Anti-Gay Marriage Grandpa's Got A Gay Granddaughter
Erica Diaz, 22, is the lesbian granddaughter of New York State's most outspoken gay-marriage foe -- state Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. She's also the girlfriend of Naomi Torres, with whom she has two sons. They're pictured at the link. She tells the New York Post:
My grandfather, state Sen. Rev. Ruben Diaz, spoke about marriage equality on a Spanish radio station in April. He was joined on the airwaves by a priest who said, "Gay people are worthy of death."Papa didn't say anything. I was shattered.
I am the gay granddaughter of Albany's most outspoken marriage-equality opponent. Until now, out of love, I closeted my feelings about my family's patriarch, who has so vehemently denounced gay rights.
But my grandfather should know that as he continues to skewer the marriage-equality bill on the radio, television and in newspapers, I am listening and reading. And I've finally conjured the courage to stand up for what is right.
...When I was younger, marriage equality was not an issue for me. But now, as my grandfather ceaselessly and callously comments on the issue, each and every word stings, since I live with my girlfriend of 2½ years, Naomi Torres, and our two sons, Jared and Jeremiah Munoz.
This fight is personal.
My family deserves the same benefits as others. Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick.
And my grandfather has witnessed our love. At Christmas he lovingly played with our children.
But as he continued to ratchet up his rhetoric, something in me snapped. I decided to show up at his rally last month on the steps of the Bronx County Courthouse so that he could face a person he loved, a person who was gay, as he spoke against us.
Again, as she writes: My family deserves the same benefits as others. Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick.
Absolutely right.
"Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick."
Marriage may provide a whole package of stuff in one neat package. However, nearly everything in marriage can be duplicated with an ordinary legal agreement. Surely by now some gay-rights organization has put together a legal package that does exactly this? If not, they have seriously failed their members.
Sometimes it is better to stop ramming yourself into the wall. Just walk around it instead; reach your goal by other means. Eventually, the whole issue will become irrelevant.
a_random_guy at June 6, 2011 1:14 AM
Ignorant, myopic, and irrelvant - three words to describe the comments of evolis and random guy.
I'd say it was the fault of the black community not to have funded buses and restaraunts for blacks during Jim Crow - a similar argument in terms of pathetic use of logic and insensitivity.
I don't know why anyone is surprised that a priest is advocating ignorance and hatred. After all, they do support and protect pedophiles.
Andrew Hall at June 6, 2011 4:08 AM
What is also interesting to me is when a political or religious belief becomes a face as is the case with this Sen. Diaz and his granddaughter. He plays lovingly with her children, his grandchildren, yet goes out and fights not in support of her family, but against it. How does he look in their faces and then go out and speak against something he is able to see and touch?
Kristen at June 6, 2011 5:20 AM
Andrew, so polite. Don't you thing that systematic discrimination in all aspects of life is rather different from being denied the use of a single, specific form of contractual arrangement? The people on both sides of the gay-marriage argument are making a mountain out of a molehill.
About the only thing you cannot duplicate is the option of filing a joint tax return. Everything else can be wrapped up in a nice, neat contract. If the gay rights organizations haven't already done this - created ready-to-use contractual packages - it may be a sign that they are more interested in creating uproar than actually being of service to their constituents.
Ignorantly, myopically and irrelevantly yours...
a_random_guy at June 6, 2011 5:45 AM
However, nearly everything in marriage can be duplicated with an ordinary legal agreement.
Super! Then straight people can avail themselves of that, too, and all marriages under the state can be dissolved. You're fine with that, right?
Amy Alkon at June 6, 2011 6:09 AM
with whom she has two sons.
Wow. I missed something in biology class.
BlogDog at June 6, 2011 6:15 AM
"should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick."
She can. If it's not worth the 5 mins it would take her to fill out the form available free online or in any medical office, I can't really feel sorry for her.
And yes, Amy, did the state get out of the marriage business, you can be assured DH and I would be filling those forms out immediately.
I have a rep for being rapidly anti-gay marriage on here, and I'm not. I simply think whining about someone not giving you something you can take yourself for free with nearly no effort, is pathetic.
momof4 at June 6, 2011 6:28 AM
Am I fine heterosexual couples not marrying, but just usimg some other contractual arrangement as they see fit? Sure, why not?
a_random_guy at June 6, 2011 6:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/06/anti-gay_grandp.html#comment-2223402">comment from BlogDogwith whom she has two sons. Wow. I missed something in biology class.
My friend David has a son with his wife, P. Their son happens to be adopted -- a wonderful little mirthful boy from Korea. Is he not their son because they didn't have him the traditional way?
