Dear God, the Salt and Pepper shakers are -armed-.

Ahh, yes, but if the Federal revisions to tax code clear as expected, the marraige penalties will be removed and benefits installed. So yes, it hurts for now, but it will be changing.

From:

gigerlicious.livejournal.com

Speaking as a married person, my wife and I collected more than we would had we filed separately.

From:

daddy-tank.livejournal.com

Your case is simple tax economics -- having withheld at the single rate until you were married -- and even discounting switching to the married rate once you were married, for this year, having withheld at the higher single rate, you get the break. It's usually what one spouse in a marriage does on their W2 anyway, because withholding at the single rate allows more money to be taken out, but you get money back come tax time. Right now it's really the only way to get money back out of the system.

From:

gigerlicious.livejournal.com

Thank you for your simple answer to my experience.

From:

There are also issues of power of attorney.. being allowed in your loved one's room in the ER.. having a legal connection to children adopted by your partner.. and finally, if society is going to recognize people for making a lifelong commitment to one another, it'd be nice if they'd recognize you too.

From:

But on the other hand, if you're choosing to live a lifestyle that you know society doesn't accept, why do you care about societal recognition?

From:

Choosing?

From:

You did not choose to be gay, but you chose to come out, in that situation. Welcome to the hard world of being honest about who you are.

From:

Ah. I would say that just because society doesn't accept something yet does not mean you should stop caring about it. Society didn't think blacks or women should have the right to vote. Just as gay marriages were viewed as "not real marriages," blacks and women were not considered full citizens, and the denial of the right to vote reflected that. Now, by your logic, if these people really believed they were full citizens, they wouldn't need the right to vote to prove that to them.

Society may not accept it now, but we have a long history of being close minded, and denying different groups the rights we pride ourselves on granting everyone.

From:

I think the right to vote stands different from a lot of the issues inherent in this. For a lot of the issues (power of attorney, child guardianship, living wills, etx), there are legal workarounds. Do they take time? Yes. Are they expensive? Yes. But it can be done. Is it wrong? Probably.

But if the point is if a marraige is 'real' or not, that's not something any government, court, or church is ever going to determine. Real marraige is created between the two partners (regardless of gender) and the relationship they have. A loving home does not come from a piece of paper. It comes from the human element, and no paperwork in the world will change that.

From:

dasubergeek.livejournal.com

Let me put it to you this way. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that left-handed people could not get married. (I wrote a long allegory about it here.)

Not only could left-handed people not get married, but only right-handed people could sign hospital visitation logs, powers of attorney, adoption papers. There is a societal more against them and they have formed their own groups and expropriated the former epithet "southpaw" as their own.

Now, imagine that you are left-handed. You certainly would never CHOOSE to be left-handed in this world I'm describing... you were born that way and can't do anything about it.

Now imagine life trying to pretend you're right-handed so you can 'fit in'. Ever seen a lefty try to write with his right hand, or a righty try with his left? It doesn't work. To the lefty, it feels wrong, and to a righty it looks like he's "trying too hard".

That's the choice many gays, bisexuals, lesbians and transgendered people have. Either fake it -- which ignores the responsibility each person has to provide for himself and to make his life the way he wants -- or come out and be denied rights given to others.

On a primal level, you are correct -- we have only the right to eventual death -- but the point is that our government have said that we are created equal. Equal means that when you give a right to one group of people, you give that right to EVERY group of people. All else is hypocrisy.

From:

matt, read the arguement <href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/swift_fox/64963.html">here.

yes it can be about money, but there are other things at stake with gay marriage. but in that way, straight marriage is all about money too.

From:

I'll agree it's terminology. And if we could separate the government side, that would be fine. But really, if you need a piece of paper from a judge to say that you're going to have a loving, stable relationship with your partner for many years, there's a problem there.

Should gay partners have power of attorney? Yes, probably. Should they have guardianship? If they want to raise children together, absolutely. Should they have insurance benefits, if possible. And there are already companies which do support that, which is great.

