?

PatCA said...

"Intellectualism leads to blind alleys."

I agree, and activists rely on intellectualism and moralism to win grand victories. They leave the rest of us to live with the results. Are people more accepting of abortion now decades and millions of abortion after Roe?

I read a while ago that the next phase of gay rights would be federalizing gay marriage because of the unequal problems due to federalism.

Here we go.

Shouting Thomas said...

Well, Phil, if you read the story I linked to, I think you'll find something a little more substantive.

The doctors who offer straight cash fee for service health care charge approximately 18% of the fee that a doctor billing through the health insurance system would charge for the same procedure.

That, to me, is more indicative of reality than any paper study you'd like to show me.

Jason (the commenter) said...

G Joubert: I dunno. I try to be open-minded, I really do. But I keep wondering about how for the 3,500 years of recorded human history...

People from 3500 years ago would be appalled by what modern American conservatives call "family". They would brand it anti-family, atheistic, and evil.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I'm having a hard time seeing the big problems here. OK, DADT has some kinks still, and the cross state divorce thing is a pain (but really, is any divorce not a pain? And do we want it not to be?) Neither of those seem like much of a big deal for almost anyone.

Otherwise, don't hetrosexual couples have to deal with these concerns as well? Yeah, marriage is a big deal; it's about more than just sharing health insurance. Hetrosexual couples sometimes have a hard time deciding whether it is for them. If it's not as big of a deal to homosexual couples, then they shouldn't be doing it.

- Lyssa

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jason (the commenter): ..."pro-family" really means "anti-gay".

edutcher: And when did two homosexuals shacking up make a family?

I rest my case.

Shouting Thomas said...

I rest my case.

On what?

You keep thinking you've said something profound when, in fact, you've said nothing.

Re-read each of your comments.

Each was completely, totally empty.

edutcher said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
"pro-family" really means "anti-gay".

edutcher: And when did two homosexuals shacking up make a family?

I rest my case.


Hardly.

Any man and woman can shack up, too.

That doesn't make them a family, either.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Obviously, some same-sex couples are happy to be allowed to get married, but under the law, marriage is a complicated matter.

Just EXACTLY the point I have made numerous times. Until the Federal laws and regulations are made clear or consistant with State regulations....gay "marriage" means diddly doo squat on a legal level and everyone will be confused.

Be careful what you ask for, because you may not like the consequences. Looks like they got half of the apple and discovered the worms.

Federal Law trumps State Laws. Social Security, IRS Rules, Estate Taxes on the fed level, Gift Taxes....etc...etc...

So you got married. Big freaking whoop. Congratulations. Now deal with the IRS.

DKWalser said...

"Legal marriage is about a whole lot of other things, and the set of things is not the same for opposite sex and same-sex marriage."

Precisely! Which, by the way, has been the argument against the legal recognition of same sex marriage. It's not the same thing and it won't be the same thing once all parties are treated the same for all purposes of the law.

Unknown said...

When the company (100,000+ workers) I work for did this, they cleared a lot of "just roommates" off the books and they also did an audit and cleared a lot of ex-spouses off too.

G Joubert said...

People from 3500 years ago would be appalled by what modern American conservatives call "family". They would brand it anti-family, atheistic, and evil.

I think you're on shaky ground there. You are referring to more pop culture influences, the Hollywoodization of our overall culture. But the data doesn't back you up. By far, first time heterosexual marriages do not end in divorce.

But even if what you say were true, is the solution to really flush the institution down the loo? Is that the best you got?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Shouting Thomas: You keep thinking you've said something profound when, in fact, you've said nothing.

Your own biases keep you from noticing things that are blindingly obvious to others.

I'm not really talking to you, I'm trying to communicate with people who might be on the edge of noticing, and giving them a little push so they can see things from my perspective.

Please keep up the "butt fucking" comments. You make my job a little easier every time you post.

Shouting Thomas said...

Please keep up the "butt fucking" comments. You make my job a little easier every time you post.

Another completely empty post.

Jason, the problem here is that you imagine yourself fighting in a great civil rights battle.

You are delusional. Also, you're just pretending.

PatCA said...