Amy Alkon at June 6, 2011 6:43 AM
This whole thing is so blown out of proportion. Yes, you CAN have legal contractual agreements with your significant other, whether you're the same damn sex or not! What is it about this that people aren't getting?? If you're feeling THAT put-upon because you can't "get married", you need to find a way to get over yourselves. Legal contracts are as binding as a marriage, if not moreso. The more you make noise about it, the more you call attention to the fact that you're being big babies about it all. Being gay is NOT the same as being heterosexual, yet you think that by insisting you should be able to "get married" in a conventional way, that that's going to change things? Personally, I don't care if you're gay or not. But don't keep shoving it in my face that you're different and want special privileges that I supposedly "take for granted". I don't. In fact, BF and I have a legal contract that makes us each other's proxy if we should ever need it for medical and other purposes, and we're NOT married. Yet. If we ever decide to. Who knows? We're not worried about it. We're a couple, everyone who needs to know, knows. We've got an ageement in place that's binding, and right now, that's enough. We're not broadcasting it hither and yon just to gain attention. That kind of attention we don't want (or need).
Flynne at June 6, 2011 7:07 AM
Technically "Marriage" is not the same thing as being lawfully joined and protected. "Marriage" is a religious term. It's a man and women joined together by God and the church. There is no legal contract, no tax obligation, legal protection, none of that stuff that the gay community wants and should get. It's merely a spiritual joining of a couple, or at least, that's what it use to be until the government decided that there was money to be gained from it.
It wasn't until the government got involved that "marriage" became "legal contract" and/or "civil union". There are legal contracts that allow legal protection for same sex couples though. Hell, homosexuals can even have religious ceremonies that join them spiritually in some churches, if not legally. The only differense is they can't file jointly for taxes or legally change thier name because of marriage. Otherwise, the legal protection option is there in most states.
Now, do I care that the marriage and civil union have become interchangeable? My Christian teaching tells me I should, because being gay is suppossed to be a sin and the bible condemns it and therefore same sex couples cannot be "spritually" married... But on a personal level, that's where my faith challenges my common sense and human decency. I don't view homosexuality as a sin or an assault on family values so I guess that makes me a bad Christian. I just don't think that people have the right to deny humans the same basic rights as other humans based on sexual orientation.
Sabrina at June 6, 2011 7:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/06/anti-gay_grandp.html#comment-2223481">comment from SabrinaStraight people can marry people from another country. Gay people cannot. Gay people should not have to go some special route to protect their rights. But, as long as we deny gay people rights, they should be allowed to pay less in taxes. They should get the partial citizenship rights tax break.
Amy Alkon at June 6, 2011 7:31 AM
"BF and I have a legal contract that makes us each other's proxy if we should ever need it for medical and other purposes, and we're NOT married. Yet."
Flynne, you have the option of saying "yet." A gay couple does not have that option. They are not saying they are different and want special rights. They are saying they should have the right to marry. As much as the argument is why are they fighting for it, my question is why are people fighting against it if its no big deal?
Kristen at June 6, 2011 7:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/06/anti-gay_grandp.html#comment-2223518">comment from KristenFlynne, you have the option of saying "yet."
Exactly. As do Gregg and I.
Amy Alkon at June 6, 2011 7:54 AM
But don't keep shoving it in my face that you're different and want special privileges(...)
A lot of people criticize gay people for drawing attention to themselves. I'd agree with you if most of society's reaction to gay people was, "OK cool. Whatever floats your boat" -- which seems to be your reaction, Flynne.
Unfortunately, that's often not the case. Much of society sees two men holding hands or raising a child as a "political statement." Others see it as an abomination and use whatever platforms they have available to disseminate their vitriolic thoughts on the matter and convert others to their way of thinking.
Now, an interesting thing happens when a group of people is roundly criticized by much of society: they throw parades!I used to live in a city that has an annual pitbull parade -- in response to some neighborhoods not allowing them. Public criticism turned dogowners who were formerly content to go about their own lives into t-shirt-wearing, parade-organizing, sign-toting activists.
sofar at June 6, 2011 8:00 AM
Yer preachin' to the choir, Kristen. I don't have anything against gays getting married. Unfortunately, people in higher places with more say-so than I, DO seem to have something against it. Until that changes, I don't see how I personally can do anything about it. And even though I have the option of saying "yet" that doesn't mean that we will get married. And if we don't, we still have that contract in place. And truthfully, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I think that gay couples can save themselves a lot of grief just by having that kind of a contract, rather than not having it just because they can't get married in the conventional sense. Why would you cut your nose off to spite your face? I realize that a lot of people will pull up the "it's the principle" argument, but still, having something in place regardless will help ease some matters, won't it?
