As of January 1, Lisa and I now have "domestic partner" benefits, which allow me to put Lisa on my health and dental insurance, as well as getting a tuition waiver for her if she decides to take classes here where I work. It also bestows beneficiary status to her with regards to my unearned income, should I die while still employed. She already has beneficiary status with regards to my retirement account -- a status granted a couple of years ago by state comptroller Havesi. We're doing the Snoopy dance based on the substantial savings that this will afford us in not having to maintain two separate health insurance policies. We're one step closer, but still have a long way to go.
In other news, I got quite a chuckle this morning out of this article which describes the arrest of an anti-gay pastor for soliciting the services of a male prostitute, who happened to be an undercover police officer.
There seems to be a prevalent theme these days of the most vocal opponents of GLBT equality either having their own sexual exploits discovered, or the discovery that their offspring or other family members are homosexual.
It makes me sit back and anxiously await the "outing" of the likes of Phelps, Falwell, even Bush.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Our Best to You
From our family to yours, our absolute best for the Christmas season and coming New Year.
With this, I'll be signing off until after Christmas.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Snippets
I've been busy with my father (who had a stroke last week), final exams week, Christmas preparations, and sheer exhaustion.
Lots going on in the world of marriage equality.
Of course right at the top of the list is Elton John's Civil Union with his long-time partner. Due to the throngs of fans and media, extra police presence was required and, of course, Elton John was billed for that (about $20,000). I found this little snippet interesting:
Frankly, I wouldn't care if they called it purple crunchy peanut butter, as long as the rights are equal.
Scotland began the same civil union law this week as well. Good for the UK!
No word yet on the state Supreme Court ruling out of Washington state regarding the constitutionality of the state's ban on granting marriage to GLBT members.
We'll be watching this closely.
In San Jose, California a judge has ordered the city to stop providing benefits to those GLBT members who were married in jurisdictions where those marriages were legal and valid.
The ruling cites Proposition 22, which was passed by voters a few years ago, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Then there's the on-again, off-again of Ford Motor Company. First they announced their plans to pull advertisement from all things gay, then they backtrack. Some pundits believe that it's less because of the meetings between Ford and the GLBT organizations and more because of the fear that the image of Ford being driven (pardon the pun, but it WAS intended) by extremist religious groups.
A U.S. Army Private was assaulted at Fort Huachuca, Arizona by a fellow servicemember after it was learned that the Private was gay. The private was made to sleep on a cot in his drill sergeant's office following the attack. The fact that there is a drill sergeant in the picture tells me that this is the old unit that I once belonged to at Fort Devens, which was moved to Ft. Huachuca. And, if this is the case, there are security clearances involved for both the private that was assaulted, and the one who did the assaulting. This is the US Army's Intelligence School and, believe me, there is still a "good old boy" network alive and well in that community in the Army.
The Army has not taken any action against the soldier who committed the assault. Big surprise there.
The city of Indianapolis has passed an anti-discrimination policy in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodations. Hey, every small step is a step in the right direction, right?
And, direct from the sanctity of marriage files, I bring to you.....my family.
My father, at the age of 68, began an "affair" over the internet with a woman from Brazil. She was married, wealthy, and pretty "loose," so to speak. My father traveled to Brazil a couple of times to see her, and she traveled to the US to see him. My aunt says the two of them visited her in Connecticut, when the Brazilian woman was pregnant. (We really DON'T want to know.)
Eventually my father realized this woman wasn't going to leave her wealthy husband and, when she asked my father to "take care" of her sister, he took her up on it. He married the younger sister quickly and brought her (and her little girl) to the US. His wife is 37 years his junior. She spoke not one word of English when she arrived here, nor did her 9 year old daughter. He spoke not one word of Portugese. He keeps her completely under his thumb, holding her green card over her head if she doesn't behave in exactly the way he thinks she should.
Apples don't fall far from the tree, though.
My brother, who is a year older than I, married in 1974. He was 19, she was 27 and had four kids, ranging in age from 18 months to 7 years. His wife passed away two years ago and, almost immediately, my brother began hanging out next door with a woman (Michelle) who had a couple of kids and was living with the father of the kids. They'd purchased the house together (the woman and her live-in boyfriend/father of the kids). For the past 2 years, it's been pretty well established that my brother and this woman have some kind of relationship. We learned last week that my brother and the woman married in August. Of course, THEY are still living in the same house with the live-in boyfriend/father of the kids and their marriage is a secret to him for what would seem to be obvious reasons.
