Slog
News & ArtsFriday, December 7, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA Love Makes a Family
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:48 PM
And sometimes love makes a hero:
Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer’s relationship is destined to be a classic among love affairs: The two New Yorkers became a couple in 1965 and had the courage to get engaged in 1967, when marriage for same-sex couples was just a fantasy. In 1977, Thea was diagnosed with progressive multiple sclerosis, which gradually paralyzed her and ultimately left her unable to walk. Edie and Thea dealt together with the challenges of M.S. for the next 30-plus years. The couple waited for years to be able to marry, and finally did so in 2007. In 2009, after 44 years together, Thea died.
Naturally Thea left her possessions, including the apartment they had shared for decades, to Edie. But while New York considered Edie and Thea married, DOMA required the federal government to treat them as legal strangers. So Edie was socked with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill that would have been $0 if she had been a straight widow. If you haven’t seen the video about Edie, take a look, it’s quite moving.
Heartbroken at the injustice, Edie challenged the constitutionality of DOMA. Two lower federal courts have struck down DOMA in her case, and now the Supreme Court will have the final word.
The ACLU is confident that the Supreme Court will rule in Edie's favor. The haters at NOM are confident that the Supreme Court will rule against Edie. But however the Supreme Court rules—for love and commitment and fairness and dignity or against love and commitment and fairness and dignity—Edie Windsor is a hero. She was Thea's hero first. Now she's a hero to us all.
113
109
Sure they can.
There is nothing to stop them. But themselves.
And if they did they would enjoy the emotional and financial advantages that flow from THM.
Because it isn't the certificate that conveys the advantages.
And it is not the societal recognition.
It is the lifestyle choices. They are their own reward.
The CDC advocates abstinence followed by monogamy as the surest path to sexual/reproductive health.
THM.
And to the extent that social scientists and psychologists have objectively studied it they find that the emotional health advantages of a THM lifestyle match the medical ones. Or exceed them.
"Can" homosexuals live THM values?
Danny seems to think that, as a group, they can not.
Certainly he himself does not even pretend to want to.
It is all about the certificate to Danny.
All about rubbing Maggie's nose in the fact that he has a "Real" marriage, too.
It is almost as if a community college drop-out imagined that he could just coerce an Ivy League school into giving him a diploma and then he would be educated.
Silly boy.
If the values Danny advocates; pre-marital sex, adultery, co-habitation, parenting configurations other than father-mother, etc; become accepted as cultural values that displace THM then marriage as an institution will lose the benefits it as heretofore conveyed.
We are already far along that road.
No doubt Danny was being a smart ass when he titled a book Skipping Toward Gomorrah but it is the most enlighten phrase he has ever uttered.
He perfectly describes the cultural changes he seeks.
We must admit that when the fundamentalists claimed allowing homosexuals to marry would hasten those other changes we thought they were being hysterical. That was before we knew who Danny was or what he advocated. He has convinced us that the Fundamentalists were right. Danny's gloating post about Earhart yesterday shows that getting that certificate has not diminished his lust to destroy THM one whit.
How many advocates of homosexual "marriage" are also Fierce Advocates of abstinence until marriage? Monogamy?
Do you think same-sex couples can live by those values?
Do you think they even want to?
More...
Sure they can.
There is nothing to stop them. But themselves.
And if they did they would enjoy the emotional and financial advantages that flow from THM.
Because it isn't the certificate that conveys the advantages.
And it is not the societal recognition.
It is the lifestyle choices. They are their own reward.
The CDC advocates abstinence followed by monogamy as the surest path to sexual/reproductive health.
THM.
And to the extent that social scientists and psychologists have objectively studied it they find that the emotional health advantages of a THM lifestyle match the medical ones. Or exceed them.
"Can" homosexuals live THM values?
Danny seems to think that, as a group, they can not.
Certainly he himself does not even pretend to want to.
It is all about the certificate to Danny.
All about rubbing Maggie's nose in the fact that he has a "Real" marriage, too.
It is almost as if a community college drop-out imagined that he could just coerce an Ivy League school into giving him a diploma and then he would be educated.
Silly boy.
If the values Danny advocates; pre-marital sex, adultery, co-habitation, parenting configurations other than father-mother, etc; become accepted as cultural values that displace THM then marriage as an institution will lose the benefits it as heretofore conveyed.
We are already far along that road.
No doubt Danny was being a smart ass when he titled a book Skipping Toward Gomorrah but it is the most enlighten phrase he has ever uttered.
He perfectly describes the cultural changes he seeks.
We must admit that when the fundamentalists claimed allowing homosexuals to marry would hasten those other changes we thought they were being hysterical. That was before we knew who Danny was or what he advocated. He has convinced us that the Fundamentalists were right. Danny's gloating post about Earhart yesterday shows that getting that certificate has not diminished his lust to destroy THM one whit.
How many advocates of homosexual "marriage" are also Fierce Advocates of abstinence until marriage? Monogamy?
Do you think same-sex couples can live by those values?
Do you think they even want to?
112
@8- Kurt Cobain's widow making a very long sandwich. It's messy, she cries about half the time, wanders off screen for about five minutes during which time you hear muffled shouting, then she comes back, dumps most of a jar of mayonnaise on the bread and rubs it all over her breasts while shouting "THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY WANTED, ISN'T IT?"
111
@109: "you respect and honor your spouse. abusers are not doing THM."
Whoops, you've got some No True Scotsman on your post. Lemme just clean it up.
So, Traditional Heterosexual Marriage has no room for domestic abuse, eh? Did you know that until 1850, no state in the Union had outlawed wife-beating? And if a married man, previously keeping his wife with honor and respect, has a bad day and beats her, does their Traditional Heterosexual Marriage suddenly evaporate? Is it somehow transmuted into some other kind of marriage?
Whoops, you've got some No True Scotsman on your post. Lemme just clean it up.
So, Traditional Heterosexual Marriage has no room for domestic abuse, eh? Did you know that until 1850, no state in the Union had outlawed wife-beating? And if a married man, previously keeping his wife with honor and respect, has a bad day and beats her, does their Traditional Heterosexual Marriage suddenly evaporate? Is it somehow transmuted into some other kind of marriage?
109
107
we stole that from the irritating guy who did the ten videos Danny posted before the election.
THM is a package of values and behaviors. Most people won't hit them all but the more the better and if you mess up you brush yourself off and get back on the program.
THM:
>kids prepare themselves for marriage before they marry (or make a baby); get an education, save yourself for marriage, don't screw up with drugs/alcohol,etc.
>once married you sacrifice for your spouse (and kids when they come)(although it really isn't a 'sacrifice'; whatever you give up for the family is trite and meaningless compared to having a family, something you soon realize). you respect and honor your spouse. abusers are not doing THM.
>monogamy. you don't cheat. (if you cheat you pray your spouse will take you back and you never cheat again. if your spouse cheats you forgive them. once.) and you don't get to negotiate cheating with your spouse. it isn't for them to decide. because monogamy is integral to THM. Danny evidently doesn't get it (we are being charitable- it gets it but doesn't give a shit) and has no business being "married" and fouls the institution with his filthy pretenses.
we stole that from the irritating guy who did the ten videos Danny posted before the election.
THM is a package of values and behaviors. Most people won't hit them all but the more the better and if you mess up you brush yourself off and get back on the program.
THM:
>kids prepare themselves for marriage before they marry (or make a baby); get an education, save yourself for marriage, don't screw up with drugs/alcohol,etc.
>once married you sacrifice for your spouse (and kids when they come)(although it really isn't a 'sacrifice'; whatever you give up for the family is trite and meaningless compared to having a family, something you soon realize). you respect and honor your spouse. abusers are not doing THM.
>monogamy. you don't cheat. (if you cheat you pray your spouse will take you back and you never cheat again. if your spouse cheats you forgive them. once.) and you don't get to negotiate cheating with your spouse. it isn't for them to decide. because monogamy is integral to THM. Danny evidently doesn't get it (we are being charitable- it gets it but doesn't give a shit) and has no business being "married" and fouls the institution with his filthy pretenses.
108
@105: "Well, I can't refute what you said, so I'll just make a snide joke about your word choice. Wait, I can't think of anything! AAAAaaaaAAAAAAaaaaaaAAAAA."
Of course I didn't give you anything to work with. I don't believe I have so far, but you insist on trying to prove your inane points anyway.
@106: Got any evidence to back that up, sucker?
Of course I didn't give you anything to work with. I don't believe I have so far, but you insist on trying to prove your inane points anyway.
@106: Got any evidence to back that up, sucker?
107
@106 BTW what is you mean by 'THM?' When I say 'THM' I'm referring to the institution of marriage as it existed prior to the social upheavals of the 1960s and '70s. It kind of sounds like your referring to the sort of heterosexual marriage we have today, rather than the old fashioned kind. If so why not drop the T and call it simply 'HM?'