Should we also federalize community property laws?

Jason (the commenter) said...

G Jpubert: I think you're on shaky ground there. You are referring to more pop culture influences, the Hollywoodization of our overall culture.

I'm not talking Hollywood. Family used to mean worshiping your ancestors, making sacrifices to them, being tied to the land where they were buried. Your father literally had the power of life and death over you. Those people didn't change from one generation to the next. They had stability!

But even if what you say were true, is the solution to really flush the institution down the loo? Is that the best you got?

The Western tradition is to take traditional institutions and throw them down the loo. You're the one who brought up the idea of using historical precedent, don't blame me if it doesn't support your argument.

Shouting Thomas said...

And, Jason, you moron...

Butt fucking among men is, and always has been, a very serious public health issue.

It causes gay bowel syndrome, which inevitably leads to a host of communicable diseases.

Even 3,500 years ago people who able to see this reality and to react to it to protect themselves and their communities.

You are a complete idiot who imagines that he is a civil rights crusader. You are completely, incredibly brain dead.

You can't even see the reality of men shitting themselves to death right in front of you.

You are dumber than a dead corpse rotting by the side of the road. Your stupidity is preposterous.

It's amazing what an idiot like you will convince himself to believe.

Oligonicella said...

"The decision to get married is a different decision for same-sex couples, and it's not real equality to have to decide between losing your health insurance benefits and entering into the kind of marriage that is works only in at the state level and only in some of the states."

To some people, it never is.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Should we also federalize community property laws?

Of course not. Those are a State by State issue.

The laws that the gay marriage people are bitching about NOW are those that affect people federally across state lines. Of course they didn't even think about THAT during their years long temper tantrums to get equality and to demand to have gay marriage recognized.

Ok. Some of the States recognize you. The Federal Government hasn't changed its rules. Whine some more.

Tax treatment of insurance benefits for unmarried or domestic partnerships, still Federal.

Social Security survivor benefits....Federal

Income tax brackets for Married versus Single tax payers.....Federal

Inheritance, uniform credit, bypass rules, unlimited gifting to spouse.......Federal.

Half of the wormy apple. Yummy isn't it?

Widely Seen said...

It came to my attention, yesterday, that antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea is now spreading rather rapidly. The Centers for Disease Control show data which point to what they shyly call MSM [men sex men or something] as being associated with the increase. Based on our recent and unfortunate experience with HIV/AIDS, one might hope gay marriage and a 'keep it in your pants' monogamy would be good for society...

Marshal said...

"and it's not real equality to have to decide between losing your health insurance benefits and entering into the kind of marriage that is works only in at the state level and only in some of the states."

No, but it's closer to equality than allowing same sex unions only to receive benefits without being married.

"Of course they wont, because "pro-family" really means "anti-gay"."

Jesus, what a self-absorbed asshole.

Jason (the commenter) said...

The "family values" people on parade:

Jesus, what a self-absorbed asshole.

you moron...

You are a complete idiot...

You are dumber than a dead corpse...

They don't have arguments, just hate. They even hate God, look at how they take his name in vain!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

They don't have arguments, just hate. They even hate God, look at how they take his name in vain!

You really are self absorbed, one dimensional and are wearing blinders when it comes to this subject.

Being pro family does not mean being anti gay marriage despite your attempts to stereotype anyone that doesn't completely agree with you.

There are many of us who just don't give a rip one way or the other about gay marriage, but who are disgusted with all the whining and demanding of special treatment.

The activists got gay marriage approved and now what ??? They want to whine that you have to get married to have the benefits of marriage?

/facepalm.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Dust Bunny Queen: Being pro family does not mean being anti gay marriage despite your attempts to stereotype anyone that doesn't completely agree with you.

I said it meant being anti-gay, not anti-gay marriage.

Also, if you think it's bad to stereotype people, to take a few extreme examples and say they represent the views of an entire group, then why talk like this?:

The activists got gay marriage approved and now what ??? They want to whine that you have to get married to have the benefits of marriage?

dick said...

But isn't all marriage state level only marriage. It may at some point be recognized by other states but it starts out as state level only. Same with divorce.

