One Step Closer

I just got back from Human Resources, where they accepted my application to put Lisa on my health and dental insurance, as a result of the excellent collective bargaining agreement our union brought us.

Yes, it's only "domestic partner" benefits, but it's recognition of our relationship in some form and, as I've said before, we must learn to walk before we can run.

We were required to provide one form of proof of cohabitation for more than one year -- I submitted our Vermont Civil Union certificate from 2001.

We were required to provide two forms of proof of financial interdependence so we submitted a joint credit card statement (with both our names) and our registration for our antique truck, which also has both our names.

Sitting in the wings I had a car insurance bill with both our names on it, as well as mutual health care proxies drawn up earlier this year (after the Terri Schiavo incident), our Affidavit of Marriage from New Paltz in 2004, our marriage license from Canada in 2004, a copy of our home equity line of credit (joint) from 2002, and proof that we are both beneficiaries for each others' life insurance policies. There was no way they were going to tell me I didn't have the right documentation.

So now the question remains as to how they're going to report this for tax purposes. I have what's called a "sponsor" plan, with me and my son only on it. Adding Lisa will make it a family plan so, as was confirmed by the HR representative, the taxable amount should only be on the difference between the sponsor and family plan cost, or $4.80 per pay period from me and $55.24 from my employer. This would mean that I will pay "income" tax on $1561.04 annually.

If our marriage was recognized like any heterosexual's marriage, we would not pay that tax. This is just one of many reasons why we (the LGBT community) want civil marriage. We are not treated equally and domestic partner benefits only further the "separate but equal" mentality.

But for now, I'll take what I can get. But I'm not going to do it quietly...

NYS Case Law

ACLU asks end to NYS law banning marriage equality
ALBANY - The American Civil Liberties Union on Oct. 17 asked a New York appeals court to strike down a state law that bars same-sex couples from marriage and the hundreds of family protections afforded to married couples.

Meanwhile, the state’s case against marriage equality was not going too well, according to the New York Law Journal.

“It was a great relief to be in court and hear our lawyers explain to the court the very real consequences we deal with when we’re treated as legal strangers to our partners,” said plaintiff Tonja Alvis of Schenectady, who is raising two children with her partner of six years, Kathy Burke. “We’re looking forward to the day when we can finally dance with our sons at our wedding and are no longer denied the legal protections that other couples enjoy.” Alvis has no health insurance because she can’t afford the plan offered by her employer, and Burke’s employer doesn’t offer domestic partner health benefits.

The case, brought by the ACLU’s national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, LLP was argued before the Third Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division on behalf of 12 same-sex couples. Several of the plaintiffs, who hope to be married in the state of New York and had been on the waiting list to get married by Mayor Jason West in New Paltz, were present in court.

“Our plaintiffs include a police officer, a nurse, a social studies teacher, an artist, a physical therapist, and a state legislator — people from all walks of life who make the same commitments to their partners that straight couples do,” said Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, LLP, who argued the case as an ACLU cooperating attorney. “Denying these loving, devoted couples marriage protections hurts families and ultimately the state….

“This is not a case about abstract principles,” Kaplan said. “This is a case about real people… who are deprived of benefits by the state of New York.”

“Marriage is a commitment shared by two people who love each other and agree to look out for each other during the good times and the bad,” said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. “Two adults who make this personal choice to form a life-long commitment should not be denied the right to marry just because they are gay or lesbian.”

Among the couples who were present for the arguments were:

Cindy Bink and Ann Pachner of West Hurley, who have been together for 17 years. Bink had to leave her job as a counselor at a community college in New Jersey, where she had worked for 17 years because the college did not offer domestic partner benefits. Forced to search for a job that would allow her to cover Pachner on her health insurance policy, she finally found a job working for the City of New York that provides health care for both of them.

Regina Cicchetti and Susan Zimmer, who live in Port Jervis and recently celebrated their 35th anniversary. Cicchetti has survived two life-threatening illnesses — breast cancer and a pituitary tumor — and says that she could never have made it through these crises without Zimmer’s support. The couple wants the security of knowing no questions will be asked about their relationship should one of them be hospitalized in the future.

“The New York constitution requires that the state treat all its citizens equally,” said Art Eisenberg, Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Despite the fact that lesbian and gay people make the same kinds of commitments to their partners and children that straight people make, the state denies them numerous protections that keep families afloat during difficult times. That’s not equal treatment.”

It is unknown when the court will issue its ruling. However, the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, will almost certainly have the ultimate say over the issue.

Biographical information on all of the clients and the legal documents, and other background materials about Samuels and Gallagher, et. al. v. New York Department of Health, are available at www.aclu.org/caseprofiles.

The New York Law Journal’s coverage suggested that the state conceded that New York has no compelling interest in preventing same-sex marriages, and relied on a rational basis claim. “In 90 minutes of arguments before the Appellate Division, Third Department, the state abandoned one of its two major defenses and struggled to sell the other.”

The Law Journal said that Deputy Solicitor General Peter H. Schiff claimed that while there is no compelling state interest in banning homosexual marriage, the state’s prohibition survives a rational basis test on the strength of its historic commitment to providing a stable environment for children. The state argued it was up to the Legislature to determine whether same-sex marriages should be legalized.

Schiff did not claim that gay or lesbian parents would necessarily preside over an unstable environment, arguing instead that New York’s preference for opposite-sex marriages is based on the rationally pragmatic interest in encouraging childbirth within the confines of marriage.

“Well, what does that have to do with it?” asked Judge Anthony J. Carpinello, a question asked in various forms by several judges, the Law Journal said.

According to the Law Journal, Schiff attempted to explain that with the possibility of accidental procreation, the state has an interest in promoting marriage so children will be born in “physically and emotionally stable settings”. But that argument appeared to trouble the court, especially since there is no possibility of accidental procreation in a homosexual relationship.

“That is a little bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you say?” responded Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona.

THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
In a “Dear Abby” column a couple of days ago, I read this letter:

DEAR ABBY: My 22-year-old niece, "Brittany," married her boyfriend of many years last month in a lavish production of a wedding financed entirely by her father (my brother). On the invitations, it was mentioned that their home was fully furnished, so in lieu of gifts, they'd appreciate money for their honeymoon to the Dominican Republic.

Most family members generously complied and chipped in $300 to $500 each. My widowed grandmother, who lived on a fixed income, even sent them $50.

Four days after their return from the honeymoon, Brittany threw her husband of two weeks out of the house and moved in with her new boyfriend, whom she'd first met when he "entertained" at her bachelorette party three weeks prior. To say we are all surprised is putting it mildly.

No one has heard from Brittany since, and no explanation was offered. My mother recently got her on the phone, and Brittany quickly ended the conversation by claiming that all the money had been "spent" and that her now ex-husband had any funds that remained. (We know this can't be true because the distraught groom recently approached my brother and asked him to pay for the annulment.)

Doesn't etiquette dictate that Brittany return all gifts -- including cash -- as the marriage ended just days after the checks cleared the bank? Is this why there's a 12-month window in which to send wedding gifts? -- ANGRY IN SAN FRANCISCO

Now, here’s what bugs me (okay, a lot bugs me but this specific thing really bugs me). The anti-gay and anti-gay marriage crowd claim that their passionate objections against us and our families stem from Biblical and moral values. They want to legislate morality, so to speak.

Yet, here’s this 22 year old girl who took her husband and her family for a ride, and then tossed the marriage aside for a new man, only two weeks after the marriage. This 22 year old girl is old enough to vote on whether or not it’s “moral” for me to marry my partner, but where are these conservatives in their push to protect the sanctity of marriage against the likes of this girl?

HATE CRIMES
When was the last time you read in the paper about a woman beating the shit out of some guy that made a sexual advance toward her? When was the last time you saw a story about a guy beating the shit out of some woman for flirting with him?

It’s beyond my comprehension how a human being can use “He made a pass at me” as a defense for beating a person unconscious or to death because of a perceived homosexual advance.

Unwanted sexual advances are unwanted sexual advances, plain and simple. But what makes men think that unwanted sexual advances from other men warrant, explain, or excuse violence against the other man? Can we buy a defense of Susie saying “Your honor, I beat that man senseless with a hammer because he came on to me and I was afraid he was going to rape me.”

Yet, here we go again:

(Jackson, Alabama) A 52 year old Alabama man is clinging to life in a Jackson hospital after what police call a homophobic attack. A 26 year old man is charged with attempted murder in the beating Billy Sanford. Police said that when he was arrested Marcus Dewayne Kelley confessed saying that he attacked Sanford with a hammer because the slight older man had made sexual advances toward him.

To add insult to injury, of course Alabama doesn’t have a hate crimes law.

HUMOR

I’m sorry, I can’t help but laugh at stuff like this.

POP QUIZ

Are you a lesbian?

My Results:
You scored

165

The lesbianity is strong in this one. You love the ladies. Either that or you just like cats and bad music. I bet you've got a good collection of baseball caps. Or are they scalps from your sexual conquests? Oh, no. They're baseball caps (sorry 'bout that).

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Did you see the latest O'Reilly rant?

Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly is under fire for suggesting that al-Qaida should "blow up" Coit Tower, one of the San Francisco's most famous landmarks, because voters backed a resolution discouraging military recruiters on public high school and college campuses.

The proposition passed by a healthy majority last Tuesday. It does not ban recruiters, but it does urge schools to reject them.

The proposition is not binding but its let the Pentagon know how the city feels about 'don't ask, don't tell' the military's ban on gays serving openly.

On his Fox television show O'Reilly called for President George W. Bush to withdraw any military protection for the city.

"...If al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly said.

And then, later, in an interview, he defends his remarks:

I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue about what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace.

I don’t think they like the country. I don’t think these people like the country. They feel that we’re the problem, we’re the evildoers, that al Qaeda is created because of us. That’s the hallmark of the radical left. It’s always America’s fault. We’re the bad country, and the enlightened citizens of San Francisco, we’re not going to be a part of it. We’re gonna separate out. We’re gonna ban military recruiting. Number one, that’s a fascist act. I mean, you’re making a decision that your citizens can’t hear of an opportunity they may want to hear about. That’s number one. So, look, I’ve had enough. I think you guys have had enough. If these guys want to come on the Radio Factor or the television Factor and debate me — I’ve been after [San Francisco Mayor] Gavin Newsome to come on the program for years. I mean, this is a big guy with a mouth who runs around, but he’s a coward. He won’t come on and debate me about this issue. Is Gavin proud of that vote? That’s my first question. Mayor, are you proud of that vote, and if so, why?

When is THIS asshole going to be held accountable?