Yeah...I can see how us queers can fuck up the sanctity of marriage.
Lots going on in the world of marriage equality.
Of course right at the top of the list is Elton John's Civil Union with his long-time partner. Due to the throngs of fans and media, extra police presence was required and, of course, Elton John was billed for that (about $20,000). I found this little snippet interesting:
Both marriage and partnerships have the same rights and responsibilities but gays and lesbians cannot call themselves married. The difference is critical for gay leaders who point out the inequity in the law, but for non-gays, especially the media, both are the same. The media has seldom used the phrase' civil partnership', opting instead to call the unions 'marriage'.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if they called it purple crunchy peanut butter, as long as the rights are equal.
Scotland began the same civil union law this week as well. Good for the UK!
No word yet on the state Supreme Court ruling out of Washington state regarding the constitutionality of the state's ban on granting marriage to GLBT members.
Legal experts say the court could rule in any of three ways: It could declare DOMA unconstitutional and grant same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals, uphold DOMA, or ask the Legislature to resolve the issue.
We'll be watching this closely.
In San Jose, California a judge has ordered the city to stop providing benefits to those GLBT members who were married in jurisdictions where those marriages were legal and valid.
In a Monday ruling Superior Court Judge Mary Jo Levinger said that the city regulation "is contrary to California law and is therefore pre-empted. Furthermore, only marriages between a man and a woman may be recognized by the City of San Jose."
The ruling cites Proposition 22, which was passed by voters a few years ago, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Then there's the on-again, off-again of Ford Motor Company. First they announced their plans to pull advertisement from all things gay, then they backtrack. Some pundits believe that it's less because of the meetings between Ford and the GLBT organizations and more because of the fear that the image of Ford being driven (pardon the pun, but it WAS intended) by extremist religious groups.
"Ford's response wasn't just to an outcry from GLBT people, but to the clear message from our families and friends that we will not tolerate Ford or any other corporations' surrender to the demands of extremist groups like the AFA."
A U.S. Army Private was assaulted at Fort Huachuca, Arizona by a fellow servicemember after it was learned that the Private was gay. The private was made to sleep on a cot in his drill sergeant's office following the attack. The fact that there is a drill sergeant in the picture tells me that this is the old unit that I once belonged to at Fort Devens, which was moved to Ft. Huachuca. And, if this is the case, there are security clearances involved for both the private that was assaulted, and the one who did the assaulting. This is the US Army's Intelligence School and, believe me, there is still a "good old boy" network alive and well in that community in the Army.
The Army has not taken any action against the soldier who committed the assault. Big surprise there.
The city of Indianapolis has passed an anti-discrimination policy in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodations. Hey, every small step is a step in the right direction, right?
And, direct from the sanctity of marriage files, I bring to you.....my family.
My father, at the age of 68, began an "affair" over the internet with a woman from Brazil. She was married, wealthy, and pretty "loose," so to speak. My father traveled to Brazil a couple of times to see her, and she traveled to the US to see him. My aunt says the two of them visited her in Connecticut, when the Brazilian woman was pregnant. (We really DON'T want to know.)
Eventually my father realized this woman wasn't going to leave her wealthy husband and, when she asked my father to "take care" of her sister, he took her up on it. He married the younger sister quickly and brought her (and her little girl) to the US. His wife is 37 years his junior. She spoke not one word of English when she arrived here, nor did her 9 year old daughter. He spoke not one word of Portugese. He keeps her completely under his thumb, holding her green card over her head if she doesn't behave in exactly the way he thinks she should.
Apples don't fall far from the tree, though.
My brother, who is a year older than I, married in 1974. He was 19, she was 27 and had four kids, ranging in age from 18 months to 7 years. His wife passed away two years ago and, almost immediately, my brother began hanging out next door with a woman (Michelle) who had a couple of kids and was living with the father of the kids. They'd purchased the house together (the woman and her live-in boyfriend/father of the kids). For the past 2 years, it's been pretty well established that my brother and this woman have some kind of relationship. We learned last week that my brother and the woman married in August. Of course, THEY are still living in the same house with the live-in boyfriend/father of the kids and their marriage is a secret to him for what would seem to be obvious reasons.
Yeah...I can see how us queers can fuck up the sanctity of marriage.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Musings
I found this letter to the Editor while perusing today's edition of 365gay.com news:
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:
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:
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?
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
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:
Friday, December 09, 2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)