It should also be pointed out that this problem was brought up before the vote in NY for gay marriage and nobody bothered to follow up on it. It should have been addressed at that time if it was going to be a problem. Personally I think that if you require hetero couples to be married to get the benefits, then the same should hold for gays. The details are something that can be worked out later and if that means the gays have to live in certain specified states that accept the marriage, then so be it. I don't think that the whole world needs to revolve around gays and any problems they cause themselves.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The activists got gay marriage approved and now what ??? They want to whine that you have to get married to have the benefits of marriage?

What part of "activists" = all gay people? I don't think it does. Do you?

Try reading and less knee jerking.

Marshal said...

Recognizing assholeness isn't hate.

It's simply a better recognition of reality than people like Jason are capable of. Jason believes people with different policy preferences than he make those choices based on the same priorities he has. There's no other way to arrive at his conclusion that people for "families" are really "anti-gay".

This is of course a ridiculous argument no better than saying anyone for gay rights is against families.

There are of course those who say such things, and Jason is no better than they.

But in his urge to describe everyone against his preferences as engaging in "hate", he proves himself even worse than his counterparts.

Hardly surprising for a group indoctrinated to believe everyone against any of their positions is against "progress".

Jason (the commenter) said...

Marshal, you took the Lord's name in vain in this argument, and you called another commenter an "asshole". You don't respect other people or even God. To now claim others don't recognize reality or intimate that they are hypocrites is ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure I wont get through to you, but I'm also sure many others see the truth.

Joanna said...

Butt fucking among men is, and always has been, a very serious public health issue.

So... heterosexual anal is okay! Woo!

The Crack Emcee said...

I'm baaaaack!

First of all, Jason, I love the new avatar - it's nice to see who I'm talking to - and you look like a decent guy to me. Probably liberal, maybe progressive, but not an intentionally bad guy.

That said, you're wrong. If you feel like you're amongst a bunch of people who want to be honest brokers, then this talk of "hate" etc. is nothing but a tactic, not to be taken seriously - and it won't be:

None of us are shy PC types who will shrink just because such nonsense is thrown at us - just as I, the Uber-Palin supporter, don't shy away from the term "misogyny" when it's thrown at my (occasionally reckless) criticisms of women.

We know better. You, on the other hand, want to turn references of 'butt fucking" into homophobia when you know they're not - it's just colloquial language about what gay people do - they don't call it same "sex" marriage for nothing. (This is also why gays piss off black people with their bullshit - our civil rights struggle is based on who we are, not on what we do.) That qualifier also lets us know we're not talking about marriage, but something different. Interracial couples may have had some cultural hurdles to overcome when it came to hitching up but redefining the institution - one man, one woman - wasn't one of them. There were no new requirements that were necessary to accommodate them, no special pleading, beyond leaving people alone. That's not what's happening here and we know it.

This is not about "just about accepting the reality of how people experience sexual orientation and treating them according to simple principles of decency" when I've grown up under gay people declaring we're all gay, and straights were "breeders" and doing everything in their power to undermine almost every married couple they came in contact with, including their parents - this is an agenda, and a twisted one at that.

As I said, before NY granted "gay" marriage, they went with no-fault divorce, so the whole thing is a sham. Ann is on her "second" marriage - which is supposed to be an impossibility - making her a piss poor advocate for the institution. But the worst advocate - the absolute worst - was the San Francisco poster boy for "gay' marriage, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is divorced, slept with his best friend's (and campaign manager's) wife, and then promptly "wedded" the most prominent woman to defend him by having a fucking "psychic" do the ceremony. (I am intentionally leaving out most references to NewAge so as not to taint what I'm saying, but,...) Now we've got Dan savage saying "marriage" means humiliating your spouse with outside activities. Hey, Ann, I told you I've got a friend who's got the hots for you, let's get you two together and see how Meade feels about it, huh? You can sell it to him as what's necessary on your road to matrimonial bliss.

Who do you people think you're fooling?

Jason (the commenter) said...

The Crack Emcee: ...and you look like a decent guy to me. Probably liberal, maybe progressive, but not an intentionally bad guy.