106
103
it is guaranteed that telling kids homosexual pairings are Just As Good as THM will lead to them spouting nonsense shit like junior is there...
it is guaranteed that telling kids homosexual pairings are Just As Good as THM will lead to them spouting nonsense shit like junior is there...
104
@102: Saying that THM is the best choice because it's better than cohabitation is like saying that abstinence-only programs work because they're better than no sex ed at all. Less gender-polarized marriage, that treats people as spouses rather than "man and wife" (as opposed to, for straights, "husband and wife"), will foster less domestic abuse.
Also, what Ken said.
Also, what Ken said.
103
@102 Is it possible that a gay person who is married to his or her same-sex partner enjoys a similarly reduced risk of being the victim of domestic violence?
102
101
women in THM are much less likely to be victims of domestic violence than women cohabitating with a man.
And their children are likewise much much safer and better cared for.
as we have said, THM is a great thing for society, filling a role no other institution can , performing vital functions.
v.i.t.a.l.
the health of a society will directly correlate to the health of its THM.
women in THM are much less likely to be victims of domestic violence than women cohabitating with a man.
And their children are likewise much much safer and better cared for.
as we have said, THM is a great thing for society, filling a role no other institution can , performing vital functions.
v.i.t.a.l.
the health of a society will directly correlate to the health of its THM.
100
98
think Ken, think!
you girls claimed that THM was an inherently abusive relationship and we found it ironic in light of the fact that homosexual relationships are more violent and abusive...
think Ken, think!
you girls claimed that THM was an inherently abusive relationship and we found it ironic in light of the fact that homosexual relationships are more violent and abusive...
99
@97: Read carefully, bullet head. MORE abuse. Why don't we see MORE abuse among lesbians than straight women?
You said that gays are more likely to abuse than straights. Not true.
@98: Oh, it's not particularly pertinent to issues of marriage equality. It's just false and defamatory, and I prefer to attack Alleged's fallacious arguments, rather than conceding shit he makes up.
You said that gays are more likely to abuse than straights. Not true.
@98: Oh, it's not particularly pertinent to issues of marriage equality. It's just false and defamatory, and I prefer to attack Alleged's fallacious arguments, rather than conceding shit he makes up.
98
@96 Gays and lesbians very well might be more prone to domestic violence than heterosexuals, but I don't see what that has to do with marriage equality? If we had evidence that poor people or Roman Catholics or whoever were especially likely to engage in intimate partner violence would stop letting that group get married?
97
no one said gay causes abuse.
are suggesting that as your hypothesis?
and the studies do show abuse among lesbians.
why are gay men more abusive than hetero men?
are suggesting that as your hypothesis?
and the studies do show abuse among lesbians.
why are gay men more abusive than hetero men?
96
@95: If gay caused abuse, wouldn't we see more abuse among lesbians? You keep trying to make it about gays when it's actually about men.
95
gosh,
this is so weak we can't bring ourselves to bitchslap you,
it just wouldn't be sporting.
"Gay men...are significantly more likely than their straight counterparts to have suffered recent IPV; in both cases, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. "
Sit down, we don't want to blow your mind.
Q- What men have been recently abusing these gays?
A- Their gay partners.
In fact, Dr Zahnd has a personal message for you, Junior:
"This is not a group commonly associated with violence," said the study's lead author, Elaine Zahnd, a sociologist and senior research scientist at the Public Health Institute, which partners with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research in conducting the California Health Interview Survey. "These findings should cause us to reconsider our assumptions about the root causes of violence. Dumbass."
this is so weak we can't bring ourselves to bitchslap you,
it just wouldn't be sporting.
"Gay men...are significantly more likely than their straight counterparts to have suffered recent IPV; in both cases, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. "
Sit down, we don't want to blow your mind.
Q- What men have been recently abusing these gays?
A- Their gay partners.
In fact, Dr Zahnd has a personal message for you, Junior:
"This is not a group commonly associated with violence," said the study's lead author, Elaine Zahnd, a sociologist and senior research scientist at the Public Health Institute, which partners with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research in conducting the California Health Interview Survey. "These findings should cause us to reconsider our assumptions about the root causes of violence. Dumbass."
94
@92: Dumbass, the study I linked and the policy brief you obliquely referenced at #77 use the same data set. CHIS 2007, bro.
I'm not trying to sweep anything under the rug. I'm actually looking at the data set with an open mind to see what it indicates, rather than trying to shoehorn it into fitting my prejudices. What do the CHIS 2007 data say? Well, queers of any sort are more likely to have been abused at some point. (Whether by same-sex or opposite-sex partners isn't known.) If you look only at rates of recent abuse, there's no disparity between straights and gays/bisexuals. If you look at gay and bi men and women in their individual categories rather than lumping them together, though, some patterns emerge. Gay men and bisexual women are significantly more likely than their straight counterparts to have suffered recent IPV; in both cases, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. As I said before, these data you keep blathering on about say very little about gays and a good deal about men.
And sure, men are more violent than women. Of course, the Constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens, so discriminating against men would be unconstitutional.
@93: Homophobia and homosexuality...only the former is contagious.
I'm not trying to sweep anything under the rug. I'm actually looking at the data set with an open mind to see what it indicates, rather than trying to shoehorn it into fitting my prejudices. What do the CHIS 2007 data say? Well, queers of any sort are more likely to have been abused at some point. (Whether by same-sex or opposite-sex partners isn't known.) If you look only at rates of recent abuse, there's no disparity between straights and gays/bisexuals. If you look at gay and bi men and women in their individual categories rather than lumping them together, though, some patterns emerge. Gay men and bisexual women are significantly more likely than their straight counterparts to have suffered recent IPV; in both cases, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. As I said before, these data you keep blathering on about say very little about gays and a good deal about men.
And sure, men are more violent than women. Of course, the Constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens, so discriminating against men would be unconstitutional.
@93: Homophobia and homosexuality...only the former is contagious.
93
BoB!
homophobia is a disease, dude.
Sort of like homosexuality.
(except homophobia,
unlike homosexuality,
was never recognized by mental health professionals as such....)
if you see anyone with homophobia be sure to keep your distance.
you don't want to catch it!
you don't want another disease with 'homo' in it.
It might confuse the nurses at the institution where you live.
plus,
if you caught homophobia after you already had homosexuality;
you would be,
like,
totally scared of yourself!
which,
come to think of it,
if you ever look in a mirror you probably already are.....
homophobia is a disease, dude.
Sort of like homosexuality.
(except homophobia,
unlike homosexuality,
was never recognized by mental health professionals as such....)
if you see anyone with homophobia be sure to keep your distance.
you don't want to catch it!
you don't want another disease with 'homo' in it.
It might confuse the nurses at the institution where you live.
plus,
if you caught homophobia after you already had homosexuality;
you would be,
like,
totally scared of yourself!
which,
come to think of it,
if you ever look in a mirror you probably already are.....
92
If it hurts why do you keep doing it?
Ignorant Bitch....
Your linked study was first published Sept 2012.
@77 is from April 2010.
@73 is from Aug 2009.
And there are other studies above from sources other than UCLA.
The UCLA think tank studying homosexual issues has for 5 years been documenting the greatly elevated levels of social pathology in that community.
Danny and the FanBoys want to sweep it under the rug.
So much for SCIENCE!.
Shame....
.
(if men are so violent why would you want to put children in a household with two violent men and no women to watch out for the children? It sounds like a strong case against gay adoption.)
Ignorant Bitch....
Your linked study was first published Sept 2012.
@77 is from April 2010.
@73 is from Aug 2009.
And there are other studies above from sources other than UCLA.
The UCLA think tank studying homosexual issues has for 5 years been documenting the greatly elevated levels of social pathology in that community.
Danny and the FanBoys want to sweep it under the rug.
So much for SCIENCE!.
Shame....
.
(if men are so violent why would you want to put children in a household with two violent men and no women to watch out for the children? It sounds like a strong case against gay adoption.)
91
79, Racism, and homophobia are wrong. Two cases in history where bigots wanted to stop others from marrying. They are completely related. There's nothing wrong with interracial or gay marriage.
90
@88: It hurts when ignorant demagogues claim the support of science when the evidence is actually against them.
I've explained this to you plenty of times before. The UCLA-affiliated study (yes, singular; I defy you to show me another recent UCLA study presenting similar results) shows only that homosexual/bisexual men and homosexual/bisexual women should be treated as disparate groups when looking at IPV. Additionally, it presents supporting evidence that men are more violent than women (since queer men and women in the study tended to have been abused by men).
Why are you so dead-set on stopping gays from getting married, when you should be protecting people from us guys? Think of the children, man.