Flynne at June 6, 2011 8:07 AM
However, nearly everything in marriage can be duplicated with an ordinary legal agreement.
Let's not forget about the fact that, if you want to cover a domestic partner under your health insurance at work, those benefits will be taxed. This is not the case when covering a spouse.
No "neat package" contract can change federal tax law.
sofar at June 6, 2011 8:12 AM
But don't keep shoving it in my face that you're different and want special privileges(...)
One of my closest friends is gay. He has been living with his partner for a little over six years. He isn't in anyone's face. His life is quiet. He owns a business, a home, contributes to charity, plants a garden, and sometimes goes to a movie on a Friday night. There is nothing about him or his lifestyle that shouts, "look at me, I'm different." He has been a wonderful friend to me and my kids adore him. To us, he is no different than any of the hetero couples we are close with except they can all marry the people they love.
Kristen at June 6, 2011 8:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/06/anti-gay_grandp.html#comment-2223592">comment from sofarLet's not forget about the fact that, if you want to cover a domestic partner under your health insurance at work, those benefits will be taxed. This is not the case when covering a spouse. No "neat package" contract can change federal tax law.
There is no reason to deny people rights based on sexual orientation. We don't permit it in any other sphere.
Amy Alkon at June 6, 2011 8:16 AM
If it's not worth the 5 mins it would take her to fill out the form available free online or in any medical office, I can't really feel sorry for
A durable power of attorney requires more than simply filling out a form for free, sorry.
The more you make noise about it, the more you call attention to the fact that you're being big babies about it all.
That's right. If you think the law discriminates against you, you should just STFU already. Because really, if you want to change things, the last thing you should do is call attention to them.
Christopher at June 6, 2011 8:20 AM
I get that, Kristen. The guy who lives in back of us is gay too, and I've known him since 2nd grade. I love him to death, as do my daughters. BF, not so much, but I think that's because he's scared of him! Don't ask me why. BF has had beers with him before. He comes over for barbeque with us all the time. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't understand why, if some issues can be solved with having a contract, you wouldn't just have one.
Flynne at June 6, 2011 8:23 AM
Christopher, come on. I'm not saying that. I am saying, though, that there are other ways to go about changing things rather than petulantly saying "it's not fair!" and being in peoples' faces about it. There are some people who genuinely don't care, and there are some who do care, but recognize the fact that they aren't in a position to change it. Screaming at me because you can't get married isn't going to change that. Getting involved in the political process might. There are some that are doing that, and good for them. I'm not standing in their way.
Flynne at June 6, 2011 8:27 AM
"About the only thing you cannot duplicate is the option of filing a joint tax return."
And the ability to transfer your entire estate tax-free to your loved one.
snakeman99 at June 6, 2011 8:42 AM
Flynne, every segment of society that has faced discrimination has had activists who may be bolder or in your face. Getting involved in the political process is not easy when there are people who lean towards conservative family values lines and think homosexuality is a sin and shouldn't be accepted as a part of society. The gay community has a legitimate argument when it comes to being treated equally.
Why is it fair that I can re-marry as many times as I want because I'm straight but two gay people can't? My ex-husband is an abusing serial cheater. He has no respect for the institution of marriage, yet he can do it again any time he likes. Its unjust. Gay people pay taxes. Gay people live by the same laws we live by. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?
Kristen at June 6, 2011 8:45 AM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't understand why, if some issues can be solved with having a contract, you wouldn't just have one.
Unfortunately not all issues can be solved with a contract, even if you "just have one" (taxes on group insurance benefits, for example). And giving some adult couples options that aren't given to other adult couples strikes a lot of people as unfair. Even if every single privilege available to married couples were made available to gay ones, it's still not fair to expect the gay couples to jump through extra hoops to get them.
sofar at June 6, 2011 8:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/06/anti-gay_grandp.html#comment-2223688">comment from snakeman99"About the only thing you cannot duplicate is the option of filing a joint tax return." And the ability to transfer your entire estate tax-free to your loved one.
This is a big deal, don't you agree (and thanks, Snake, for pointing that out). If straight people are allowed this, gay people should be allowed to avail themselves of this as well.
Amy Alkon at June 6, 2011 9:00 AM
Flynne, you're correct that there are better and worse ways of drawing attention to a cause, and no doubt some of what gay activists do may seem like whining to some. But publicly raising the issue, and presenting one's perspective (in this case, that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is unfair and wrong) is an indispensable part of the political process in a democratic society.
Christopher at June 6, 2011 9:00 AM
"Technically "Marriage" is not the same thing as being lawfully joined and protected. "Marriage" is a religious term. It's a man and women joined together by God and the church. There is no legal contract, no tax obligation, legal protection, none of that stuff that the gay community wants and should get. "
No, Sabrina, it is a legal term. That's the point. That's what people are after; the church thing is not even on the table. And no, the Church does not own the word. Remember that the Church didn't even perform weddings for the first 1,000 years.
Jim at June 6, 2011 9:20 AM
To the schmuck who missed biology class - gay couples have kids the same goddam way countless straight couples do, you mindless troll. They adopt. They use artificial insemination. This might be news to you, but there are millions of straight couples who are just as incapable of conceiving as any gay couple. Do you really want to go out in the world and start preaching the message that children who were not conceived by their parents' love-making aren't really their parent's children?
It's not entirely unclear as to why you don't understand where babies come from.
Josh Olson at June 6, 2011 9:28 AM
The gay community has a legitimate argument when it comes to being treated equally.
Totally agree with you on that.
Unfortunately not all issues can be solved with a contract, even if you "just have one" (taxes on group insurance benefits, for example).
I get this, too. My only issue is with those people who go off on you (or me) like it's our fault! I am totally sympathetic to their plight, but when you get all up in my face is when I have to question whether you're really serious about the issue, or just making noise to be heard, without thinking things through. That old adage, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, would seem to apply. Granted, the old boy network that our government is entrenched in, and the religious right flinging their idiocy all over the place, don't help matters. The wheels turn slowly, but turn, they do. Obviously, it's not going to happen overnight, but I think it will happen. Will it happen soon enough for most people? Probably not. But what it's going to take is time and perseverance. The former, we have in abundance. The latter, not so much. But there are people working for it, aren't there? So it's bound to happen eventually.
Flynne at June 6, 2011 9:38 AM
My only issue is with those people who go off on you (or me) like it's our fault!
OK I think I'm getting your point better now! Militant people are annoying, no matter what their cause. I've never had anyone really go off at me about gay rights. But I know a lot of people who see two women kissing in public 20 feet away as "shoving it in their face." I incorrectly assumed that's where you were coming from.
sofar at June 6, 2011 10:02 AM
I honestly think that marriage should be eliminated as a legal fixture all together. It's too intertwined in custom/culture. Honestly, I'd like some kind of "civil union" that is identical to marriage (at least legally), but can be made by any two consenting adults.
Then we can let people be "married" in any way they want, by whatever authority they think has spiritual power. But we can let the civil union dictate things like residence privileges, tax benefits, etc.
That said, I sincerely doubt that most people are for eliminating straight marriage, so it only seems fair to let gays have the same right. *shrugs* I honestly don't get why people seem to think that giving a right to someone else makes things less special for them. That's a very 2 year old way to think about the world.
Lia at June 6, 2011 10:17 AM
Militant people are annoying, no matter what their cause.
Yes! This! Exactly this.
But I know a lot of people who see two women kissing in public 20 feet away as "shoving it in their face." I incorrectly assumed that's where you were coming from.
Exactly. I couldn't care less! Now if they were two feet away from me, I might have to say something, but I would to a hetero couple too. As in, hey, get a room or something. Especially if there was tongue involved. Because, ya know, it ain't polite to look, and I might have to! And (oh the horror!) I might even get *gasp* turned on! Can't have that, now, can we??
o.O
Flynne at June 6, 2011 10:18 AM
same tired f'in g argument, new day. Gays have the same right to marry as I do .... the opposite sex.
ronc at June 6, 2011 10:29 AM
"No, Sabrina, it is a legal term. That's the point. That's what people are after; the church thing is not even on the table. And no, the Church does not own the word. Remember that the Church didn't even perform weddings for the first 1,000 years."
But it wasn't always. That's my point. In any sense, we both agree that it should change but we are aguming semantics of the word marriage. I'll try to explain my reasoning. Our current marriage practices evolved from English customs long before colonzation.
Prior to the Church and State getting involved, it was simply a private matter in which two people, and their families promised to be joined together if life. The English Church got it's hands on it around the 12th century and made it a Church matter where Marriage (or matrimony) became the term they used for the spritiual and physical lifelong union. As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. As Roman Catholic was the main religion at that time, it became the way of the land.
