NationStates Jolt Archive

From NPR:

The cost of love isn't an abstract concept in my household: It's precisely $1,820 per year. That's the "gay tax" we shell out for me to be on my wife's health insurance plan, because her company must treat that benefit as additional taxable income.

The media's primary focus on the morality debate around same-sex marriage means that most of the public, gay or straight, knows little about the very real economic costs of inequality. It doesn't matter that Joan and I married in Massachusetts five years ago this week, or that our home state recognizes our marriage. It makes no difference that she works for a progressive company with an active LGBT employees group. Companies pay for their employees' health insurance with pretax money through a federal program, and same-sex marriage isn't federally recognized.

We have the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act to thank for that. DOMA defines marriage as being the legal union of a man and a woman. On that basis, the federal government denies to legally married same-sex couples the 1,138 federal protections and benefits it extends to all other married couples. So I'm not surprised that a March 2009 report from UCLA found that same-sex partners are more likely to be poor than our heterosexual counterparts — in large part because of our lack of access to supposedly universal safety nets, such as a spouse's health insurance coverage and Social Security survivor benefits.

Consider the cost to Randy Lewis-Kendall, who lost his husband, Rob, to colon cancer in 2007, their 30th year together. He is about to be denied the $1,161 per month he would have collected in Social Security survivor benefits had his marriage been federally recognized. He could use it, too. The two men owned a small gift shop in Harwich on Cape Cod together, and Randy has been struggling to pay the bills since Rob's death and the economic downturn.

That price my wife and I pay for the depraved thrill of being two middle-aged women with a joint checking account? It's a drop in the bucket compared with what love is costing Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez. They've been together for 32 years and have paid nearly $20,000 more in taxes since their 2004 marriage than if they had been able to file a joint federal return.

DOMA doesn't just hurt our pride: It undermines our ability to take care of one another. Neither Joan nor I have the right to take family medical leave from our jobs in the event that one of us becomes seriously ill. In couples where one spouse is a U.S. citizen and the other is not, the citizen cannot obtain a visa for the noncitizen or sponsor him or her for citizenship. And forget about inheritance. If you're in a same-sex marriage and your spouse leaves her estate to you — for example, the house you shared — you'll be forced to pony up as much as 50 percent of her estate's value in taxes. Price tag for federally recognized married couples? Zero.

The good news is that Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which successfully fought for marriage equality in Massachusetts, filed a suit challenging DOMA in Boston's Federal District Court this past March. Plaintiffs include the aforementioned couples and six others, among them Dean Hara, the widower of U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds. The bad news is that we're looking at a long, slow march to the U.S. Supreme Court. And our current administration and Congress are full of officials who are quick to pay lip service to the concept of equality but won't lift a finger to change the law.

That's a shame, because DOMA is aging badly: Five states have legalized same-sex marriage since 1996 and still more are on the verge of doing so, while public support for marriage equality is growing. The government's insistence on charging same-sex married couples exorbitant fees for basic rights makes it look less like a defender of marriage than a loan shark.

Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104185289&sc=fb&cc=fp).

So where are the advocacy ads exposing this hidden cost of not allowing committed couples to marry? What, NSG, are your thoughts on the matter? Might the gross inequalities mentioned within the article even change some minds about this topic?

But recognising the Gheys will cost the State money!1

But the Evil Gays will cause America to be punished for it's many sins! Don't you listen to Radio and TV Preachers?

But the Evil Gays will cause America to be punished for it's many sins! Don't you listen to Radio and TV Preachers?

Ummm...

No.

I think people who oppose gay marriage need facts like these. It becomes harder to justify such inequality when the inequality in question is extremely concrete.

On a side note, I'm attending the wedding of two women I met in law school. Gay marriage here isn't really much of a blip on the radar anymore, even in conservative Alberta. Catch up, world.

I think people who oppose gay marriage need facts like these. It becomes harder to justify such inequality when the inequality in question is extremely concrete.

You assume gay-haters care.

You assume gay-haters care.

Here's the thing. What bigots hate is to be perceived as what they are. Narrow minded, stupid, inflexible, and malicious.

