Musings

I found this letter to the Editor while perusing today's edition of 365gay.com news:

To the Editor,
Re: Anti-Gay Group Dumps Bank

Focus on the Family's decision to sever their relationship with Wells-Fargo Bank raises an interesting question: the Book of Leviticus also forbids lending or borrowing of money at interest.

Presumably Focus on the Family had no qualms about depositing their monies in interest-bearing checking and savings accounts, as well as other interest-bearing instruments.

Is there an edition of the Holy Bible that I'm not aware of that differentiates between the sin of usury and the sin of sodomy?

How is it then, absent such an edition, that Focus on the Family roundly condemns the latter, and practices the former?

The Rev'd. Father Raymond H. Clark
Superior (retired)
The Community of the Resurrection
San Diego California

Right on, Padre! I wonder how it is that all of these neo-cons and homophobes who continually quote scripture as a valid reason to discriminate and spread messages of hate against gays don't see this? On a message board I frequent, they use the term "Buffet Christian," and I find it to be right on, also. Pick and choose, pass over the things that aren't appealing. What hypocrisy. And, isn't that, in and of itself, a sin of choice?

I got a phone call Friday from Blue Cross/Blue Shield regarding my health insurance plan. The customer care representative said there was some "confusion" and asked me who I wanted covered. I told her me, of course, Lisa G. and Joseph M. She asked for Joe's date of birth and I gave it to her. *slight pause* Conversation continued as follows:

Rep: Oh, I see the problem. You inadvertently checked "spouse"
for Lisa.
Me: That's because she is my spouse.
We were legally married in Canada.
*pregnant pause*
Rep: Oh, well we don't recognize that in New York State.
Me: That's not what the state's Attorney General Elliott Spitzer
says.
*longer pregnant pause*
Rep: Oh, well the computer won't take it that way.
Me: Which means that the computer was deliberately programmed to
discriminate then, right?
*pause* *long sigh*
Rep: We'll have to put her into the system as your domestic
partner.
Me: Whatever.

I figure I messed with her head and ruined her day enough. But when you think about it, if they put Lisa into the computer as my spouse, the computer wouldn't accept it because it was a same-sex marriage? If that's the case, then it was deliberately programmed in to not accept same sex couples. Of course, you could make a valid argument that it was necessary to do that so that flags and bells and sirens would go off if John Jones tried to add his kid brother who refuses to get a job and would rather mooch off big brother onto his policy. Or a roommate with no legal standing, etc. I understand all that. But there's a storm a-brewin' and they're going to have to re-think that programming.

In the meantime, we got our new insurance cards in the mail yesterday showing coverage for Pat, Joe and Lisa (in that order). Lisa was a bit confused as to why her name wasn't on the policy. I told her it's because *I* am the sponsor of the policy. She's never been a "dependent" or spouse before and I think she thought it should have been in both our names. All that aside, though, we were both stoked about this small victory. Our plan becomes effective January 1.

Found this fantastic sculpture on sale at eBay but, alas, it's way out of my price range. It's still for sale for the next 4 days if you're interested:

State Appeals Court Reverses Ruling That Allowed Gay Marriage

(New York, NY) AP - 12/09/05 - A gay rights group is vowing to appeal a state appeals court ruling that keeps the ban on same-sex marriage in New York City.

The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled four-to-one today that Judge Doris Ling-Cohan erred in February when she held that the state's domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it does not allow same-sex marriage.

The appeals court said her ruling exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and upsurped the state legislature.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a moderate Democrat who supports gay marriage, said he'll urge the Legislature to change the state's Domestic Relations Law to permit gay marriage.

The appellate judges said today that state laws regarding marriage "do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution."

The earlier ruling had favored five same-sex couples who sued New York City because the city clerk had denied their marriage license applications. The decision was the first of its kind in New York City and was a step toward allowing gay weddings. Today's reversal keeps the status quo on same-sex marriage.

Justice David Saxe was the panel's dissenter. He said he saw no important public interest in barring same-sex marriage and said laws that bar it perpetuate discrimination.

Susan Sommer, senior lawyer at Lambda Legal, the gay rights organization that backed the same-sex marriage drive, vowed to appeal.

Support Companies that Support Us

The newest HRC Buyer's Guide is out now. Go here, download the file, print it out, and support those companies that support us best. Stay away from those companies that scored low. Help US all when you shop!

We laugh, we love, we cry...

anytime


View more video clips at Yashi

Lawsuit update

Well, it's been over a year and a half since I first contacted the ACLU -- this process moves laboriously slow. It's seeming turtle-paced progress is primarily due to the fact that this case is reviewed, not only by my own lawyer, but by lawyers within the ACLU all the way up to the national office. And these folks don't like to lose so they meet and meet and meet on strategy, wording, legal issues, etc.

It took most of 2004 before they even filed the lawsuit -- I'd contacted them in March and it was January 2005 when the lawsuit was filed (it was amended in February). Overall, my life has been pretty uneventful, with regard to the lawsuit. I worried about a lot of stress and negative reaction from within my place of employment but, once the initial buzz ended, that was pretty much that. I've met some great people within the workplace as a direct result of the news article and for that, I'm grateful. There are some folks whom I've known all along who, once the news became public, expressed to me that they had opposed same-sex marriage but, after realizing that it affected someone they knew and respected in such a negative way, they bothered to ask questions and research the issue and are now supportive of it. Some remain unchanged in their views regarding the "morality" of allowing queers to marry, but they stick strongly to their beliefs and, for the most part, are respectful regarding them. I respect that as well, for the most part. While I believe it to be woefully ignorant to base the right of marriage solely on genitals, I respect their opinions -- they can oppose it without demonizing the GLBT community.

Lisa's family included me in their name-draw for Christmas this year. Her mother pulled her aside on Thanksgiving and told her that, while she'd expressed a desire to have me included, she'd have to ask the rest of the siblings and older grandkids if it was okay with them. This begs the question "Did you have to canvass the family when your son married your daughter-in-law?" On a much smaller scale, this is exactly the same thing as asking the nation to vote on whether our relationships should be recognized as valid and, with that recognition, protected in the same way that heterosexuals' relationships are. How come we don't get to vote on whether it's proper for THEM to marry? But, with Lisa's family, it's still a small step forward. It's progress. And, as long as there's progress being made, isn't that okay? Do we have to take an "all or nothing" approach in our demand for recognition? I don't think so.

I got an email yesterday from the lawyer's office, with two attachments. They are the documents to be submitted to the court that request a summary judgment on the case. They point out that, during the process of depositions, it was determined that the facts themselves are not in dispute. It's the law (or the perception of the law by my employer).

In short, the lawsuit stems from the fact that I was denied spousal benefits at my place of employment. I am represented by a union and, in the union's contract with the employer, there is no language which specifically grants medical benefits to any spouse. The contract simply states that the employee may enroll. It was this "hole" that I was poking at, regarding the discrimination. I was told by the HR Director that NY State does not recognize civil unions. She also said (after our July marriage in Canada) that the contract did not allow her to grant the benefits, even though the contract was silent on opposite sex spouses as well.

Additionally, there is no definition of "spouse," either in the union contract, or anywhere within my place of employment -- meaning that it doesn't limit the definition to opposite gendered married couples.

These are the two key points that are being made, charging discrimination.

What slays me is that this union contract has been around for more than 4 decades and it took some dumbass like me to find this hole -- how could that be? I actually tripped over it myself when I was writing a rebuttal to the HR Director's refusal to extend benefits last March. I went to the contract to quote, verbatim, what the contract said about spouses. We'd just gone through the New Paltz marriage mill and I was trying to make a Pat sort of point. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that there was no language regarding spouses with regard to health insurance!

When I pointed it out to the union President, she insisted that the language was there and, when I told her to look, she dropped her jaw on the floor when she read that section of the contract and realized that, in fact, spouses were not included. The HR Director did the same thing -- insisted over and over that the language was there and, when the union President and I sat in her office and challenged her to find the language, she took out the contract book, read the section THREE times, then looked up and said "Well, it's IMPLIED."

Of course, our new contract now contains language including spouses. This was most likely the union's doing since, the way it was written before, the employer could back right out of spousal health benefits at any given moment.

If you're interested, copies of the motion and affirmation can be downloaded (they can't be viewed online, they have to be downloaded -- they're Word files). Click here for the affirmation, and click here for the motion.

I figure that, with the pace this thing has shown thus far, these documents will be filed sometime after the first of the year. MAYBE, just maybe, we'll have a resolution or a ruling before Christmas of 2006.