Forgive me for being cynical when it comes to George W. Bush, particularly when it comes the LGBT rights, but either he’s drinking again or he’s searching for some way to put a bandage on his gloomy legacy.  By signing the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (”WRERA”) Bush effectively told employers that they must roll over an employees retirement plan into a non-spousal beneficiaries retirement account as part of the inheritance (in other words the act allows the inheritance beneficiary to roll-over the retirement savings of a deceased nonspouse into an IRA).  This is one of the 1400+ benefits previously denied same-sex couples.

HRC, the organization that has been under severe scrutiny from the LGBT community for its lack of participation in LGBT events such as those promoted by Join the Impact, has released an article describing the action.  HRC’s President, Joe Solomnese stated:

Our community faces unique challenges in preparing for retirement because we are denied Social Security spousal and survivor benefits. Protecting our hard-earned retirement savings is even more crucial to us, and until now, the tax code made it that much harder.

Although I’m extremely happy to report some level of federal recognition of gay couples, I’m saddened that in order to obtain the benefit, one of us has to die.  Perhaps in the near future the federal government will recognize living gay couples as such.

2009 is an election year in New Jersey.  A fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed by the voters and the legislatures as more and more anti-marriage folks line up proclaiming that if New Jersey recognizes same-gender marriage, they will make it an issue during the election.

Of course, voters should raise their voices anytime the legislature goes toward a policy they are against, but  advocates of the policy should sing out as well.  New Jersey folks should pick up their pen (or keyboard) and send a message to your state legislatures now stating that you stand with the governor in support of marriage equality and demand that your elected officials represent your best interests and honor your freedoms of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and YOUR freedom of religion as required by the United States Constitution.

You can find out who your legislators are here.

For more information, you are encouraged to read JoeMyGod’s blog regarding New Jersey’s great possibility.

Staying motivated is often the most difficult thing when it comes to LGBT activism and human rights generally.  The odds are against us, yet we cannot lose.  Losing is not an option in this battle because every time those that propagate hatred against us are victorious, they gain power.  We may loss battles, but we cannot lose the war.  Why?  Our lives are at stake.  This is not an issue of marriage, it is not an issue of Due Process or Seperate But Equal clauses.  We have our lives to lose and I believe that my life, and the life of those around me, is worth fighting for.

Yesterday, my hope and motivation faltered.  Sometimes, even I lose focus and wander into the land of despair.  I start to have terrible thoughts like “we’re going to lose” or “where is everyone else.”  I start to feel alone, tired and scared.  Especially when the very leadership I call upon doesn’t respond.

Yesterday, you likely heard a loud thud noise.  My hopes and dreams of equality slammed to the ground while I browsed local HRC websites in South Texas looking for information on the National DOMA protest for January 10th. I checked every local LGBT organization I could think of - all of their websites - NOTHING.  I emailed San Antonio’s HRC over two weeks ago.  No response.  I contacted the “organizer” in one city (two weeks ago) offering to volunteer - no response.  I contacted her again thinking she’s likely busy and missed the email, no response.  I also checked Austin’s Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce website which has a calendar of LGBT events - January 10th, nothing listed.  I checked San Antonio’s Gay and Lesbian Community Center’s website - not listed.  I emailed San Antonio’s Gay and Lesbian Community Center, the email was returned undeliverable.  We are relying on these local organizations to lead us - but perhaps it is time that we learn to lead ourselves and to play by our rules.

I was devastated.  I looked inward for the answers to the questions that are already starting to roll out into the blogospheres “when, where, how is the DOMA Protest going to work when there is so little information available?”  Today, I spoke with a dear friend who I haven’t spoken with in a couple of weeks and she reminded me of the importance of human rights and human dignity.  She reminded me that being tired or frustrated is fine, but that if I give up, I lose.

So, as we ring in the new year, I challenge each of my readers to download the letter to Obama and the signature pages [link].  Start obtaining signatures today!  Don’t wait for January 10th. Send it to your friends, your neighbors, your family and have them sign it and start getting signatures as well.  Have them send it on to their family, friends and neighbors.  It is time we each step forward individually and swallow our fear and make a difference. It is time for us to stop waiting for someone to speak out for us and start speaking out for ourselves.

Stand up my LGBT brothers and sisters.  Stand up and be counted.  Run with me toward victory because victory is our only option.