Homophobes who actually want to implement laws that reflect their beliefs, need to present those laws in a somewhat rational fashion beause they want to be seen as the good-guy, awash in righteous action. Usually they do this by mixing in a bit of fear-mongering with appeals to conservative values, but always they try to paint themselves as good, and just. A great deal of the time, they present their arguments as though the only inequality is in name...leave 'marriage' for us, you can be together, but you just don't get the title.

People like that have a hard time dealing with specific instances of legal inequality beyond 'names'. Fine, so you don't want gay people to call themselves married, cuz you don't want them to be like you...now explain why you think gay people should be deprived of economic benefits, legal rights, and so on. When you are able to use facts like those presented in the OP, you force your opponents to either admit that they don't really support depriving other people of these things in which case it weakens their position overall...or you get them to admit that they, for no real rational reason, want to discriminate against gays for the sake of discriminating against gays.

On a side note, I'm attending the wedding of two women I met in law school. Gay marriage here isn't really much of a blip on the radar anymore, even in conservative Alberta. Catch up, world.
When the US is behind Canada... Someone screwed up.:D

Don't hurt me please!

When the US is behind Canada... Someone screwed up.:D

Don't hurt me please!

It's not like it's the first time.

Here's the thing. What bigots hate is to be perceived as what they are. Narrow minded, stupid, inflexible, and malicious.

Homophobes who actually want to implement laws that reflect their beliefs, need to present those laws in a somewhat rational fashion beause they want to be seen as the good-guy, awash in righteous action. Usually they do this by mixing in a bit of fear-mongering with appeals to conservative values, but always they try to paint themselves as good, and just. A great deal of the time, they present their arguments as though the only inequality is in name...leave 'marriage' for us, you can be together, but you just don't get the title.

People like that have a hard time dealing with specific instances of legal inequality beyond 'names'. Fine, so you don't want gay people to call themselves married, cuz you don't want them to be like you...now explain why you think gay people should be deprived of economic benefits, legal rights, and so on. When you are able to use facts like those presented in the OP, you force your opponents to either admit that they don't really support depriving other people of these things in which case it weakens their position overall...or you get them to admit that they, for no real rational reason, want to discriminate against gays for the sake of discriminating against gays.

Point. But some WILL admit they want do discriminate against gays just because.

It's not like it's the first time.

So someone screwed up quite a few times...

Honestly, how the hell did we get from being probably the most, or at least one of the most liberal nations on the planet to this? Someone needs to answer for this, and it's coming out of their hides!:mad:

Point. But some WILL admit they want do discriminate against gays just because.

Such people (the Phelpses for example) tend to be dismissed as fringe elements, or rednecked rubes.

Bigots are still people, and people in general want other people to hold them in esteem.

Bigots are still people

Mmm...

Mmm...

Being an asshole doesn't change your genetic code.

Thank goodness. I'd hate to be a slug.

Being an asshole doesn't change your genetic code.

Thank goodness. I'd hate to be a slug.

Does it talk?

Gay tax. Well, if you really want to solve this crisis that sounds like a breakfast cereal. Next on the list?
Botox Tax! I mean, wouldn't that be useful? an incentive not to barbicize ones face and you make money!
Boob inflatment tax Like above, only with a better name
Almost-real whipped cream tax I mean, what? ALMOST real? wow, sounds mutating....
Moron tax The BNP would be bankrupt in weeks!
Internet forum troll tax Don't you all think this would be a great idea? No more "OMFG YOUZ A PEDO LOLZ LOLZ LOLZ" without a 4.25% charge!
Geez, don't you wish there was a knob on your computer to turn up intellignece? There's one marked brightness but it doesn't work

tl dr Are you suggesting we tax gays extra ??

If so I am against taxation.

Internet forum troll tax Don't you all think this would be a great idea? No more "OMFG YOUZ A PEDO LOLZ LOLZ LOLZ" without a 4.25% charge!
Geez, don't you wish there was a knob on your computer to turn up intellignece? There's one marked brightness but it doesn't work
It only hurt my eyes.:(

It only hurt my eyes.
See! It worked! It means to are blind so you can't the fact that every 11 in 10 people are certified idiots!
You also can't see me steal your wallet....EVERYBODY WINS!

tl dr Are you suggesting we tax gays extra ??

If so I am against taxation.

Ah, G&D is drunk once more. I feel at home again. :tongue:

I think people who oppose gay marriage need facts like these. It becomes harder to justify such inequality when the inequality in question is extremely concrete.
You confuse homophobes with rational people.

Ah, G&D is drunk once more. I feel at home again. :tongue:

did you miss my drunken posting ?

did you miss my drunken posting ?
Indeed I did. It just wouldn't be NSG without it. :p

You confuse homophobes with rational people.

And you assume irrational people never attempt to appear rational.

Bigots are masters at rationalising their own behaviour. No one looks at themselves and says, 'Wow, that's disgusting, I can't believe I hold that belief!' This isn't self-deception alone...they do not present their righteous beliefs to others while recognising their own bigotry, they honestly believe that people need to see the truth from their side.

The slavering, mouth-breathing, monosyllabic bigot is rare. The ones you really have to worry about are the ones who make polite arguments and seemingly rational points in support of their bigotry. The ones you need to worry about are the popular, likeable, innocuous-seeming bigots. The ones who are 'okay with gays as long as they don't hit on me!' kind or the ones who are 'okay with gays but do we really have to teach about gay sex in school?' gang.

The majority of bigots.

I have to ask: WHY hasn't somebody taken DOMA before the Supreme Court? It HAS to violate the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, and several others as well!

I have to ask: WHY hasn't somebody taken DOMA before the Supreme Court? It HAS to violate the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, and several others as well!

Takes time and a relevant case needs to happen. Right now i am not certain that SCOTUS will over turn it.

Takes time and a relevant case needs to happen. Right now i am not certain that SCOTUS will over turn it.

If they wouldn't it would be a shame, but there's a good chance you're right.

Shit, let's just tax anything and everything we can...it works so well.

So someone screwed up quite a few times...

Honestly, how the hell did we get from being probably the most, or at least one of the most liberal nations on the planet to this? Someone needs to answer for this, and it's coming out of their hides!:mad:

Pfft, where you ever? Why do many Seppos have this ideal in their head that the USA is the light on the hill?

Shit, let's just tax anything and everything we can...it works so well.

Do you have career aspirations to be a politician?

If so you have the right mindset.

Pfft, where you ever? Why do many Seppos have this ideal in their head that the USA is the light on the hill?

Yeah, I do believe that we were the most liberal nation on Earth... In the 18th/19th century. :(

When the US is behind Canada... Someone hasn't screwed up.:D

Don't hurt me please!

Why we would we hurt you? You're just accepting the natural order of things, that Canada is naturally superior. I fixed your sentence by the way, You're Welcome.

But a gay man is responsible for single-penisly and deliberately spreading GRIDS over the entire United States and causing thousands of innocent deaths!

Shush! Obviously it is just about morality, otherwise the homophobes don't even have a bad argument. Stop discriminating against bigots!

Yeah, I do believe that we were the most liberal nation on Earth... In the 18th/19th century. :(
When did the US abolish slavery? When did the British empire (for example) abolish slavery? Why was there an underground railroad transporting American slaves into Canada if the US was more liberal?

Yeah, I do believe that we were the most liberal nation on Earth... In the 18th/19th century. :(

So liberal that we freed our slaves later than anyone except for Brazil! So liberal that we practically still had slavery for all intents and purposes for the Chinese and other East Asian labourers on the West Coast! So liberal that we regularly had parties like the Know-Nothing party show up and preach bigotry against Irish Catholics and many other ethnic minorities.

The United States has always been staunchly conservative. We're getting better, but we've hardly been the most liberal country at any time in ANY century.

So liberal that we freed our slaves later than anyone except for Brazil! So liberal that we practically still had slavery for all intents and purposes for the Chinese and other East Asian labourers on the West Coast! So liberal that we regularly had parties like the Know-Nothing party show up and preach bigotry against Irish Catholics and many other ethnic minorities.

The United States has always been staunchly conservative. We're getting better, but we've hardly been the most liberal country at any time in ANY century.

That being said...America was the most attractive destination for emigrants from Europe seeking an environment that was less staunchly mired in authoritarian and monarchical tendencies. Whether or not it lived up to the promises of the liberal ideas it claimed to represent bears questioning, though.