It wasn't until the around the 17th century that the state got involved with the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage" for recognition.(From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition by John Witte Jr.) The Act did not apply to Jewish marriages or those of Quakers whose marriages continued to be governed by their own customs. The English laws of marriage basically followed the pilgrims over from Europe where they remained in place even after we became our own Indepenant nation. As our government grew more powerful, more restrictions and laws regarding "marriage" came into play. My point is, Marriage has become the legal term for "civil union" but can still be used to describe a spritual comittment ceremony in the church as well. It's semantics.
And a "wedding" is not the same thing as a "Marriage". A civil ceremony (the legal part) often takes place at the same time as the religious ceremony (spritual Marriage). The civil ceremony is where the license makes it a legal union but the state doesn't require a wedding ceremony for that. The civil ceremony is what makes it a legal "marriage" but the spritual marriage can take without the legalities by some churches. The spritual ceremony is the "wedding". Basically, anyone can have a "wedding" to show their comittment. However, if the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage is not recognized by government under the law. THAT's the part we are trying to change. The LEGAL part of the CIVIL ceremony now called "Marriage".
I was only pointing out that the gay community is fighting for the wrong thing. They need to fight for the right to have the legal civil union and all the protections that come with it, not just "Marriage" as they can still have a spritual marriage in some religions.
God I hope I am making sense. I tried to type this fast and still need to eat lunch...
Sabrina at June 6, 2011 10:34 AM
Makes perfect sense to me, Sabrina. Thanks for delving that deep into it.
Flynne at June 6, 2011 10:41 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/06/anti-gay_grandp.html#comment-2223962">comment from roncsame tired f'in g argument, new day. Gays have the same right to marry as I do .... the opposite sex.
Ridiculous. This protects the children in their same-sex relationships how?
I don't care how easy is apparently is to draw up partnership documents; if straight citizens are allowed to marry, gay citizens should have the same right.
Oh, and regarding all the smirks like that above, about how gays have the same right to marry as you do -- a person of the opposite sex -- here's a question for you: Marrying somebody you aren't attracted to of the opposite sex would be a mistake, right? A poor way to start a union, right, especially a union with kids, where it matters that the parents stay together?
Amy Alkon at June 6, 2011 10:46 AM
Thanks Flynne. I was convinced that I had thoroughly confused everyone due to the fact that lack of food makes me incoherent...
I actually did a lot of that research back in my college days when I was still convinced I was going to go to a Christian college... Funny how I ended up in theatre instead...
Sabrina at June 6, 2011 11:12 AM
Another thing people tend not to remember is that a "marriage" is supposed to last a lifetime. The "marriage" is the relationship that the couple lives in. The "wedding" is the ceremony that lasts, what? only a few hours out of the rest of the couple's life together. And just because you get "married", there's no guarantee that you'll stay that way.
Flynne at June 6, 2011 11:20 AM
"Gays have the same right to marry as I do .... the opposite sex."
Somebody always tries to bring up this silliness. Same argument dismissed by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia ("blacks have the same rights I do . . to marry in their own race!"), the CA Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases, and most recently by the Northern District of California in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Freedom to marry = freedom to choose your spouse.
. . . aaaaaaand . . . cue the doomsayers who fear people choosing to marry their dogs and broomsticks.
snakeman99 at June 6, 2011 11:30 AM
Much ado about nothing.
This shouldn't even be an 'issue' get the government out of marriage!
Difranco at June 6, 2011 11:32 AM
There isn't much to say here that hasn't already been said. I will say, however, that the morass of paperwork required for two people living together but not married to receive any kind of partnership benefits is absolutely ridiculous, regardless of gender. Many things have to be done individually and with ten times the forms that married couples have to use. In some cases, such as health insurance, you can't get those benefits at all -- it's up to the whim of whoever is running the insurance. I certainly couldn't get onto my husband's insurance until after we were officially married, even though we lived together for several years beforehand.
No matter how much you want to say you can replicate marriage with some other paperwork, you really can't. And what paperwork you do manage to put together, it's even more of a nightmare to untangle it should you stop being a couple. We already have a fully fleshed out system in place to deal with couples that have decided to mingle their lives in a (mostly) permanent way. To deny certain people access to it based solely on gender is unfair.
P.S. Transgender marriage muddles the waters even further. What happens if a man marries a woman and later decides to become a woman himself? I don't even think that's been tested in court yet.
Sarah at June 6, 2011 11:42 AM
"...aaaaaaand . . . cue the doomsayers who fear people choosing to marry their dogs and broomsticks."
Dear God NOOOOOO!....what about the puuuppppiiiieees!?
*Ahem*
Why can't they just keep it simple and change the law to allow "Two consenting Human adults" to marry and leave it at that without all the gender or race conditions.