But, as I noted, marraige is something I feel should not be created by a piece of paper, the secular benefits notwithstanding. Marraige, religiously officiated or not, should be something created between the partners, and society would ideally recognize that, but it doesn't, and that is a shame, but that's a problem that I don't think is confined to the gay or straight communities.

From:

branwynelf.livejournal.com

You are correct, there are two "levels" of marriage, if you will. However, ANY legal documents put in place in a non-legally recognized gay marriage have a much higher chance of being overturned in a court if challenged.

There is also the issue of inheritance taxes - if my father dies, my mother gets everything without paying a tax. If one half of a gay couple were to die, his partner will get everything according to his will - assuming that the deceased's family doesn't challenge it. However, the government will apply the inheritance tax and take at least 30% of it. There is NO way around this.

The issue being fought over is the right to have the same little piece of paper that straight couples get that give them benefits, priviliges, and rights that should not even be under contest.

Not to mention that should I end up in the hospital, my boyfriend could get in to see my just by saying the word "fiancé" - even if my parents were to ask he not be allowed - while gay partners of years and years, even those who have gone through a religious/emotional ceremony of union, have regularly been excluded at the request of immediate family.

As for your "it sucks, but it's not really that big a deal" attitude, I have to agree with the people above who pointed out the right to vote, etc - however they left out the right of people to enter into interracial marriages (which is the SAME issue) which had to be fought for before they were recognized by the government. Taking the position that there are ways to work around discrimination so just do that and stop fighting for the equal rights that are guaranteed under the constitution, to me, is saying that you support that discrimination. If people aren't being treated fairly they have the right, nae the responsibility, to stand up for themselves. Otherwise you're just rolling over and asking the goverment to kick you in the ass some more.

And we all know that if you give the current administration any leeway to do that, they'll take that and more away from you.

From:

Thanks for bringing up the issue interracial marriage. I left that out of my comment when I realized I knew a lot more about women's suffrage, but it really is the same thing. :) Excellent points!

From:

do you agree that letting straight people marry and not letting gay people marry is unequal?

how would you feel, if you and lisa ever got married, i fsomeone walked up to you and said, "Its all about the money" or, "You shouldn't need the government to bless your relationship."

From:

It's unequal, but who isn't letting them? I know several priests who will perform ceremonies with or without a license if they just go and ask, regardless of orientation.

And if they said that to me, I'd shrug, and say that they're somewhat right on one, and absolutely right on the other. Because as I noted above, and as I noted other places, I don't need a government to tell me that I'm married or getting married. If we got married, we'd do it on our own, and if we decided to get a formal license, that's fine, but the actual relationship and ceremony will be as we wish it, with those we wish it, and the government can go to hell.

From:

It's unequal, but who isn't letting them? I know several priests who will perform ceremonies with or without a license if they just go and ask, regardless of orientation.

the government. yes, an individual church will allow same-sex partners get married, but that marriage has no teeth without the official recognition of the government.

marriage may or may not matter to you, but it matters to many people, and you would do well to recognize that.

From:

I guess it can be important to me, but the governmental recognition is not. And if you really want it to be important, that's fine, but I really don't feel that way. Nor do I think a bunch of people putting a gif and a bit of text in their livejournals is going to change the government's mind.

From:

most likely not, but it is a way for people to voice their opinions. much like bumperstickers.

the fight for marriage rights is the fight to live your life in the way you see fit to live it.

From:

I'll refrain from the George Carlin reference on opinions. ;D

However, I am going to disagree on the second one. It's the fight to get recognition that you are going to live your life in a certain way, and expect to be given privileges because of it. Not a bad thing, most of the time, but I think the distinction is an important one.

From:

Let's not forget also that gay people cannot immigrate to join their marriage partners, like straight people can. I think you need to revise your argument a bit; get the government out of marriage is what you're saying sort of, but you also come off as being a bit ignorant of the enormity of the issues involved.