Instructions for the letter to Obama:

1) Download the letter;
2) Sign the letter;
3) Get others to sign the letter;
4) Scan it and submit it to the upload page (to be provided by JTI circa January 10)

If you are a blogger, post this information to your blog.  If you have a website, a gay friendly business - anywhere on the web… circulate the information via link or write your own.  If you use Digg or Reddit - put this information there.  Print multiple copies and take them to your friends.  We don’t have to wait until January 10th to gather signatures or sign the letter or to have others sign the letter.  We can do this, we can win, we must be victorious!

Remember, a full address is not needed but a zip code is required.

I regret that due to a very important prior engagement I will be unable to attend the light up the night event; however, I am still lighting my candle and hope that some day, we will find peace and goodwill toward ALL people.

My Candle for Light Up the Night

Few realize that due to Puritan influence in the 1600’s, Massachusetts banned Christmas.  The rationale behind this was three fold:

1. The ritual reminded the Puritans of the Church of England, which they were escaping;
2. They didn’t consider Christmas as a religious holiday as it did not coincide with the birth of Christ as purported; and
3. The Puritans frowned on drinking, feasting and playing games - which was a big part of the Christmas holiday.

The law was only active for 22 years and read:

For preventing disorders, arising in several places within this jurisdiction by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other communities, to the great dishonor of God and offense of others: it is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shilling as a fine to the county.

So to all those proposing religious influence within our government by banning same-sex marriage, I say:

Merry Christmas.

I’m currently working on a story regarding gay and lesbian people in the military.  If you are a gay or lesbian person currently serving in the U.S. Military under the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (”DADT”) policy, I would love to talk with you.  I can be contacted using the contact form on this site or by a friend request on yahoo- user id is jaysaysdotcom.  Please state in your message that you are contacting me regarding DADT.

I’m also interested in speaking with heterosexuals in the U.S. military regarding their opinions and views of DADT.  Should you choose, your personal information will remain completely confidential.

On another note, I also encourage you to report LGBT discrimination to jaysays.com and let me investigate the claims and demand answers.

Finding a good opening line for the Stupid Things People Say About Gays series isn’t always easy.  Particularly, because I get angry sometimes while wading through the pile of crap people consider to be legitimate arguments.  I want to start off with vicious words - sometimes even profane, but instead - take a look at this common and stupid misconception about gay civil marriage:

But I do not think that they should be allowed to redefine the definition of an act [marriage] that is sacred to millions of people. - BabyJoel

Again there is confusion over civil marriage and ecclesiastical marriage.  But because I like to make points, let’s assume for a moment that I would agree that marriage, because it is “sacred” to millions of people, should never be redefined.  I would then need to define marriage very specifically, as throughout history it has changed over and over again - to the point where the original purpose of marriage (which was property rights not breeding rights) has become unrecognizable.  Depending on your locale and what time frame you lived in, some more sacred traditions of marriage might have been as follows:

• You would not have met your husband/wife until your wedding day, and if you did it would have been brief.
• Your parents would have negotiated your marriage, planned your wedding, and your wedding guests would escort you and your new spouse to bed for consummation.
• Too much affection in the marriage would be considered “sinful”.
• Too be married, no formal ceremony, ecclesiastical or otherwise, would have been required - simply move-in together.
• You couldn’t marry someone outside of your race.
• A blood test would be required before you could get married.
• Your marriage would be based upon financial gain and power for your family, not on your attractions or emotions.
• The bridegroom would be 30 something and the bride a teenager.
• Should your husband decide to, he could sell your children [which were actually his children as he was the "man of the house" and had dominion over it and all things within it].
• Your husband could have numerous wives (possibly even 700 of them like Solomon).
• Your wedding ring would be a symbol of a successful “bride sell”.
• If you were part of the Oneida colony (1948) every woman and every man would be married to each other and your breeding would be “scientific.”
• Instead of the husband divorcing the wife, he would kill her.  The wife wouldn’t have either option without severe legal repercussions or, more likely, death.
• Marriage impediments were so strict that many could not marry because of a families affinity for another (the parents of one family being close friends with the uncle of another would be enough to keep two people from marrying).
• Your children would be “necessary labor power”.
• Marriage would be a relationship founded on sexual inequality - man’s dominance over woman.
• The Full Faith and Credit clause would not have applied to divorces and remarriages.  [Note:  This occurred in the 1940's and, had it not, could have resulted in someone being legally married in one state to someone and legally divorced in another state to the same person - thus potentially resulting in bigamy in one state and full legal compliance in another].
• Marriage and divorce would be civil, private matters not under the influence of the church (by the way, this was by U.S. law and was later “redefined”).
• Under 17th Century Puritan Law, your marriage would be “no sacrament” and purely secular (again, U.S. law which was later “redefined”).