I don't understand all this "but the gays are ruining the sactity of marriage"! B.S. that the naysayers keep pushing. Because you know, affairs with prostitutes and interns ruin the sactity of marriage too... But ssssssh... don't tell them that. It will RUIN thier weekends.
Sabrina at June 6, 2011 11:51 AM
"that the morass of paperwork required for two people living together but not married to receive any kind of partnership benefits is absolutely ridiculous, regardless of gender"
I'll just add that this actually doesn't bother me. If one is going to claim status benefits, one should be tasked with accomplishing whatever objective steps are required to qualify for that status. It just so happens that getting married gets you a bundle of them right away, whereas co-habitating requires that you pick and choose and execute documents.
snakeman99 at June 6, 2011 11:59 AM
snakeman99 wrote:Freedom to marry = freedom to choose your spouse.
Exactly! And I'm sick of people arguing that allowing gay people to get married would make things more complicated. How? The way I see it, just allowing all unrelated consenting adults to get married would make things simpler -- and would eliminate the time and money spent arguing about this crap in and out of court: "Are you both adults? Can you sign a contract? OK, congrats, you're married."
Amy wrote: Ridiculous. This protects the children in their same-sex relationships how?
I think some people have trouble wrapping their heads around the idea that gay couples want the same things straight ones want -- like children. And that they, too, are capable of raising them.
sofar at June 6, 2011 12:00 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/06/anti-gay_grandp.html#comment-2224264">comment from sofarWe just had dinner with a good woman friend of ours, a friend who happens to be gay and who raised two incredibly exemplary boys who are now in college, and just simply great people with great integrity, and who are two of the most well-adjusted 20-somethings I've encountered in a long time. What would have been problematic about allowing this woman to marry her partner? Why should she have been denied the opportunity to do this?
Amy Alkon at June 6, 2011 12:28 PM
However, nearly everything in marriage can be duplicated with an ordinary legal agreement. Surely by now some gay-rights organization has put together a legal package that does exactly this? - a_random_guy
Very true, of course it does cost thousands of dollars in legal fees to file those agrements with the courts.
And you have to keep a copy of each and every agreement with you at all times in case of an accident (hopefully said accident wont destroy the documnets)
And ofcourse hospital staff can still ignore those dicrective if they feel like it, but at least you'll have grounds for a lawsuit after being barred from your loved ones death bead and final moments.
lujlp at June 6, 2011 3:28 PM
Exactly. I couldn't care less! Now if they were two feet away from me, I might have to say something, but I would to a hetero couple too. As in, hey, get a room or something. Especially if there was tongue involved. Because, ya know, it ain't polite to look, and I might have to! And (oh the horror!) I might even get *gasp* turned on! Can't have that, now, can we??
o.O
Posted by: Flynne
Me, I stare at such people until they become uncomfortable. If their particularly oblivious I'll start talking dirty to them
lujlp at June 6, 2011 3:40 PM
"We just had dinner with a good woman friend of ours, a friend who happens to be gay and who raised two incredibly exemplary boys who are now in college, and just simply great people with great integrity, and who are two of the most well-adjusted 20-somethings I've encountered in a long time. What would have been problematic about allowing this woman to marry her partner? Why should she have been denied the opportunity to do this?"
Just out of curiosity, what about the bio dad? Does he have a role in the kids lives or was he basically just a sperm doner?
One of the many problems with "gay" marriage is that our whole legal system is designed around rights and obligations based on biological paternity and maternity.
Libertarians seem to want a lot of things that are incompatible with each other. i.e. gay marriage but also father's rights.
I can envision a whole new marketing nitch, "bootleg sperm" from foreign countries, untraceable back to any US resident that the courts can envision sticking for child support)
I personally know two women who are in a long term gay relationship. Well actually I know a few more than that, but I am going to talk about these particular ones. The first woman was a school teacher in my home town. She was married to a professional man and they had two kids.
A few years later she fell in love with a 16 year old girl who was in one of her classes. I don't know if they had a sexual relationship when the girl was in high school but they sure had one by the time the girl was in college. (Since the girl moved in with the teacher and her husband when she was 16, I am going to assume that they probably did have a sexual relationship at that time)
The teacher, a few years later, divorced the husband of the two kids and started living exclusively with the woman who had been her student. Dad got to see the kids but paid a lot of child support because of course, the lesbian mother got custody. Both nice people? Sure, I like both women, however a lot of unethical and possibly some illegal things took place for this long term relationship to form. And of course, as usual, the man got the shaft.
In our current legal system, no man in his right mind would become a bio dad voluntarily for kids that he would never get to raise and might assume thousands of dollars in expenses for all the way through college if some court determines him to be legally responsible for said child.
I guarantee you that if gay marriage ever becomes a reality in this country, gay divorce will get even uglier than regular divorce with the bio mom and the bio dad of any children involved in the custody dispute getting priority over the non bio gay parent. (Which is almost exactly what happens when you are a step parent and the relationship fails) Yea, life sucks and it is really unfair. Get over it.
The inheritance law argument is even flimsier. Only one person out of every legal partnership benefits from it. That is the spouse who dies last. These laws were designed to protect women who did not work (because they were at home raising kids) after their husband's death, and to keep them off the public dole.
When the second person in any marriage dies they are in the same boat as the never married. Their estate will pass to their family or the person of their choice based on the laws of the state that they live in.
By the way, currently any estate under 5 mil is tax free for the next two years at least. If you have more than that, I hardly feel sorry for you for not being able to be both "married" and the married partner that dies last.
A little trust between two relatives or friends and joint ownership of all assets will keep you out of probate in the state that I live in, If it doesn't in your state, your beef is with the inheritance laws of the state that you live in, and not the "marriage" laws.
Isabel1130 at June 6, 2011 4:17 PM
"currently any estate under 5 mil is tax free for the next two years at least. If you have more than that, I hardly feel sorry for you for not being able to be both "married"
Excellent. Now we know the price of equal protection under Isobel's law. Somewhere south of $5 million. Always good to hear from the honored proletariat.
snakeman99 at June 6, 2011 5:09 PM
If you are married and have more than 5 mil I think you will find that you do not get off with no taxes because of joint ownership. This is why rich people have trusts. Joint ownership actually protects only modest estates, not large family farms and the like. You need very sophisticated tax shelters and corporate status to protect a large estate. Marriage protects no more than the regular inheritance laws do. That was my point.
As far as it being "my law" you would be wrong there. I neither make nor necessarily endorse the laws as they exist. I am just trying to tell you that gay marriage will remedy an almost non existent problem at the expense of creating many larger ones, that our legal system is not designed to deal with.
The people most likely to get screwed, as usual, are heterosexual men who already have little to no incentive to ever marry or have children as it is.
Eventually a legal system that screws them in the name of "social justice" will cause the social structure to pretty much collapse under its own weight, as the government becomes the daddy for every woman who wants to have kids without actually being married to the bio dad.
Isabel1130 at June 6, 2011 5:27 PM
I've been married coming up on 25 years- it's none of my business what two willing adults want to do with their lives, nor will it effect mine.
Eric at June 6, 2011 5:48 PM
"it's up to the whim of whoever is running the insurance. I certainly couldn't get onto my husband's insurance until after we were officially married, even though we lived together for several years beforehand."
It's up to the entity paying for the insurance, actually, not the insurance company. Some companies offer partner benefits for their employees, some offer spouse, some don't offer anything. As it should be-up to the individual company. Just like what company you choose to work for is up to you.
"Transgender marriage muddles the waters even further. What happens if a man marries a woman and later decides to become a woman himself? I don't even think that's been tested in court yet."
I can tell you-they get divorced, the original woman ends up raising 3 kids on her own with little money and a very screwed up head. I the case of a twin mom I know, at least.
"and would eliminate the time and money spent arguing about this crap in and out of court"
Except no, there is going to be plenty of time spent arguing it in court, on our dime, as the divorces and REALLY messed-up child custody cases start.
I think it ought to be a lot harder to get married-for everyone-and a lot harder to get unmarried, personally.
momof4 at June 6, 2011 6:06 PM
Flynne, as someone said earlier, many militants seem more obnoxious than effective, so I do get what you're saying with that. Its just a shame that this is even an issue.
Kristen at June 6, 2011 8:09 PM
Be careful who you hate. It might be someone you love.
the Strawboss at June 7, 2011 3:54 AM
As a serial offender (5x-slow learner...) who has done more to undermine the sanctity of heterosexual marriage than any same-sex married couple could possibly do, I rise to point out to the trogs who oppose marriage equality that if they really want to erode the frequency and ardor of same gendered sex they should be encouraging marriage equality.
You married couples know what I'm sayin'...
jollyroger at June 7, 2011 6:59 PM
I have to take issue with the tired argument of "Well, if these people would just hire a LAWYER...". There are all kinds of protections and benefits that simply aren't available with civil unions or even the most iron-clad wills. There's the fact that no legal document will allow my partner and I to file joint tax returns. There's the fact that if my partner wants to put me on his health insurance, he has to pay additional taxes because the federal government doesn't see me as a spouse, but rather some random guy being added to his plan. This is in spite of being legally married in Canada and living in a state that recognizes our marriage as valid. And don't get me started on how some states can legally ignore a person's will and defer to the wishes of relatives that couldn't have been bothered when the person was alive.
I personally am not hung up whether they call it "marriage", "Civil unions", or what have you. But the legal perks of marriage are not as readily available as some folks would have you believe. Trust me, those pesky, noisy activists have thought of all this.
JonnyT at June 7, 2011 7:51 PM
"I have to take issue with the tired argument of "Well, if these people would just hire a LAWYER..."."
You don't need a lawyer. For most things a simple form and a notary public (or two witnesses)are all you need.
"There are all kinds of protections and benefits that simply aren't available with civil unions or even the most iron-clad wills."
No such thing as an iron clad will. As anyone who has taken trusts and estates in Law School will tell you. Please define the protections and benefits you don't think are available through contract.
"There's the fact that no legal document will allow my partner and I to file joint tax returns."
Why would you want to file a joint tax return? If you both work, 98% of the time you will pay a lot more by filing a joint return. If my husband and I were both allowed to file as single on our individual income we would have saved thousands of dollars every year.
"There's the fact that if my partner wants to put me on his health insurance, he has to pay additional taxes because the federal government doesn't see me as a spouse, but rather some random guy being added to his plan."
Yes, and the taxes you pay on this will most likely not even come close to the thousands of dollars you save by not having to file jointly. People that throw this old lie out there need to read the tax code and look at the brackets. There is NO TAX ADVANTAGE FOR BEING MARRIED. You need to have kids (i.e dependents) to pay less.
"This is in spite of being legally married in Canada and living in a state that recognizes our marriage as valid."
Do you have any idea how much tax you would have to pay in Canada? Of course you would also get the benefit of that wonderful socialized medicine system so you would no longer have to worry about taxes on health insurance premiums. But of course, like most USA residents, you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Also hypothetically, do you think if you were a Muslim and had married three wives in your native country, and the state that you lived in recognized polygamy that the federal government of the US should have to recognize it too? Or what if you were 21 and had married a 14 year old in some foreign country where it was perfectly legal. The US government should recognize that marriage also? Didn't think so.
"And don't get me started on how some states can legally ignore a person's will and defer to the wishes of relatives that couldn't have been bothered when the person was alive."
Amazingly enough they can do that to hetro couples too. The state is pretty equal opportunity when it sets the laws for division of assets upon someone's death, and they don't always accord with the decadents undefined or ill defined wishes.
"I personally am not hung up whether they call it "marriage", "Civil unions", or what have you. But the legal perks of marriage are not as readily available as some folks would have you believe. Trust me, those pesky, noisy activists have thought of all this."
There I am in agreement with you There should be no legal perks or government benefits for being married period, in spite of the fact that most people grossly over estimate what those benefits are, and who they accrue to.
There is massive ignorance in this country as to what tax law and estate law actually is, as opposed to the straw man caricature that fits their preconceived notion of how badly they are being discriminated against.
Isabel1130 at June 7, 2011 9:53 PM
So Isabel, sounds like there's no good reason that gay couples shouldn't have the freedom to inconvenience themselves in the same way as heterosexual couples.
Christopher at June 8, 2011 1:57 PM
@Isabel, I don't want to spend hours going back and forth on every single argument you have. But I do have to make a couple of corrections:
Where did you read that I wanted to live in Canada? Please re-read my post. I didn't say that. You made that leap yourself. I said we got married in Canada (Ottawa City Hall to be exact). The marriage is legally recognized in the state where we reside as well as up North, but we can't actually get married here. We went to Canada so the marriage would be legal at home. This decision was partly based on reading about a couple who went through the process of a civil union in Vermont. One of them died due to a hospital's negligence, and the surviving partner was told in court he couldn't sue for an investigation because technically he wasn't a spouse. I don't want my partner to ever be told by anyone that he's a legal stranger to me.
I also never said that I wanted Canadian health care, or that it was financially preferable to my present options. My point was that straight married couples aren't saddled with the extra expenses that we have to face. Your husband can put you on his insurance and the benefits won't be viewed as additional taxable income. My husband and I don't have that option. The expense is far greater for us than for you. So yes, there is a tax advantage to being married.
As far as Muslims, polygamy, and marrying minors goes, it's apples and oranges. But thank you for the flattering implication that my marriage is on a par with polygamy, anti-female religions and child brides.
JonnyT at June 8, 2011 6:57 PM
Leave a comment