Log Cabin Republican.

If you feel like you're amongst a bunch of people who want to be honest brokers...

I obviously don't. I started out saying I thought "pro-family" was code for "anti-gay". And after that people started calling me an asshole, stupid, dumb, a liberal, and talking about butt fucking and how gays spread disease--real family values stuff.

...I've grown up under gay people declaring we're all gay, and straights were "breeders" and doing everything in their power to undermine almost every married couple they came in contact with, including their parents - this is an agenda, and a twisted one at that.

...I've grown up under straight people declaring we're all sick child molesters and need to stay in the closet, that gays were "sexual predators" and doing everything in their power to undermine almost every gay family they came in contact with, including their own children's along with ruining the lives of people serving in the military, and trying to kill people for being gay (sometimes succeeding)- this is an agenda, and a twisted one at that.

Who do you people think you're fooling?

Who do you people think you're fooling? Not me, and fewer people every day. Thank God for that!

Joe said...

Wow, Crack, sometimes you do make cogent arguments :)

John said...

Not only is DADT not "Not completely gone yet" It is not even a little bit gone.

It is still 100%, totally, completemente in effect.

It will remain in effect until a bunch of departments certify that it should be revoked. My understanding is that not a single 1 of those certifications has been made yet.

Once the certifications are made, Obama has to sign it.

Feel like trusting him on this?

In an election cycle?

I predict that on the day he leaves office that DADT will still be completely in effect.

John Henry

Robert Hagedorn said...

Sodomy? For a surprise, do a search: First Scandal.

Jason (the commenter) said...

John: Not only is DADT not "Not completely gone yet" It is not even a little bit gone.

Dude!:

Pentagon to start accepting openly gay soldiers

That's as of last Friday.

Marshal said...

I respect people who deserve it, which doesn't include you. And the chances I take some asshole's opinion of whether I'm properly respectful of god are somewhere south of a snowball's chance in hell. Was your saying everyone who supports families is anti-gay respectful? No, it's an asshole accusation devoid of substance. Ans when that's pointed out you run from it by piling on other accusations instead of admitting you're just flat wrong.

Many others recognize reality. You're simply not among them. You're adjusting my arguments so you can pretend your own self righteous image is correct. Grow up. Or don't. Slither off and die. Who cares, it's not like you add anything. Pretentious assholes are a dime a dozen.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Marshal :Who cares, it's not like you add anything.

Are you kidding me? I've got this great new avatar!

John said...

OK, Jason,

I appear to be a day late and a dollar short. Certainly not the first time, probably won't be the last.

On the other hand, has the DADT law been repealed? Have the certifications been made? Has the president signed it into law?

No?

ANd, has the Army announced that it is going to start enlisting gays. From the article it says that they are just going to start accepting applications. Not quite the same thing.

Anyway, thanks for the update.

John Henry

John said...

What we need to do is identify the gay gene. Then we can test fetuses for it, abort any that have it.

It's just tissue, right? Not like we are killing a living person.

Problem solved. The current gay population eventually dies of old age and disease, no new ones are born and we have a gay free society.

John Henry

The Crack Emcee said...

I obviously don't [feel like I'm amongst honest brokers]. I started out saying I thought "pro-family" was code for "anti-gay".

Why would you want to do that? Don't you get that you're tainting the well with such an attitude? The phrase "pro-family" has nothing to do with being "anti-gay" except in your mind - and then you've got to accept there's something going on in your mind that doesn't jibe with reality.

The problem is yours.

And after that people started calling me an asshole, stupid, dumb, a liberal, and talking about butt fucking and how gays spread disease--real family values stuff.

Well, as I said, you brought the name calling onto yourself by poisoning the well. As far as spreading disease, are you denying the gay community did the wrong thing - out of a sense of misplaced pride - during the AIDS epidemic? Nobody was going to tell them what to do, remember? I was in San Francisco where they demanded that, not only will the bath houses stay open but they'll keep fucking in them, unprotected, thanks. Wasn't that spreading disease? Gays wiped out an entire generation of artists with their stupidity and you have the nerve to still try and pretend they're innocent? Puh-leaze. It's a nightmare.

...I've grown up under straight people declaring we're all sick child molesters and need to stay in the closet, that gays were "sexual predators" and doing everything in their power to undermine almost every gay family they came in contact with, including their own children's along with ruining the lives of people serving in the military, and trying to kill people for being gay (sometimes succeeding)- this is an agenda, and a twisted one at that.

Again, you're trying to deny reality. As a foster child, and a member of the underground, I've seen gays in action when they think no one's looking - it ain't pretty. Do you deny it? And if you don't, what are we to make of it? Such a small group of people have sure left a big impression, why is that? Come on, Jason, let's not jack each other around. I'm trying to have a real dialogue - the one gays don't want to have so they can post an illusion to batter us into submission with. Let's talk about men in parks and alleys and why others might respond negatively to that culturally. Let's get real.

Who do you people think you're fooling? Not me, and fewer people every day. Thank God for that!

As John Belushi said, nothing's over until we say it is,...

Jason (the commenter) said...

The Crack Emcee: Why would you want to do that? Don't you get that you're tainting the well with such an attitude?

Poisoning the well? No one should be drinking from that water, and I pointed it out.

The phrase "pro-family" has nothing to do with being "anti-gay" except in your mind...

Then show me the pro-family pro-gay politicians. Because I've seen plenty of family values people who do nothing with family values except attack gays, and I would LOVE to see some counter-examples.

Let's get real.

Several people here want me to "see reality" or "get real".

Me personally, I am always TRYING to see reality.

I'm not blessed with perfect vision and perfect understanding on every issue. I have to worry about making mistakes and being wrong. Because sometimes I am wrong.

It must be nice to know everything the first moment you lay eyes on it. It's just too bad for me you aren't that good at disseminating this wisdom to old fools like me.

The Crack Emcee said...

Poisoning the well? No one should be drinking from that water, and I pointed it out.

But you didn't point it out - you merely insisted it was true. That's not the same thing, and indicates your problems, not theirs.

Show me the pro-family pro-gay politicians. Because I've seen plenty of family values people who do nothing with family values except attack gays, and I would LOVE to see some counter-examples.

You've already proven how that dynamic works - you hear non-existent secret codes, go on the attack based on them, and then claim you're oppressed. I'll repeat it for you: pro-family does not mean anti-gay. You make it that way for yourself.

Several people here want me to "see reality" or "get real".

Me personally, I am always TRYING to see reality.

No, you're not, you're insisting your delusion is everyone's - it's not.

I'm not blessed with perfect vision and perfect understanding on every issue. I have to worry about making mistakes and being wrong. Because sometimes I am wrong.

I know - it's true for all of us. But accepting that is what growing up is all about, and you can take comfort in that it's also a great equalizer: nobody escapes.

It must be nice to know everything the first moment you lay eyes on it. It's just too bad for me you aren't that good at disseminating this wisdom to old fools like me.

Such snark. Look, if you lay the foundation for clear thinking, you have a greater capacity for it. In your case, you could try taking what people are saying on face value, rather than layering your own assumptions on top. I could assume everyone who makes a disparaging comment about blacks is racist, but that would make it awful difficult to explain why they accept me - or the disparaging remarks made about everyone else. In other words, get off the soapbox. Despite what they think, gays are nothing special to us. We want a real dialogue (I notice you didn't reflect openly on any of the thornier issues I brought up) and not this bogus/aggressive bullshit built on lost episodes of Will & Grace.

We're not going for that.

Jason (the commenter) said...

The Crack Emcee: (I notice you didn't reflect openly on any of the thornier issues I brought up)

The point was for you bring them up. I wanted people reading this thread to see what's really on the minds of people who call themselves "pro family". And as those readers can see, "pro family" folk have LOTS of opinions about homosexuals.

I wish all politicians would be as open about their thoughts as The Crack Emcee.

The Crack Emcee said...

I like your blog.

trebord said...

So is gay marriage about equality, love, taxes, or something else that I seem to be missing??? Who else in history got equality and then cried about the consequences? And too soon??? Can't get same-sex marriage passed soon enough and then the crying starts.