I've explained this to you plenty of times before. The UCLA-affiliated study (yes, singular; I defy you to show me another recent UCLA study presenting similar results) shows only that homosexual/bisexual men and homosexual/bisexual women should be treated as disparate groups when looking at IPV. Additionally, it presents supporting evidence that men are more violent than women (since queer men and women in the study tended to have been abused by men).
Why are you so dead-set on stopping gays from getting married, when you should be protecting people from us guys? Think of the children, man.
89
86
there are three separate ucla studies cited.
when it rains it pours.
87
no thank you.
we are not interested in playing your lying orwellian word games.
we prefer to be free to reject the inferior imitation for what it is;
a shallow shadow fraudulent imposter.
there are three separate ucla studies cited.
when it rains it pours.
87
no thank you.
we are not interested in playing your lying orwellian word games.
we prefer to be free to reject the inferior imitation for what it is;
a shallow shadow fraudulent imposter.
88
85
86
oh god it hurts when Science rips you a new one, no? so we will not dwell on your pathetic rationalization or outright illiteracy....
86
oh god it hurts when Science rips you a new one, no? so we will not dwell on your pathetic rationalization or outright illiteracy....
87
@42 If the government did not recognize or sanction any union, then no one's spouse/partner would have power of attorney, enjoy rights of survivorship or inherit without taxes, automatically be admitted into a hospital room, or automatically be considered next of kin over, say, a sibling. Oh but then ever couple could go a lawyer four times and have the documents drawn up. But this would cost money. And it would itself involve the government.
That's what marriage really does. "If I'm in a coma in the hospital, please consider my romantic partner, not my mom/daughter/brother to be my next of kin. If I die, please consider all my property to be my romantic partner's property." Is anyone telling me that they've never had a live-in partner whom they did NOT want to enjoy the power of life and death? That's the real difference between married and not married, the "Yes, please let him/her be the one to decide whether to pull the plug" vs. "Actually, I'd rather have my mom/sister/son take the helm on that one (and all my stuff)."
@46 They don't need to be just as good. They only need to be just as legal. People are as free as they ever were to think that gays are not really married.
That's what marriage really does. "If I'm in a coma in the hospital, please consider my romantic partner, not my mom/daughter/brother to be my next of kin. If I die, please consider all my property to be my romantic partner's property." Is anyone telling me that they've never had a live-in partner whom they did NOT want to enjoy the power of life and death? That's the real difference between married and not married, the "Yes, please let him/her be the one to decide whether to pull the plug" vs. "Actually, I'd rather have my mom/sister/son take the helm on that one (and all my stuff)."
@46 They don't need to be just as good. They only need to be just as legal. People are as free as they ever were to think that gays are not really married.
86
@71: That UCLA study indicated that gays were more likely to have been abused by a special other at some point in their life, but no more likely to have suffered abuse during the past year. The implication of this is that gays tend to end up being abused early in their adult lives. You know, often around the time they come out. But thanks for blaming stuff on gays that in all likelihood is actually done by homophobes.
@72: Anecdotal evidence. And the write-up is from the homophobic American Family Association.
Alleged, that UCLA-affiliated study doesn't say what you're saying it does. It shows that queers are victims, not that they're abusers.
@72: Anecdotal evidence. And the write-up is from the homophobic American Family Association.
Alleged, that UCLA-affiliated study doesn't say what you're saying it does. It shows that queers are victims, not that they're abusers.
85
@73--from the excerpt you posted "The researchers speculate the increased use of healthcare might be the result of higher exposure to discrimination, violence and other stressful life events.
"The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems," she added."
This suggests that homosexuality itself is less of a problem than anti-homosexual bigotry.
Thanks for the talking point.
"The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems," she added."
This suggests that homosexuality itself is less of a problem than anti-homosexual bigotry.
Thanks for the talking point.
84
@83 I think it makes it easier for abusive husbands to get away with it. If society makes it difficult for a women to make it on her own then a battered wife is less likely to divorce her husband.
80
queerty.com
STUDY: Gays Prefer Abusing Their Domestic Partners When The Weatherās Nice
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs just released a study that provides a bleak look into the problem of domestic abuse and violence against intimate partners in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-affected community (LGBTQH). One of the stranger findingsāthe number of gay domestic abuse cases rises in the spring and early summer. But the NCAVP also has suggestions on how our community can address the issue.
David Mixner breaks down some of the reportās key findings:
-There were a total of 5,052 reports of domestic violence in our community which is an increase of over 38% from last year.
-There was also a dramatic increase in the physical violence directed at their partners. 55.4% of the survivors reported physical violence from their partners. This is an increase from 38.5% from the previous year.
-Six of our community members were killed by their partners in 2010.
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/gays-prefer-abusi…
Read more at http://www.queerty.com/gays-prefer-abusi…
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/gays-prefer-abusi…
Read more at http://www.queerty.com/gays-prefer-abusi…
STUDY: Gays Prefer Abusing Their Domestic Partners When The Weatherās Nice
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs just released a study that provides a bleak look into the problem of domestic abuse and violence against intimate partners in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-affected community (LGBTQH). One of the stranger findingsāthe number of gay domestic abuse cases rises in the spring and early summer. But the NCAVP also has suggestions on how our community can address the issue.
David Mixner breaks down some of the reportās key findings:
-There were a total of 5,052 reports of domestic violence in our community which is an increase of over 38% from last year.
-There was also a dramatic increase in the physical violence directed at their partners. 55.4% of the survivors reported physical violence from their partners. This is an increase from 38.5% from the previous year.
-Six of our community members were killed by their partners in 2010.
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/gays-prefer-abusi…
Read more at http://www.queerty.com/gays-prefer-abusi…
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/gays-prefer-abusi…
Read more at http://www.queerty.com/gays-prefer-abusi…
79
76
That IS funny, Bob.
But, alas, it isn't really an argument.
The fact that racism is wrong doesn't make homosexual "marriage" good policy.
The two are, like, totally unrelated.
say 'hi' to the baboon
That IS funny, Bob.
But, alas, it isn't really an argument.
The fact that racism is wrong doesn't make homosexual "marriage" good policy.
The two are, like, totally unrelated.
say 'hi' to the baboon
78
@71 "assholes spoil whatever institution they are part of."
Actually the mark of a good social system is that it doesn't get spoiled even when assholes become part of it. The American system of constitutional government has survived quite a few bad presidents. This is because our founding fathers were wise enough not to invest to much authority in any single person or institution.
Actually the mark of a good social system is that it doesn't get spoiled even when assholes become part of it. The American system of constitutional government has survived quite a few bad presidents. This is because our founding fathers were wise enough not to invest to much authority in any single person or institution.
77
UCLA Newsroom > All Stories > News Releases
Nearly 4 million Californians report sexual or physical violence from a spouse or companion
UCLA study find that lesbians, gays and bisexuals are at particularly high risk
By Gwen Driscoll April 28, 2010
Nearly 4 million adults in California reported being a victim of physical or sexual violence at the hands of a spouse, companion or other intimate partner, according to a new policy brief from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.
Of those victims, more than 1 million reported being forced to have sex by an intimate partner, the study found.
Although reported incidences of intimate partner violence, or IPV, are widespread, especially among women and certain ethnic groups, reported IPV was surprisingly high among lesbians and gays in California, who are almost twice as likely to experience violence as heterosexual adults, researchers said.
Specifically, 27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing IPV in their adult lives.
In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV.
"This is not a group commonly associated with violence," said the study's lead author, Elaine Zahnd, a sociologist and senior research scientist at the Public Health Institute, which partners with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research in conducting the California Health Interview Survey. "These findings should cause us to reconsider our assumptions about the root causes of violence, even as we redouble our efforts to eradicate it."
The study, supported by the Blue Shield of California Foundation, draws on new data on IPV from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), the nation's largest state health survey and consequently one of the largest surveys of IPV victims in the nation. The CHIS is also one of the few surveys to collect extensive health data on lesbians, gays and bisexuals. The survey is conducted by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, in collaboration with the Public Health Institute, the California Department of Public Health and the Department of Health Care Services.
Other findings from the study include:
Divorced, widowed Californians at risk
The rate of adult IPV among Californians who are separated, divorced or widowed is among the highest of all groups, at 41.0 percent. This is nearly twice the rate of adults living with a partner (24.6 percent) and more than three times the rate of married (13.3 percent) or single (13.2 percent) adults.
More...
Nearly 4 million Californians report sexual or physical violence from a spouse or companion
UCLA study find that lesbians, gays and bisexuals are at particularly high risk
By Gwen Driscoll April 28, 2010
Nearly 4 million adults in California reported being a victim of physical or sexual violence at the hands of a spouse, companion or other intimate partner, according to a new policy brief from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.
Of those victims, more than 1 million reported being forced to have sex by an intimate partner, the study found.
Although reported incidences of intimate partner violence, or IPV, are widespread, especially among women and certain ethnic groups, reported IPV was surprisingly high among lesbians and gays in California, who are almost twice as likely to experience violence as heterosexual adults, researchers said.
Specifically, 27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing IPV in their adult lives.
In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV.
"This is not a group commonly associated with violence," said the study's lead author, Elaine Zahnd, a sociologist and senior research scientist at the Public Health Institute, which partners with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research in conducting the California Health Interview Survey. "These findings should cause us to reconsider our assumptions about the root causes of violence, even as we redouble our efforts to eradicate it."
The study, supported by the Blue Shield of California Foundation, draws on new data on IPV from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), the nation's largest state health survey and consequently one of the largest surveys of IPV victims in the nation. The CHIS is also one of the few surveys to collect extensive health data on lesbians, gays and bisexuals. The survey is conducted by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, in collaboration with the Public Health Institute, the California Department of Public Health and the Department of Health Care Services.
Other findings from the study include:
Divorced, widowed Californians at risk
The rate of adult IPV among Californians who are separated, divorced or widowed is among the highest of all groups, at 41.0 percent. This is nearly twice the rate of adults living with a partner (24.6 percent) and more than three times the rate of married (13.3 percent) or single (13.2 percent) adults.
76
44, Funny how you can't counter the argument I presented. You are the 21st century equivalent to the racial segregationists of the mid 20th century. They also preached doom and gloom, and the downfall of America if the races were allowed to mix. Funny thing is the fear tactics stopped working then too.
75
UCLA Study Finds Bisexual Women and Gay Men Suffer Higher Rates of Domestic Violence
By Staff 64 Days Ago on Health from blogs.laweekly.com
A new way of looking at domestic violence: A new UCLA study has found that domestic violence is not, in fact, equally present in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The new study reports that domestic violence is more prevalent in relationships involving gay males. Read the results of the study by clicking the link below.
By Staff 64 Days Ago on Health from blogs.laweekly.com
A new way of looking at domestic violence: A new UCLA study has found that domestic violence is not, in fact, equally present in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The new study reports that domestic violence is more prevalent in relationships involving gay males. Read the results of the study by clicking the link below.
74
Study: Gay Men More Likely to Be Abused by Partner
Posted on Oct 23, 2012
The Journal of Interpersonal Violence recently published a new study that sheds light on the rates of domestic abuse and violence among those in same-sex relationships. The study, which was conducted by the Williams Institute, found that homosexual men face higher incidences of intimate partner violence than heterosexual men.
Researchers at the Williams Institute, which is a gay and lesbian think tank associated with UCLA, say that gay men have an āelevated riskā of domestic violence ā and that 97 percent of domestic violence incidents that involved gay men also involved a same-sex partner. Men who have sex with men (but do not identify as gay) and bisexual men did not have a significantly higher rate of domestic abuse incidents.
Those who created the study say that they hope the new data will raise awareness of same-sex domestic violence. In many cases, the public and abuse victims do not know or understand that domestic violence and abuse can affect both men and women, both gay and straight.
The study corrected for other variables that affect the rates of domestic violence, including substance abuse issues and mental health issues.
Posted on Oct 23, 2012
The Journal of Interpersonal Violence recently published a new study that sheds light on the rates of domestic abuse and violence among those in same-sex relationships. The study, which was conducted by the Williams Institute, found that homosexual men face higher incidences of intimate partner violence than heterosexual men.
Researchers at the Williams Institute, which is a gay and lesbian think tank associated with UCLA, say that gay men have an āelevated riskā of domestic violence ā and that 97 percent of domestic violence incidents that involved gay men also involved a same-sex partner. Men who have sex with men (but do not identify as gay) and bisexual men did not have a significantly higher rate of domestic abuse incidents.
Those who created the study say that they hope the new data will raise awareness of same-sex domestic violence. In many cases, the public and abuse victims do not know or understand that domestic violence and abuse can affect both men and women, both gay and straight.
The study corrected for other variables that affect the rates of domestic violence, including substance abuse issues and mental health issues.
73
found this while googling....
Science News
Gays and lesbians often seek health care
inShare
Published: Aug. 13, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Advertisement
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 13 (UPI) -- A study finds gay, lesbian and bisexual Californians sought mental health or substance abuse treatment at twice the rate of heterosexuals last year.
The study was conducted by UCLA scientists and involved data from a survey of more than 2,000 Californians.
The researchers found 48.5 percent of gay lesbian or bisexual individuals said they participated in treatment during the past year, compared with 22.5 percent of heterosexuals. Lesbians and bisexual women were most likely to receive treatment and heterosexual men were the least likely.
"It is well known that health services utilization is greater among women generally," researcher Susan Cochran said. "Here we have shown that minority sexual orientation is also an important consideration. Lesbians and bisexual women appear to be approximately twice as likely as heterosexual women to report having received recent treatment for mental health or substance use disorders."
The researchers speculate the increased use of healthcare might be the result of higher exposure to discrimination, violence and other stressful life events.
"The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems," she added.
The study appears in the journal BMC Psychiatry.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/08/…
Science News
Gays and lesbians often seek health care
inShare
Published: Aug. 13, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Advertisement
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 13 (UPI) -- A study finds gay, lesbian and bisexual Californians sought mental health or substance abuse treatment at twice the rate of heterosexuals last year.
The study was conducted by UCLA scientists and involved data from a survey of more than 2,000 Californians.
The researchers found 48.5 percent of gay lesbian or bisexual individuals said they participated in treatment during the past year, compared with 22.5 percent of heterosexuals. Lesbians and bisexual women were most likely to receive treatment and heterosexual men were the least likely.
"It is well known that health services utilization is greater among women generally," researcher Susan Cochran said. "Here we have shown that minority sexual orientation is also an important consideration. Lesbians and bisexual women appear to be approximately twice as likely as heterosexual women to report having received recent treatment for mental health or substance use disorders."
The researchers speculate the increased use of healthcare might be the result of higher exposure to discrimination, violence and other stressful life events.
"The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems," she added.
The study appears in the journal BMC Psychiatry.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/08/…
72
Lesbians More Prone to Partner Violence
2010-08-30
By Carey Roberts
A series of high-profile cases of lesbian-perpetrated domestic violence has sent shock-waves through Massachusetts communities in recent months:
1. On February 16, a Suffolk Superior Court jury convicted Nicole Chuminski on two counts of second-degree murder, following a fire that killed the two daughters of her lover Anna Reisopoulos. During a heated argument between the two, Chuminski reportedly fell into a fit of rage. A few hours later Chuminski returned to her partnerĆ¢ā¬ā¢s apartment and hurled an acetone-laden firebomb into the front door.
Sophia and Acia, ages 2 and 14, were burned beyond recognition, so dental records were needed for positive identification.
2. On March 29 Annamarie Rintala of Granby, Mass. was found dead by strangulation in the basement of the house she shared with her domestic partner Cara. Cara had been previously charged with domestic violence after she struck Annamarie in the back of the head with a closed fist.
3. Eunice Field of Brockton, Mass. found herself on the losing end of a bitter mĆĀ©nage Ćļæ½ trois. So on August 9 she marched to the apartment of Lorraine Wachsman. There she grabbed a serrated knife and stabbed Wachsman in the back and neck. Dispelling any doubt about her intentions, she then penned a note admitting she had killed Waschsman Ć¢ā¬Åfor taking away the love of my life.Ć¢ā¬Ā
Ms. Field is now being held without bail pending a September 3 court appearance.
Experts on lesbian domestic violence were shocked, but honestly not surprised by these incidents. Last November a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reported a 125% increase in domestic violence fatalities in lesbian and gay couples around the country during the prior year. According to Beth Leventhal of The Network/La Red of Boston, Ć¢ā¬Åpartner abuse in LGBT communities can be just as lethal as that in heterosexual communities.Ć¢ā¬Ā
Ms. LeventhalĆ¢ā¬ā¢s commentary actually understates the extent of the problem. Earlier this year the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research published the results of a survey of over 51,000 California adults . The UCLA study found 28% of persons in lesbian/gay relationships had experienced intimate partner violence, compared to 17% of persons in heterosexual relationships.
ItĆ¢ā¬ā¢s also believed that lesbians are more likely to engage in partner violence than gay men. According to the Boston Gay MenĆ¢ā¬ā¢s Domestic Violence Project, one in three homosexual women experience partner aggression, compared to only one in four homosexual men. Kaitlin Nichols of The Network/La Red notes, Ć¢ā¬ÅThe myth of womenĆ¢ā¬ā¢s communities as safe communities has prevented many women from reaching out for support. If they have shared what is happening, they are met with disbelief from their community.Ć¢ā¬Ā
And why are lesbians more likely to abuse?
According to Nomi Porat, an abuse-prevention expert, the reason is poor limit-setting: Ć¢ā¬ÅAn issue common to women, particularly battered women, is the fear of demanding physical and emotional boundaries. In part, battered lesbians are afraid their lovers will leave or become more violent if any limitations are set in the relationship.Ć¢ā¬Ā
A nearly impenetrable double wall serves to keep lesbian battering tucked away in the proverbial closet. The first wall is the stigmatization invoked by lesbians themselves who believe in a sort of same-sex utopia, the feminist belief that maintains female-female relationships are inherently more peaceful, gentle, and Ć¢ā¬Åpure,Ć¢ā¬Ā compared to male-female relationships.
In Naming the Violence: Speaking out About Lesbian Battering, Barbara Hart maintains that female batterers should be subjected to a form of shunning by the lesbian community: Ć¢ā¬Åone of the consequences of [female batterersĆ¢ā¬ā¢] violence is that they may have to limit any contact with the person they assaulted/abused. This may mean that the batterer cannot attend public gatherings or movement meetings.Ć¢ā¬Ā
The second wall is the broader domestic violence industry that maintains a cult-like belief in the notion of patriarchal sexism, the theory that men abuse their wives due to an innate and irrepressible urge to oppress women. So every time a woman pummels, rapes, or otherwise abuses her female partner, the patriarchal dominance theory takes a body-blow.
These ideological blinders serve to justify shelters policies that turn away of needy women. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the problem of abuse shelters that discriminate on the basis of gender identity is widespread.
Intimate partner aggression is not a problem limited to any particular sex, or gender identity, or economic group. Indeed, research shows women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner abuse.
When the Sisterhood gets over its denial of the truth, weĆ¢ā¬ā¢ll stop seeing so many women and men victimized by domestic violence.
More...
2010-08-30
By Carey Roberts
A series of high-profile cases of lesbian-perpetrated domestic violence has sent shock-waves through Massachusetts communities in recent months:
1. On February 16, a Suffolk Superior Court jury convicted Nicole Chuminski on two counts of second-degree murder, following a fire that killed the two daughters of her lover Anna Reisopoulos. During a heated argument between the two, Chuminski reportedly fell into a fit of rage. A few hours later Chuminski returned to her partnerĆ¢ā¬ā¢s apartment and hurled an acetone-laden firebomb into the front door.
Sophia and Acia, ages 2 and 14, were burned beyond recognition, so dental records were needed for positive identification.
2. On March 29 Annamarie Rintala of Granby, Mass. was found dead by strangulation in the basement of the house she shared with her domestic partner Cara. Cara had been previously charged with domestic violence after she struck Annamarie in the back of the head with a closed fist.
3. Eunice Field of Brockton, Mass. found herself on the losing end of a bitter mĆĀ©nage Ćļæ½ trois. So on August 9 she marched to the apartment of Lorraine Wachsman. There she grabbed a serrated knife and stabbed Wachsman in the back and neck. Dispelling any doubt about her intentions, she then penned a note admitting she had killed Waschsman Ć¢ā¬Åfor taking away the love of my life.Ć¢ā¬Ā
Ms. Field is now being held without bail pending a September 3 court appearance.
Experts on lesbian domestic violence were shocked, but honestly not surprised by these incidents. Last November a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reported a 125% increase in domestic violence fatalities in lesbian and gay couples around the country during the prior year. According to Beth Leventhal of The Network/La Red of Boston, Ć¢ā¬Åpartner abuse in LGBT communities can be just as lethal as that in heterosexual communities.Ć¢ā¬Ā
Ms. LeventhalĆ¢ā¬ā¢s commentary actually understates the extent of the problem. Earlier this year the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research published the results of a survey of over 51,000 California adults . The UCLA study found 28% of persons in lesbian/gay relationships had experienced intimate partner violence, compared to 17% of persons in heterosexual relationships.
ItĆ¢ā¬ā¢s also believed that lesbians are more likely to engage in partner violence than gay men. According to the Boston Gay MenĆ¢ā¬ā¢s Domestic Violence Project, one in three homosexual women experience partner aggression, compared to only one in four homosexual men. Kaitlin Nichols of The Network/La Red notes, Ć¢ā¬ÅThe myth of womenĆ¢ā¬ā¢s communities as safe communities has prevented many women from reaching out for support. If they have shared what is happening, they are met with disbelief from their community.Ć¢ā¬Ā
And why are lesbians more likely to abuse?
According to Nomi Porat, an abuse-prevention expert, the reason is poor limit-setting: Ć¢ā¬ÅAn issue common to women, particularly battered women, is the fear of demanding physical and emotional boundaries. In part, battered lesbians are afraid their lovers will leave or become more violent if any limitations are set in the relationship.Ć¢ā¬Ā
A nearly impenetrable double wall serves to keep lesbian battering tucked away in the proverbial closet. The first wall is the stigmatization invoked by lesbians themselves who believe in a sort of same-sex utopia, the feminist belief that maintains female-female relationships are inherently more peaceful, gentle, and Ć¢ā¬Åpure,Ć¢ā¬Ā compared to male-female relationships.
In Naming the Violence: Speaking out About Lesbian Battering, Barbara Hart maintains that female batterers should be subjected to a form of shunning by the lesbian community: Ć¢ā¬Åone of the consequences of [female batterersĆ¢ā¬ā¢] violence is that they may have to limit any contact with the person they assaulted/abused. This may mean that the batterer cannot attend public gatherings or movement meetings.Ć¢ā¬Ā
The second wall is the broader domestic violence industry that maintains a cult-like belief in the notion of patriarchal sexism, the theory that men abuse their wives due to an innate and irrepressible urge to oppress women. So every time a woman pummels, rapes, or otherwise abuses her female partner, the patriarchal dominance theory takes a body-blow.
These ideological blinders serve to justify shelters policies that turn away of needy women. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the problem of abuse shelters that discriminate on the basis of gender identity is widespread.
Intimate partner aggression is not a problem limited to any particular sex, or gender identity, or economic group. Indeed, research shows women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner abuse.
When the Sisterhood gets over its denial of the truth, weĆ¢ā¬ā¢ll stop seeing so many women and men victimized by domestic violence.
71
wow
you girls are sure pessimistic.
daddy must've been a real asshole.
and assholes spoil whatever institution they are part of.
THM is not inherently abusive.
and homosexual couples are more domestically abusive than heterosexual.
according to a UCLA study.
sorry.
try again.
you girls are sure pessimistic.
daddy must've been a real asshole.
and assholes spoil whatever institution they are part of.
THM is not inherently abusive.
and homosexual couples are more domestically abusive than heterosexual.
according to a UCLA study.
sorry.
try again.
70
@68 Traditional marriage gives husbands great power over their wives. Human nature being what it is some men will inevitably abuse that authority. Traditional marriage traps women in abusive marriages just as surely as single motherhood causes child poverty.
68
67
the solution is to address the behavior of abusive men.
the mere pairing of a female and male and a certificate does not constitute THM, and there are many and varied pathologies that gnaw at it.
energetic societal/cultural support helps keep the wolves at bay, on the other hand a culture that is contemptuous of the values associated with THM turns out like ours.
the solution is to address the behavior of abusive men.
the mere pairing of a female and male and a certificate does not constitute THM, and there are many and varied pathologies that gnaw at it.
energetic societal/cultural support helps keep the wolves at bay, on the other hand a culture that is contemptuous of the values associated with THM turns out like ours.
67
@63 I agree that the decline of the traditional family has contributed to many social problems. The thing I think your forgetting is that family structure was preserved through patriarchy. Before the 1960s the number of careers available to women was very limit. That made many women financially dependent on their husbands. After women gained a certain amount economic independence they became less inclined to put up with husbands who kept mistresses on the side or slapped their wives around. Naturally the divorce rate soared. To bring back the traditional family you would have to take away many of the rights women have gained in the last 50 years. I don't think making second class citizens out of 50% of the population is a goal that is achievable or desirable.
65
Sometimes it seems that fate, kismet, karma, a higher power, whatever you want to call it, conspire to place a particular person in a particular place at a particular time. I think this time is the place for these two ladies. They are the quintessence of why marriage equality is so important. Anyone who would begrudge these two all the happiness in the world and marriage equality simply exposes themselves as a heartless, brainless amoral bigot.
There is simply no way to make a cogent argument against these two.
There is simply no way to make a cogent argument against these two.
64
@59: Where's your evidence that Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is better than any alternative? Where's your evidence that its decline has caused our country's problems? Or is empiricism another one of those liberal inventions?
But sure, let's keep deregulating industry and allowing the wealthy to run roughshod over the working classes. If we stop gays from getting married and teach women their place in the home, everything will work itself out!
But sure, let's keep deregulating industry and allowing the wealthy to run roughshod over the working classes. If we stop gays from getting married and teach women their place in the home, everything will work itself out!
63
61
Don't give up on America, Ken.
We have overcome bigger problems that Obama and the Democraps......
Don't give up on America, Ken.
We have overcome bigger problems that Obama and the Democraps......
62
60
You love it!
but you don't understand it.....
our educational system is shitty because too many of the 'homes' students come from are shitty.
putting indifferent overpaid apathetic union babysitters in the classroom is just icing.
Educational spending does not correlate to better outcome.
sorry to bust your cherry.
this isn't a problem you can solve by throwing someone else's money at...
You love it!
but you don't understand it.....
our educational system is shitty because too many of the 'homes' students come from are shitty.
putting indifferent overpaid apathetic union babysitters in the classroom is just icing.
Educational spending does not correlate to better outcome.
sorry to bust your cherry.
this isn't a problem you can solve by throwing someone else's money at...
61
@59 So basically, you want to stop gay couples from getting married so that you can make a corpse get up and walk like on that show on AMC?
60
I love it! Calling out our underfunded education system for doing a bad job, then complaining we spend too much money on government!
Hot tip: those teachers we underpay are government employees.
I also love that Ken was willing to explain his take on America, but the troll hides behind tedious rhetorical devices to avoid having to proffer anything which might be challenged.
Hot tip: those teachers we underpay are government employees.
I also love that Ken was willing to explain his take on America, but the troll hides behind tedious rhetorical devices to avoid having to proffer anything which might be challenged.
59
Do maggots contribute to the demise of the corpse?
To remain healthy our society needs to produce an adequate supply of functional adults. (not just 21 year old living bodies; Functional Adults....)
Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is the best social institution to accomplish that VITAL task.
THM, and our society, have been in steady decline.
The host of social pathologies that are 21st Century America are the product of those declines.
The solution is to rehabilitate THM.
The Liberals' contributions to social policy: Murphy Brown, the Summer of Love, abandonment of Traditional Gender Role Models, removal of stigma on extra/premarital sexual behavior and out-of-wed birthrate; all have been disasters for American society.
Homosexual "Marriage" is their latest turd.
Anything that is not THM is second or third or tenth best and will not bring America back.
Pretending homosexual pairings are Just As Good as THM is a lie and lies make a poor basis for enlightened social policy.
Do maggots contribute to the demise of the corpse?
To remain healthy our society needs to produce an adequate supply of functional adults. (not just 21 year old living bodies; Functional Adults....)
Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is the best social institution to accomplish that VITAL task.
THM, and our society, have been in steady decline.
The host of social pathologies that are 21st Century America are the product of those declines.
The solution is to rehabilitate THM.
The Liberals' contributions to social policy: Murphy Brown, the Summer of Love, abandonment of Traditional Gender Role Models, removal of stigma on extra/premarital sexual behavior and out-of-wed birthrate; all have been disasters for American society.
Homosexual "Marriage" is their latest turd.
Anything that is not THM is second or third or tenth best and will not bring America back.
Pretending homosexual pairings are Just As Good as THM is a lie and lies make a poor basis for enlightened social policy.
57
55
that's funny.
a few questions:
if Wise Obama gets his tax on the rich how much in the red will his 2013 budget still be?
what percentage of Americans are on disability now compared to 40 years ago?
how well educated are the (chronological) adults our society produces?
how many taxpayers support how many government employees+government entitlement recipients currently vs forty years ago?
What percentage of annual Federal Income tax receipts go to pay (just) interest on the Federal Debt?
If interest rates on the debt rise to 10% what percentage of tax receiptys will it take?
What percentage of Americans pay zero Federal Income taxes?
What was that figure forty years ago?
What percentage of American children grow up in a family with their married mother and father?
that's funny.
a few questions:
if Wise Obama gets his tax on the rich how much in the red will his 2013 budget still be?
what percentage of Americans are on disability now compared to 40 years ago?
how well educated are the (chronological) adults our society produces?
how many taxpayers support how many government employees+government entitlement recipients currently vs forty years ago?
What percentage of annual Federal Income tax receipts go to pay (just) interest on the Federal Debt?
If interest rates on the debt rise to 10% what percentage of tax receiptys will it take?
What percentage of Americans pay zero Federal Income taxes?
What was that figure forty years ago?
What percentage of American children grow up in a family with their married mother and father?
55
@54 Our economy has been devastated by an out of control military-industrial complex financed with public debt and by insufficient regulation of the financial sector. However, under the wise leadership of President Obama we have begun to rebuild.
52
What bad thing do you think is happening in 21st Century America?
or do you think everything is peachy keen?
now that god answered your prayer and re-elected Obama?
What bad thing do you think is happening in 21st Century America?
or do you think everything is peachy keen?
now that god answered your prayer and re-elected Obama?
What bad thing do you think is happening in 21st Century America?
51
@50: Yes, bad things happen. That's just the way the world works. But if gay marriage made bad things happen, wouldn't states that have legalized it be going through EVEN MORE bad things?
Answer Ken's questions. What bad things are going to happen because of gay marriage? Are they already happening?
Answer Ken's questions. What bad things are going to happen because of gay marriage? Are they already happening?
49
@46 What bad thing do you think will happen if marriage equality becomes the law of the land? Has it happened in Massachusetts? In Canada?
47
20
Alas. Very much so, where we live.
Those brand new Shiny Happy "Marriages" won't travel very well, we are afraid....
Alas. Very much so, where we live.
Those brand new Shiny Happy "Marriages" won't travel very well, we are afraid....
46
19
A fallacious argument.
Traditional Heterosexual Marriage coveys to society vital benefits that nothing else does. ('vital' in the literal sense of the word.)
True, the Old Gal isn't what she used to be, and to the grievous detriment of society.
But pretending homosexual pairings are Just As Good is a huge step in the wrong direction. throwing kerosine on the fire, as it were.
A fallacious argument.
Traditional Heterosexual Marriage coveys to society vital benefits that nothing else does. ('vital' in the literal sense of the word.)
True, the Old Gal isn't what she used to be, and to the grievous detriment of society.
But pretending homosexual pairings are Just As Good is a huge step in the wrong direction. throwing kerosine on the fire, as it were.
45
39
that, plus the knowledge that messing with the troll will guarantee you an intellectual castration.
that, plus the knowledge that messing with the troll will guarantee you an intellectual castration.
43
16, in the 50s and 60s. It was argued that "Marriage is a legally binding contract between a man and a woman of the same race. If you want the rights and benefits, sign the contract. Aside from the social status associated with the institution, that's the point of this fight: protecting the rights and benefits of marriage for any consenting man and woman of the same race.
The government is compelled to give equal opportunity and equal protection, but it is not, nor should it be, compelled to respect or treat equal every choice. Choose an interracial lifestyle if you want but don't whine when society doesn't reward your choice the same way it rewards Traditional Single Race Marriageā¢. I don't own a car unless my name's on the title, and I don't get the benefits of marriage unless I'm married to a person of the same race."
The government is compelled to give equal opportunity and equal protection, but it is not, nor should it be, compelled to respect or treat equal every choice. Choose an interracial lifestyle if you want but don't whine when society doesn't reward your choice the same way it rewards Traditional Single Race Marriageā¢. I don't own a car unless my name's on the title, and I don't get the benefits of marriage unless I'm married to a person of the same race."
42
@41 That's unrealistic and burdensome, so the suggestion that would follow is that government - meaning society - should have no recognition or sanction of any union, marriage, partnership, or what have you. We could then speculate on the pros and cons of this, but a more valid point is that this will never happen. So given that marriage will be officially recognized by society (and partnerships recognized to a lesser extent, but that's it) the more important matter is how we go about this in a fair manner: Non-straight couples are just as legit as straight couples. And that's the point made by some of the comments.
Maybe flan is sincere, if really misguided.
Maybe flan is sincere, if really misguided.
41
Let's take flan's hypothetical from another angle. If the law treated co-habitants as equal to a married couple under the law, that means the court could be involved every time a couple breaks up and one moves out. Right now, if a married couple does it, it's called divorce, and the court may have to be involved to divide property, debt, and so forth. If an unmarried couple separates, they work it out on their own. Could you see if the court had to be involved every time a couple that moved in together split up?
40
@39 He doesn't seem sincere to me, that's all. He seemed to be trolling. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just that the argument seemed so ludicrous to me, and so redolent of Big Government tyranny, that I just read it as a cloaked homophobe trying to muddy things up. But maybe my b.s. detector is set on "high".
39
@37 I'm arguing with Flan because it's fun and because engaging in intelligent arguments helps me figure out what I really think and why. And Flan hasn't said anything homophobic, at least not here.
This entire thread is a distraction--a welcome one. I visit this webpage for entertainment. The fact that it can also be enlightening, instructive and informative does not change this. So far, Flan has kept things civil, which is why I haven't ignored him or her the way I ignored that other jerk @16. If you don't want to talk about whether all cohabitating couples should count as married under the law, then you don't have to.
This entire thread is a distraction--a welcome one. I visit this webpage for entertainment. The fact that it can also be enlightening, instructive and informative does not change this. So far, Flan has kept things civil, which is why I haven't ignored him or her the way I ignored that other jerk @16. If you don't want to talk about whether all cohabitating couples should count as married under the law, then you don't have to.
38
People don't have to think that Thea and Edie are really married if they don't want to, just like they don't have to believe that divorced-and-on-the-second-spouse couples are really married. This is about the law. This is about where the government interacts with a longstanding social institution.
@2 Flan, I disagree. No, cohabitating couples should not be treated as if they were married. That would cheapen marriage. (That's also why "domestic partnerships," "civil unions" and other forms of marriage lite are a bigger threat to traditional marriage than allowing gays to marry is.) If people are free marry but prefer not to, then it is their responsibility to learn about the difference and accept the risks and costs, and their choice should be respected. If you don't want the state in your private relationships, fine, but then you don't get the state-mandated tax benefits or legal protections.
Look at it this way, you say that treating non-married couples (and I assume you meant long-term, cohabitating partners otherwise identical to married couples and please correct me if that's not what you meant) differently from married couples is unfair ...but how so? If I put a bunch of cupcakes on the table and say, "Okay, anyone who wants to can come and take one," but you choose not to take one, how is it unfair to you? You're the one who decided not to take one.
@2 Flan, I disagree. No, cohabitating couples should not be treated as if they were married. That would cheapen marriage. (That's also why "domestic partnerships," "civil unions" and other forms of marriage lite are a bigger threat to traditional marriage than allowing gays to marry is.) If people are free marry but prefer not to, then it is their responsibility to learn about the difference and accept the risks and costs, and their choice should be respected. If you don't want the state in your private relationships, fine, but then you don't get the state-mandated tax benefits or legal protections.
Look at it this way, you say that treating non-married couples (and I assume you meant long-term, cohabitating partners otherwise identical to married couples and please correct me if that's not what you meant) differently from married couples is unfair ...but how so? If I put a bunch of cupcakes on the table and say, "Okay, anyone who wants to can come and take one," but you choose not to take one, how is it unfair to you? You're the one who decided not to take one.
37
Why are we arguing with "flan"?? He's a homophobic bigot spinning this whole I'm-a-penalized-single crap because he doesn't have the cojones to be honest and say "I hate gay people because the Bible and whatever and so I don't think they should get married." His side is out of arguments, they got run out of town on Election Day, and so he's trying to stir the water with this singles-discrimination sophistry.
You're not gonna get anywhere with him. Let's review: Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Heterosexual marriages are recognized by society, endowing them with particular rights and responsibilities, and homosexual marriages should be accepted in the same form because anything less is capricious discrimination. And equal protection under the law and all that crap. This whole singles-are-discriminated thing is a distraction, a wild goose chase. Let the hypocritical bigot puff his chest desperately over in the corner while the rest of the chickens move along. This post illustrates why gays and lesbians and bisexuals deserve to be treated equally as heteros. Regardless of how politics, ego, and prejudice end up affecting the Supreme Court ruling, this is what it's all about, not singles and societal rewards and whether federal government should be in private lives and all that noise. Let's not lose focus, people.
You're not gonna get anywhere with him. Let's review: Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Heterosexual marriages are recognized by society, endowing them with particular rights and responsibilities, and homosexual marriages should be accepted in the same form because anything less is capricious discrimination. And equal protection under the law and all that crap. This whole singles-are-discriminated thing is a distraction, a wild goose chase. Let the hypocritical bigot puff his chest desperately over in the corner while the rest of the chickens move along. This post illustrates why gays and lesbians and bisexuals deserve to be treated equally as heteros. Regardless of how politics, ego, and prejudice end up affecting the Supreme Court ruling, this is what it's all about, not singles and societal rewards and whether federal government should be in private lives and all that noise. Let's not lose focus, people.
36
@33 Your right. A man who didn't do whatever to please his wife might be considered a bad husband, but he wouldn't be considered a non-husband. I think that the man editing his sexuality in a way that is pleasing to the women is a component in many, though not all, successful heterosexual relationships, but it certainly isn't a definition of what it is to be a husband.
35
@ Flan, you're wrong. Unmarried couples aren't penalized; married ones are rewarded. And it's really a societal decision that's enforced by the state, not a state decision. We the people, and all that.
If you think that's unfair, that's fine, but you still have to make that case from the correct starting point. Beginning with a false premise will only lead to a false conclusion.
If you think that's unfair, that's fine, but you still have to make that case from the correct starting point. Beginning with a false premise will only lead to a false conclusion.
34
@32 Actually saving and investing helps the economy at a much smaller rate. One of the reasons the Bush tax cuts were so ineffectual is because he gave it to people as a lump sum and instead of injecting it into the economy, most people put it in savings for a rainy day.
33
@15: A man and a woman can be married without the man having to behave in a manner acceptable to the woman.
32
@31 People don't just benefit the economy by spending and consuming, they also do so by saving and investing. In American we save to little for the long-term health of our economy. Single people living the high life might boost the economy in the short term but over the long run it is stable loving couples living behind white picket fences who form the bedrock of our society.
31
Eric Klinenberg from NYU: "Perhaps more important, singletons are fueling the economy. They spend more discretionary dollars than their married counterparts. Their average per capita annual expenditure was $34,471 in 2010, according to the federal Consumer Expenditure survey, compared with $28,017 for married individuals without kids and $23,179 per person in the highest-spending families with children."
29
#13 wow you are a real hero for getting married.
in fact, single people add much more to the economy than married people, so your argument is dumb. single people contribute A LOT more to the economy than married individuals, so if anything, there should be a benefit for remaining single.
in fact, single people add much more to the economy than married people, so your argument is dumb. single people contribute A LOT more to the economy than married individuals, so if anything, there should be a benefit for remaining single.
28
@14 "so we are going to tax the 2% unless they are homosexual?"
No, we are going to tax the 2% equally, regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Right now, estate laws serve to confer heavier taxes on homosexuals than heterosexuals, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages.
But I guess making such a distinction is beyond your abilities.
No, we are going to tax the 2% equally, regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Right now, estate laws serve to confer heavier taxes on homosexuals than heterosexuals, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages.
But I guess making such a distinction is beyond your abilities.
27
@13: First, not getting the benefits of marriage =/= a penalty.
Second, the state gets something for its benefits: I am legally obligated to take care of my wife, and vice versa. We are the same economic entity for the most part: her creditors can go after me (and vice versa), she can enter into economic contracts on my behalf (and vice versa) and so on. Etc.
That's why marriage is a contract, not just between spouses, but between the spouses and the state. The state gives us something, and in return we give the state something. If you don't like the terms and don't want to sign on the dotted line, that's certainly your prerogative. But complaining about not getting the benefits of the contract that you refuse to sign is just plain whiny.
Second, the state gets something for its benefits: I am legally obligated to take care of my wife, and vice versa. We are the same economic entity for the most part: her creditors can go after me (and vice versa), she can enter into economic contracts on my behalf (and vice versa) and so on. Etc.
That's why marriage is a contract, not just between spouses, but between the spouses and the state. The state gives us something, and in return we give the state something. If you don't like the terms and don't want to sign on the dotted line, that's certainly your prerogative. But complaining about not getting the benefits of the contract that you refuse to sign is just plain whiny.
26
@23 Committed sexual relationships offer certain benefits to society. Being partnered makes people healthier and more regular in their habits. Committed couples are better able to raise children. The institution of marriage provides a legal mechanism by which committed long term relationships can be distinguished from more casual short-term sexual relationships.
25
While I'm glad that SCOTUS will hear the challenge to DOMA, it's going to be really difficult listening to Nina Totenberg try to recap the arguments from the bigots' side of the argument. You would have to be a truly horrible person to argue that Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer's marriage is not valid. In fact, you'd have to be such a horrible person that you should probably just kill yourself than continue infecting this world with your putridness.
24
@11: People disagree with a lot of those policies, so I wish you wouldn't drag them into this. For example, I'm not really okay with the mortgage deduction- our houses would be a lot smaller and more sustainable and less people would get into mortgages they shouldn't have if there weren't such an incentive to be a homeowner.
I do think there are probably some rights and privileges associated with marriage that are unfair to single people, but that question is separate from the question of equality.
I do think there are probably some rights and privileges associated with marriage that are unfair to single people, but that question is separate from the question of equality.
23
#17 That fact that the government is involved in our personal lives does not mean that it has do so in an unfair way. Why is that so hard to understand?
I can understand why government gives tax breaks for certain things that are considered for the good of society, environment, etc. I don't believe that if I got married I would be doing society any good, so why should I get benefits for it? Am I really hurting society by remaniing single? Unless you can explain to me how my being single (but partnered) is hurting you? Please, I'd love to hear.
I can understand why government gives tax breaks for certain things that are considered for the good of society, environment, etc. I don't believe that if I got married I would be doing society any good, so why should I get benefits for it? Am I really hurting society by remaniing single? Unless you can explain to me how my being single (but partnered) is hurting you? Please, I'd love to hear.
22
@13, marriage is not and never has been a private arrangement. It's a legal contract and has been for thousands of years. Civil unions are also legal contracts, except they offer less legal protection than a marriage. There is no form of actual marriage that is not a legal contract. If you don't want to enter into such a contract, don't get married.
21
The oponents of same-sex marriage really make me sad. I just fail completely to understand their point of view, probably due to the fact that I am in no way religious myself. I think that this issue as well as women's rights and social justice are just proxy issues. The world is changing (as it does, should and always will), which can be a scary prospect, I get it, but trying to combat the fear by grasping onto "how things were" is very counter productive. I don't think that most opponents of SSM really oppose SSM per se, but the change that it represents. The opponents have a hard time expressing their concerns constructively and their fear manifests itself in, for example, opposition to SSM. The real tragedy, however, is that in doing so, the opponents are unnecessarily and unfairly complicating the lives of others, as demonstrated by the story of the couple in this post. The fight for equality and embracing change must go on. Thank you to all of the supporters.
20
@16 -
Marriage is a legally binding contract between a man and a woman.Not anymore. You're gonna have to learn to live with that.
19
@16 The argument for marriage equality is that in 21st century America committed same-sex relationships play a role in society that is sufficiently similar to that of heterosexual marriages as to warrant the same legal status.
18
@14: I bet you'd be much happier if you just accepted the penis in your pooper you clearly long for.
17
@13 The federal income tax system makes state involvement in our private lives and intimate relationships inevitable. If you don't like it join the Tea Party and go live in an underground bunker in Montana.
16
@3
Let us fix this for you....
Marriage is a legally binding contract between a man and a woman. If you want the rights and benefits, sign the contract. Aside from the social status associated with the institution, that's the point of this fight: protecting the rights and benefits of marriage for any consenting man and woman.
The government is compelled to give equal opportunity and equal protection, but it is not, nor should it be, compelled to respect or treat equal every choice. Choose a homosexual lifestyle if you want but don't whine when society doesn't reward your choice the same way it rewards Traditional Heterosexual Marriageā¢. I don't own a car unless my name's on the title, and I don't get the benefits of marriage unless I'm married to a person of the opposite sex.
Let us fix this for you....
Marriage is a legally binding contract between a man and a woman. If you want the rights and benefits, sign the contract. Aside from the social status associated with the institution, that's the point of this fight: protecting the rights and benefits of marriage for any consenting man and woman.
The government is compelled to give equal opportunity and equal protection, but it is not, nor should it be, compelled to respect or treat equal every choice. Choose a homosexual lifestyle if you want but don't whine when society doesn't reward your choice the same way it rewards Traditional Heterosexual Marriageā¢. I don't own a car unless my name's on the title, and I don't get the benefits of marriage unless I'm married to a person of the opposite sex.
15
@10 Maggie Gallagher would say that a husband is a man who edits his sexuality in a way that is pleasing to the women he is married to and that conferring the title of 'husband' on a man who doesn't do that makes no more sense than conferring the title of 'doctor' on somebody who lacks the requisite schooling.
14
so we are going to tax the 2% unless they are homosexual?
you are so fuckingly predictable, boring and full of shit.
you are so fuckingly predictable, boring and full of shit.
13
#10 ok i get it. you welcome the state into your private relationship, and think it's fair to penalize people who don't. i disagree with that. just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it's right.
12
I notice that NOM lauds DOMA as having been passed by our duly elected representatives...but when a state legislature passes marriage equality, it's the legislature imposing its views on the state, not the will of the people.
11
@5 Child tax credits penalize people who choose not to be parents, the mortgage interest deduction penalizes people who choose not to be home owners, the tax benefits associated w/ a 401K penalize people who choose not to save for retirement, and progressive taxation penalizes people who choose to be filthy rich. Are those injustices as well?
10
@2 If you want the benefits of marriage, get married. If you don't want to get married-- for whatever reason-- then you don't get the benefits of marriage. I would like the benefits of being a doctor, but I'm not willing to spend the time, money, and effort on medical school. So long as I retain the option to do so, I can't really complain about how "unfair" it is that I don't get doctor status without doing what it takes to become a doctor.
9
@7 was in response to @5.
I hadn't even thought that you might be arguing against the estate tax. That doesn't really make it any more relevant, though, so I'll let my response stand.
I hadn't even thought that you might be arguing against the estate tax. That doesn't really make it any more relevant, though, so I'll let my response stand.
7
I think there's something to the idea that the state oughtn't to recognize marriage at all, or bestow any special privileges upon it. I disagree with that reasoning, but at least it's rational, fair, and equitable.
It's also beside the point. There's no movement to eliminate civic marriage altogether, and it's not incumbent on those who don't see any utility in doing so to start that movement. Marriage is upon us; it is recognized in all 50 states. And until and unless anyone cares to take the time and energy, or spend the money, to change that, then the question at hand is whether that contract is to be available and recognized on an equal basis. Washington and Maryland residents decided last month that it should be so with regards to same-sex couples.
I say the same thing to the "singles' rights" crowd that I say to the "polygamists' rights" crowd (though I actually agree more with the latter than the former): Start your own movement, get your own bill sponsored in the legislature. Or get an initiative on the ballot, and I'll vote according to its merits. It's really not relevant to this discussion.
It's also beside the point. There's no movement to eliminate civic marriage altogether, and it's not incumbent on those who don't see any utility in doing so to start that movement. Marriage is upon us; it is recognized in all 50 states. And until and unless anyone cares to take the time and energy, or spend the money, to change that, then the question at hand is whether that contract is to be available and recognized on an equal basis. Washington and Maryland residents decided last month that it should be so with regards to same-sex couples.
I say the same thing to the "singles' rights" crowd that I say to the "polygamists' rights" crowd (though I actually agree more with the latter than the former): Start your own movement, get your own bill sponsored in the legislature. Or get an initiative on the ballot, and I'll vote according to its merits. It's really not relevant to this discussion.
6
@5 so are you arguing against the estate tax, period? That's a discussion for another post.
I had only heard in passing about this legal case. One thing about social change movements is that it gives everyday people a shot at greatness. Edie Windsor got her chance, and she took it. Here's hoping she keeps on prevailing.
I had only heard in passing about this legal case. One thing about social change movements is that it gives everyday people a shot at greatness. Edie Windsor got her chance, and she took it. Here's hoping she keeps on prevailing.
4
No. Marriage is a specific relationship between two people that carries rights & responsibilities for the couple. Individuals who choose not to enter into this contract are forgoing the benefits because they opted out and chose not bear the responsibilites.
3
@2 Marriage is a legally binding contract. If you want the rights and benefits, sign the contract. Aside from the social status associated with the institution, that's the point of this fight: securing the right to obtain the rights and benefits of marriage for any two consenting adults regardless of gender pairing.
The government is compelled to give equal opportunity and equal protection, but it is not, nor should it be, compelled to respect or treat equal every choice. I don't own a car unless my name's on the title, and I don't get the benefits of marriage unless I'm married.
The government is compelled to give equal opportunity and equal protection, but it is not, nor should it be, compelled to respect or treat equal every choice. I don't own a car unless my name's on the title, and I don't get the benefits of marriage unless I'm married.
2
What's wrong here is not just that they couldn't marry, but that people who might choose not to be married, for whatever reason, are also penalized.
1
That video makes me tear up every time I watch it. Such dignity and poise.
Sometimes I watch it just to tear up. I had an aunt who I think might well have been lesbian. She never married and died of a progressive illness some years ago now. Edie Windsor reminds me of her so much.
I never told my aunt I'm gay. Though my family is very liberal, we also tend to be taciturn and don't "share" a lot. I think we missed another opportunity for connection, even if I'm wrong about her, and I regret that.
Sometimes I watch it just to tear up. I had an aunt who I think might well have been lesbian. She never married and died of a progressive illness some years ago now. Edie Windsor reminds me of her so much.
I never told my aunt I'm gay. Though my family is very liberal, we also tend to be taciturn and don't "share" a lot. I think we missed another opportunity for connection, even if I'm wrong about her, and I regret that.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (114) RSS