To further illustrate some more technical points regarding the history of marriage from a historian who has, well, “been there done that”, I refer you to the very smart, Hendrik Hartog, who wrote:

Fifteen years ago there was a significant literature of critiques of marriage and rejections of argument for gay marriage, from within the gay and particularly within the lesbian communities. Those critiques were shaped by statements of the form: Why would we want to buy into this historically unequal, oppressive institution designed for the subordination of women? I may be wrong, but it is my impression that such critiques have disappeared in the last few years. There are many possible explanations for that disappearance, but I suspect that one reason for the disappearance of the critique is the change in the meaning of marriage, as the egalitarian changes of the past generation have become normative and predictable parts of the legal landscape.

What Gay Marriage Teaches About the History of Marriage.

I have focused heavily on the religious right in my arguments about gay marriage and have neglected the non-secular arguments.  Today’s quote is in reference to a purported non-secular argument and reads as follows:

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.  — Adam Kolasinski

The most harsh point in his argument is where he places the burden of proof.  In law, burden of proof is everything, almost.  In his example, he argues that because “homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society… there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage…“  However, there is no burden of proof in marriage law on heterosexual couples to prove their relationship will benefit the states interest.  Let’s look at due process and equal protection under the law.

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a historic case in the battle for civil marriage rights for whites to marry blacks (or blacks to marry whites).  Loving states:

These statutes [statutes banning interracial marriage] also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. [emphasis added]

I make note, albeit somewhat sarcastically, that Loving does not say “pursuit of happiness between a man and a woman.”

Loving goes on to affirm that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Civil Marriage is law.  To deny any person the equal protection of the law, without due process abridges “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  In order for the law to deny such civil right, the State holds the burden of proof to show that such relationships would detriment society.  Mr. Kolasinski’s efforts to shift the burden of proof on those denied such liberties is false, misleading and improper under the 14th Amendment, Loving and good common sense.

Mr. Kolasinski is a Doctoral Student of Financial Economics.

In this issue of Stupid Things People Say About Gays, I’m going to focus a little more on the “Gay Marriage” issue which has obtained wide news coverage over the past couple of weeks.

Focus on Families, a purportedly Christian organization, has released arguments against Gay Marriage and publishes them on their website.  The following Argument is taken directly from that site:

An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state’s compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

This is obviously an argument of the desperate which has no fact basis whatsoever.  Last I checked, Gay Marriage did not seek to overthrow heterosexual marriage.  Certainly their have been many jokes thrown about stating that if gay’s can’t get married, heterosexuals should not be allowed to and thus the law would be equal to all parties.  Regrettably, the consequences would be all incompassing - loss of jobs resulting from no Family Court system, no “wedding planners”, less use of the local VFW hall for receptions, etc… etc…

What Focus on the Family has missed in their argument is that gays are asking for the right to GET married, not the right to dismantle marriage.  They also don’t realize that this argument completely voids the argument that marriage is not a civil issue.  They clearly state that the state has a, “compelling interest in marital relationships altogether.”  That compelling interest is exactly why all committed couples should be given the equal status of “married” by the state.

We’ve also heard a lot of comments about “redefining marriage.”  Although I can’t argue that marriage will in some ways require redefining, I do deny that any such redefinition would degrade heterosexual marriage.  This argument is a scare tactic used to propogate homophobia in the most grotesque sense - vaguely.  “You are trying to redefine marriage!!!!”  Legal definitions have changed tremedously throughout history.  Our founders smartly wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence so that laws could morph into a working, united, equal system.  If legal definitions did not evolve and change, the words “negro” and “colored” would still be used to define “African Americans” by law and the word “property” would still refer to African Americans.  Personally, I’m thrilled that such words are redefinable.  We the homos of the world should not let such vague allegations serve to threaten us, but embrace them - “Yes, we do want to redefine marriage, just like they redefined property.”

I can’t even fathom the accusation that divorces “will take on the status” of driver’s licenses or hunting licenses.  Is their anything intelligble in that false, completely unfounded accusation?  That allegation makes it sound as though gay people are looking to have a drive-thru wedding chapel/divorce court (which drive-thru wedding chapels already exist in Vegas without the help of gays).  Heterosexuals are doing a fine job of destroying the institution of marriage themselves.  Adding countless, loving people into the category of married will not harm, but strengthen that instutition.

I hope this momentum lasts in the gay community. A National Day of Protest has been planned for November 15th at 1:30 CT (check here for your here  local information).

Yours truly will be attending.  I just hope I can decide on a sign.