Probably bears mentioning also that the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries was fundamentally different from the 'liberalism' of today. In many European nations of the time, the bourgeois were only just beginning to exert a powerful political influence. America, by contrast, was founded by its bourgeoisie - so Conservative Morality is correct if we follow this as evidence of the US being more 'liberal'. The American conservatives of today are in many ways quite 'liberal' by the standards of the 19th century, and it could be argued that instead of growing more conservative, American political tradition has remained static to a greater degree than that of its European counterparts.

snip

Wasn't one of the lines that the Nazi party used to peddle before they came to power that the American liberal influence on Europe and especially Germany was ruining the country. It was seen as a place of sexually promiscuous night life and sexual liberation. At least some parts were.

Wasn't one of the lines that the Nazi party used to peddle before they came to power that the American liberal influence on Europe and especially Germany was ruining the country. It was seen as a place of sexually promiscuous night life and sexual liberation. At least some parts were.

Yep - and that dreaded scourge, jazz music. The Nazis were there attempting to appeal to the old conservatives - the kind that wanted "a place in the sun", and a return to the romanticism of old Europe. Fascism achieved the hold it did because it was a universally reactionary ideology - it railed against the liberalism of western democracy and socialism, and yet managed to take enough of both that it appealed to both the workers and business owners.

So liberal that we freed our slaves later than anyone except for Brazil! So liberal that we practically still had slavery for all intents and purposes for the Chinese and other East Asian labourers on the West Coast! So liberal that we regularly had parties like the Know-Nothing party show up and preach bigotry against Irish Catholics and many other ethnic minorities.

The United States has always been staunchly conservative. We're getting better, but we've hardly been the most liberal country at any time in ANY century.

Well, I could maybe see the argument that it was immediately after the American Revolution... at least, until France had a little Revolution of their own. So, for a handful of years.

But yeah, other than that...

When did the US abolish slavery? When did the British empire (for example) abolish slavery? Why was there an underground railroad transporting American slaves into Canada if the US was more liberal?

So liberal that we freed our slaves later than anyone except for Brazil! So liberal that we practically still had slavery for all intents and purposes for the Chinese and other East Asian labourers on the West Coast! So liberal that we regularly had parties like the Know-Nothing party show up and preach bigotry against Irish Catholics and many other ethnic minorities.

The United States has always been staunchly conservative. We're getting better, but we've hardly been the most liberal country at any time in ANY century.
So Conservative that we denied people the right to petition and freedom of speech, of which most countries other than us had at the time! Right? So Conservative, that we ran in a Dictatorship, and allowed no amount of democracy into our system! After all, most countries then had a working Representative Democracy in place! So Conservative, that we had Royalty, unlike most other countries at the time!

Now, something here is wrong with this post. Feel free to try and figure it out.

The United States has always been staunchly conservative.

What on Earth are you talking about? For most of the nineteenth century, the US was looked upon by progressive-minded Europeans as representative of the pinnacle of the liberal state, with disestablishment of religion and toleration of religious pluralism, the lack of any privileged noble class, and universal (white male, but that was not the issue) suffrage within a few decades of its founding. Britain was the only country that compared, and it lagged behind in all of those respects. (France went further, but French republicanism was not firmly established until the end of the nineteenth century.)

The US was the only economically advanced country where the institution of slavery dominated essential portions of its domestic economy, so it's not fair to compare its progress in that respect to that of Britain and France. (The ideological defense of slavery in the US developed largely as a consequence of the invention of the cotton gin. The Founding Fathers mostly hoped to gradually phase it out of existence.) Workers were treated horribly everywhere, and xenophobia was only prominent because, unlike our European counterparts in the nineteenth century, we were and are still a country of immigrants.

Two twentieth-century developments have altered this picture.

First, the US penchant for liberal bourgeois individualism, combined with our largely middle-class economy, resulted in a political scene that lacked a powerful socialist-inclined Left and had a powerful pro-market Right--as opposed to Europe, where the Left was more radical and the Right less sympathetic to market capitalism. The result has been that Western Europe has far more state intervention in its economy than the US does--though much of that state intervention is not genuinely left-wing or liberal in any sense, and belongs properly in the nationalist-conservative category.

Second, ironically, the political secularism of the US ultimately made it a breeding ground for private religiosity, while in much of Europe the comparative lack of political secularism led to a more thorough secularization... though it's not like liberals in Spain and Italy don't have to contend with the power of the Catholic Church (and have more conservative abortion laws on the books than the US, though also rather lax enforcement), and that's not even getting into Eastern Europe.