This is not my pet issue, as there are plenty of people to fight it, but I think you would do well to research what exactly it means to be unequal, relationship-wise. It's not a small thing. As for 'society doesn't accept the lifestyle'; I think you're wrong about that too. As far as I can tell, society does accept gay people. I encounter few problems, and the popularity of Will and Grace and the Fab 5 might be an indicator in the opposite direction. The opposition is simply in control of certain parts of the government, but the fight is slowly being won. I am not afraid that it won't go our way; eventually it will.

From:

It is entirely possible that I'm ignorant, but if I'm ignorant, so are most of the average people who are witnessing the debate, I'd bet. But I would say that if society is accepting gays, what about the portions of the country where beatings and worse are still very common? I think individuals are quite accepted (though I personally suspect that Will and Grace is still primarily filed under satire), but the group as a whole still faces a lot of challenges.

Also, I think the attitudes of some involved on both sides are going to continue to be a problem. (Case in point, the original language of the statement that I altered. 'Love is Marraige, Marraige is Love' is a very blanket, somewhat arrogant statement that is rather easily torn apart by any number of arguments.)

From:

Hmm. I don't want you take offence with my use of the word 'ignorant'. I meant it in its literal definition, not its perjorative one. As for 'the parts of the country where beatings are common'... Well, as far as I know, beatings are common everywhere. Sometimes it's a nerd, sometimes it's a black guy, sometimes it's a jew, sometimes a fag. That definitely doesn't mean society as a whole is made up of bullies, simply because some exist in every place. To say that the actions of these people (which even the religious right claims to revile) has anything to do with the core of American feeling on the subject is like saying the KKK proves that whites hate blacks.

As for Will and Grace - you can think it a satire if you'd like; I don't see it, but maybe it's because I am more connected with the gay 'community' being a part of it. Sitcoms are all satirical in a sense; I hate them all, W&G included, but I don't think you can substantially argue that W&G has more of a satirical feel than any others that come before or after it.

From:

Trust me, I didn't take it as insult. :D I just meant that a lot of others don't know the larger issues, either. But I would say the fact that we see a large amount of persistant hate crimes, including at a legislative level, much as we saw against blacks and asians in the past, without more public outrage, isn't a good indicator.

It's a sitcom, but my main objection is that it exists almost entirely on stereotype, which doesn't seem that great to me.

From:

How do you mean it exists on stereotype? I hate to admit that I know this, but Will is not a stereotypical gay in the sense that Jack is; and exclusion of the campy elements of gay culture would be more of a disservice than including them, I think. Before I came out, I was very uncomfortable with feminine men; or more accurately, flaming homosexuals. Now that I'm comfortable with my sexuality, I have no such problem accepting them; and that show is a positive in that it portrays things accurately in that there isn't just one 'type' of gay person included. But I have classwork to do and I'm sure, by now, you're bored. So we'll discuss later!

From:

Sure, flamers are important to keep in the picture, but he's the flamingest flamer I've ever met, really. Include them, but why make them constantly go over the top?

Anyhow. Good luck.

From:

Oh man, if Jack is the worst you've ever seen then I need to take you out with me one night. o_0 Anyway, thanks!

From:

It /has/ been a few years since I last did Showtunes night at Union Station.

From:

joriel.livejournal.com

Mmm...I have to disagree with you on this one. In my head, and mine only, I don't pretend to get what the rest of the country is thinking, it's about discrimination and equality. We're all supposed to be equal, have all the same rights, responsibilities, and perks, and we don't. I want them to have the same rights and options that het couples have, simply becuase they also live in the same country, pay the same taxes, and everything else. I don't care about the insurance and benefits. And finding a priest doesn't always work, Ashe and I never saw a religious figure of any kind, just the mayor and some clerks to sign some papers. : ) And yeah, there is something about that piece of paper that really means something to me, no matter what anyone else says about it not being important.

From: