Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Not Just A Word…


by Brian Leubitz

When it comes to marriage, the word itself is a powerful validation of our relationships. But, when it comes to the law, there’s a lot more than just that. In fact, there’s over 1,000 federal rights bestowed by a marriage that isn’t covered under the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.”  And as one of those who is in one of the marriages covered by DOMA, let me tell you, it is a huge headache come tax time.  But, you don’t need to take my word for it, here’s a story from the New York Times website:

Gay couples have complicated financial lives, and preparing tax returns is no exception.

Since the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, gay couples who are living in states that do recognize their various legal unions must still file separate federal returns. That requires more record-keeping and planning than their heterosexual counterparts — and oftentimes, gay couples will have to pay more to an accountant to prepare their returns.

To just file my taxes, I have to first create a tax return as an individual for the federal government. As far as they concerned, my husband is a stranger under the law.  So, after I submit that tax return, I then have to create a fake federal tax return to file, pretending that I actually filed as married.  I then have to add my state tax return and then ship that whole thing off to the Franchise Tax Board.

Of course, that’s far from it. Along the way of that process, I have to deal with pitfalls, strange questions that aren’t answered by TurboTax or any major tax software, and then try to find answers online or from a friend who has some history with tax law. Not only is it offensive to be denied the name marriage, it’s also expensive and headache producing.

While the Prop 8 folks argue extensive their tired old theories, there is no excuse for this federal discrimination. DOMA must be repealed. Completely. Marriage is a function of state law, and the federal government should recognize all marriages ordained by the state.  Furthermore, the federal government, even if it isn’t so “brave” as to call marriage “marriage” for everybody, at least need to recognize unions that already exist.

Back in November, we got something of a jolt of good news when the federal health care bill included a provision that would treat health benefits for married couples and same-sex partners the same under tax law. That would make health insurance affordable for many more same-sex couples. As you know, legislation is very chaotic, and that’s especially the case for the health care legislation.  We’ll see if that provision remains in any bill that emerges from Congress, but such a provision would be a great first step in the right direction.

Marriage is a critical word. But, there’s so much more substance behind that word. We need to ensure that we get both the word and the substance.


  • 1. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:05 am

    And believe me, Brian, there are ther hassles and costs forsame-gender couples besides just the issue of taxes. For those of us who live in states where we do not have the right to get married under the law, we are also faced with the additional burden of thousands of dollars in legal paperwork, just in the amount of the filing fees involved, on top of the fees the lawyers charge, just to get the same protections that different-gendered couples enjoy for the $30 it costs to obtain a marriage license (This is based on NC, other states may vary). In my own case, we are having to go out of state to get married, which involves not only the $200 total for the magistrate that includes all the filings and the ceremony itself, but als the cost of traveling out of state for the wedding. This is a cost that is optional for different-gendered couples, as they can choose to get married in their hometown areas. same-sex couples, on the other hand, in order to be LEGALLY married, must go to another state in most cases, and incur not only the higher fees fo the ceremonies, but also the travel costs. How is that fair? I am not saying that we should not travel to get married, I am only saying that traveling to get married should be one of many options for us, just like it is fr diffrent-gendered couples. We shoul be able to choose where we get LEGALLY married, just as everyone else does.

  • 2. Mark  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Don't forget the cost to those friends and family for travel that wish to celebrate the occasion as well.

  • 3. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Now that MaggieMoo has been 'somewhat' deflated by the straw vote at CPAC, the issues of SSM will hopefully take a more subordinate ranking in reality for conservatives. It will be a long, hard road to get the general public to sort out the fundamental difference between matrimony, a sacrament of the church, and marriage, a civil contract.

  • 4. Martha Mitchell  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley filed a lawsuit in July challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act.. "in court papers filed in U.S. District Court on Thursday, Coakley asked a judge to deem the law unconstitutional without holding a trial on the lawsuit. Coakley argues that regulating marital status has traditionally been left to the states. She said the federal law treats married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently, for instance, when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in Massachusetts veterans' cemetery."

    see more: Daily Hampshire Gazette -Sat.-Sun.- 2-20/21-2010 or

  • 5. PDXAndrew  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Just curious,

    In California and other states that have same sex marriages (whether currently, previously-and-not-invalidated, or recognized out-of-state), do hospitals recognize the spouse's right to visitation? Do estate transfers between spouses work the same for same-sex and opposite-sex marriages? Are there any other non-tax things that are still not

  • 6. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Simple solution…..Don't pay taxes….Lets see how well the gov does without our money in a struggling economy….and I say just file the taxes as a married couple….If they don't like they know what to do…..They can't put over 18,000 people in jail at the same time for tax fraud……I'd like to see them try……BOYCOTT the Gov……NO JUSTICE…..NO PEACE!!!!!…….<3…Ronnie

  • 7. Linda  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:33 am

    This is what I don't get–how can those against marriage equality claim, time after time, that we have all the rights and benefits of marriage with a DP or CU??? That argument is used all the time, and it simply isn't true. Why aren't they called on that blatant lie?

  • 8. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:36 am

    I agree with Coakley completely — if some state within the federation recognizes same-sex marriage, so should the federal government. DoMA is just a crazy butt-plug for scared hateros to protect themselves from homos marrying all over the country — but the way they did it was disrespectful to state-level laws, they basically said: “to hell with states defining marriage, we know better!

    But now even Obama says states should decided this on their own, and some states already decided to recognize marriage equality, years ago. This is the angle everyone must see DoMA — of course, it is discriminatory for gays and lesbians, but it is also disrespectful to state laws, and this mistake must be corrected.

    It's funny and sad how sometimes crazy bills become crazy laws. And don't get me started on some crazy laws in the USA — there are plenty, usually on state level.

  • 9. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:41 am

    I'll tell you why: because right after that those same people say something like, “Well, that's what you should be fighting for — recognizing your civil unions on federal level and getting all the rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples. And I support that! But not giving you the word marriage!” I've had these conversations. This is where it always goes. And this is not the way we want to go. Because, on the other hand, marriage is not just about those rights and benefits, it is about the traditional union we all dream to have.

  • 10. Kevin S.  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:42 am

    They are called on it. Then they yell louder. I can't tell you how many times I've brought this up, only to have it ignored at a later date.

  • 11. Roger  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:44 am

    This makes me want to sue the federal government to legally invalidate all marriages since 1998 as per the 14th amendment and declare all children under 12 legally bastards born out of legal wedlock as well as back tax all couples because they illegally filed as married.

    I don't actually care about gay rights, I care about the constitution, either marriage for all or marriage for none, I'm fine either way.

  • 12. Mike  |  February 22, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Take Immigration as a clear example.

    Currently a significant number of bi-national L & G couples live in exile or separated, as the current US Immigration Laws do NOT let the law-abiding tax-paying American partner sponsor his/her love-one for any form of immigration status.

    UAFA, or the Uniting American Families Act, has stalled in Congress for over 10 years…..

    Meanwhile…..we live in exile

  • 13. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Yes, I believe we all realize the inequalities in the laws, yet this case is a big step toward recognition in America. I am quite certain the "other side of the rainbow" will not be pleased, but from my perspective they have been in control too long over our rights. <3 David

  • 14. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:09 am

    As a gay man who lives in Russia but who would not be adverse to move to the USA if that's where the love of my life would happen to reside, I concur! I can marry an American woman and become American, but I can't marry an American man and become American to live with him for the rest of my life.

    No wonder that so many gay men from other countries marry lesbian women from USA (and vice versa) just to get the citizenship they are entitled to in common sense because they are no different from their heterosexual counterparts. This is where the federal government pushes us — toward sham marriages. This is what they want? This is what the real marriage is? I don't think so.

  • 15. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Welcome to the club Kevin S. I doubt most of the hetero world realizes just how inequitous a division is created in America. There are those, who do and some of those are our allies, yet for those who do realize and are uncaring or unsimpathetic to our cause, I have just one thing to say – "If you don't approve of gay marriage, then don't have one!"<3David

  • 16. Alan E.  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:14 am

    I love my CPA. We were late getting an appointment, so instead of having us come in for a walk-in, she rearranged her schedule to fit us in. The whole company only charges the "married couple" rate instead of the extra they could for the amount of time and paperwork needed. I just have to remember to bake some cookies the night before.

  • 17. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Hehehehehehe! Butt-plug for scared Hateros….Hehehehehhehehe!! -Witch-Hazel from Bugs Bunny and Friends

  • 18. Alan E.  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:15 am

    All "Sham" marriages that you mentioned are sure to damage the "institution" of marriage more than marriages between same-gendered people.

  • 19. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:24 am

    This about sums it up…….<3…Ronnie:

  • 20. PDXAndrew  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:37 am

    How about "civil unions for all, and then you can do whatever religious rite you want on your own time"?

  • 21. Kevin S.  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:39 am

    No, they don't know. I have a friend, who is generally very "keep the government out of my life" in most matters, who doesn't get why LGBT couples can't just get civil unions if the word marriage bothers so many people. Unfortunately, I think she's part of a large majority of people who see marriage as the domain of the religious and "state marriages" as simply being CUs.

  • 22. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:45 am

    That is what they did in England.

  • 23. Roger  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Civil unions for all is also an acceptable solution it does not borderline violate the 1st amendment's guarantee of religious neutrality while providing security for committed couples.

    Of course voters won't go for that that's why I think a court ruling against all modern marriage laws is needed first.

  • 24. jimig  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:47 am

    The clip it's about love who is doing the scare tactic in the being. Just wondering.

  • 25. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Thanx, Ronnie! That was great! <3 David

  • 26. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:51 am

    It's from that stupid prop ha8te commercial…<3…Ronnie

  • 27. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:53 am

    you're welcome….<3…Ronnie

  • 28. Bill  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Take a look at all the anti-gay laws on the books in the United States.

    The government, quite clearly, can do anything it wants to do.

  • 29. Bill  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:54 am

    That is only said to wipe people's conscience.

    Or ass.

    Depends on who you ask.

  • 30. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:57 am

    That or just rule FOR universal marriage. I would be good either way.

  • 31. Bill  |  February 22, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Good luck getting heterosexuals to agree to that.

    I think that most people still think that this is about marriage. It isn't. It never was. Heterosexuals CLEARLY do not care about marriage. CLEARLY. CLEARLY. CLEARLY.

    LGTB citizens could be fighting to have the same blue trash cans as heterosexuals instead of green trash cans.

    They would fight us on that, too. Saying the sanctity of rubbish is at stake.

    I feel like people are missing what is TRULY happening here if they hold on to the belief tht this is about marriage AT ALL.

    It's not. Not for the heteros, anyway.

  • 32. Bill  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:00 am

    @ Kevin S –

    ask your friend why she doesn't register as a domestic partner or get civil unioed instead of getting married.

    Let he know that your answer is the same as hers.

    Then tell her to sh*t in her hat. She ain't your friend.

  • 33. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:00 am

    "…the sanctity of rubbish is at stake."

    I think that about says it all!

  • 34. Bill  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:01 am

    @ Roger

    If you don't care about gay rights, you don't care about HUMAN rights, you tool.

    There IS no distinction.

    You're frightening.

  • 35. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:01 am

    What a beautiful video, I like that "It's about love", yes it is.

  • 36. jimig  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Off topic, I have been looking to see an update on the trial. A while back there were a some posting regarding supportive views (sorry cant remember legal term) turned into the court. Have there been any more from either side.

    Is there a date that either side need to get their opions (name) into the Judge?

  • 37. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Unless, I misunderstood in court (sorry can't remember the particulars), Judge Walker went to this in his line of questioning. Anybody else…?<3 David

  • 38. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Opposing the Homosexual Agenda: Religious Bigotry or Science and Justice?

    See? They don't hate us…it's just science! (This article really not worth reading but if you do I would encourage you to notice the abundance of advertising!!!)

    (In case you are having a hard time understanding the article Black Tsunami does a superb job of breaking it down for us!

    Highly worth reading….even if just for the recognition of a beautiful mind at work! Also, notice that there is little or no advertising!!!)

  • 39. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:18 am

    “Civil unions for all,” but marriages in that case should be abolished, and those that exist — converted to CUs: either we ALL have only CUs, or we ALL have both CUs and marriages.

    What people do not understand is that civil marriage is nothing but a civil union with the word "marriage" attached to it — simply because we all understand this word and what it means. That's why we should probably talk always about civil marriage, not just marriage — to emphasize its secular status.

    In UK civil unions are not allowed for heterosexuals, there is a heterosexual couple that decided to sue the government because they also want to be civilized, not married (of course, the point they are trying to make is that the whole idea of separate but equal is ridiculous and gays should be allowed to marry).

    Yeah, Walker wondered that maybe the state should get out of marriage business at all, but that was the first day of trial, so I don't remember what was the answer.

    Fighting over this word for hateros is ridiculous, fighting over this word for us is showing them we are equal and therefore must be treated as such.

  • 40. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Yes, here is the website, where all of the court documents along with the trial transcipts can be found. <3 David

  • 41. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Amicus Briefs. I believe the deadline was before the trial but I am not sure.

  • 42. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Oops! Thanks for the clarification. I had forgotten that. <3Felyx

  • 43. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Yes the Judge set a date at the end of the trial, but sorry, I don't remember what that date was, but I believe the date has passed, since from my recollection I think he wanted all amicus briefs, etc. filed by one week from when the trial concluded. We still have final arguments to be heard, but the Judge did not set a date for final arguments, when the trial ended. <3 David

  • 44. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:26 am

    BTW, nobody's talking about this Friday…
    The trial should be resumed…
    And soon we'll hear the closing arguments (my favorite part in trials — this is when lawyers show their brilliant logic).

  • 45. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:28 am

    David….ya gotta know we all appreciate your knowledge…thank you so much!! <3Felyx

  • 46. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:29 am

    There were also some sealed documents that I doubt we will ever learn their contents – these documents were sealed by another court. <3 David

  • 47. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:30 am

    No, I don't think the Judge has announced the date yet for closing arguments. <3 David

  • 48. dieter  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Are we gonna have an INDOOR or an OUTDOOR wedding?…lol

  • 49. David Kimble  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Yes, my knowledge just does seem to be a well of insurmountable knowledge – my only problem is I lost the bucket years ago! <3 David

  • 50. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:40 am

    You should be asking, “Are we gonna have a Californian or a Canadian wedding?” LOL or not LOL, this is what at stake in this trial, the least of it.

  • 51. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:46 am

    I just looked at the transcript of the last day of trial: Walker said February 26 is a deadline for evidence submission, but he also mentioned by that time they should work out the schedule for closing arguments, so at least maybe we'll know these dates.

  • 52. dieter  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:57 am

    TWO more innocent children dead …and yet gays are not allowed to adopt children:

    ROCKVILLE, Md. – A Maryland woman who adopted three children despite a troubled past was convicted Monday of murdering two of the girls, whose bodies were stored in a freezer as the woman continued collecting payments meant to help with their care.

    Renee Bowman, 44, kept the bodies of the two young girls on ice for months while she continued to collect subsidies paid to parents who adopt special-needs children in the District of Columbia, receiving a total of about $150,000 since adopting the girls.

    I am sure that christians think this was a much better fate than had these girls gone to a loving icky GAY couple.

  • 53. Frijondi  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Remember the early versions of domestic partnership, the mostly-symbolic ones a few cities recognized? In order to get even these limited rights, you had to prove a degree of financial intermingling that was strictly optional for married couples. I believe the first DPs recognized by state law were like this, too.

    I remember trying to explain to certain people why, exactly, this was offensive. If Bob and Susie met at a bar,and got married in Reno the next day, Bob could immediately put Susie on his health plan, etc., no problem. They didn't have to live together, have a joint checking account, have both their names on the same credit card, take out a mortgage together, etc., etc., etc., unless they wanted to. They could hire a lawyer to do a legal end-run around community property laws if they want, and they would not be any less married because of that.

    Jane and Laura, or Bob and Steve, on the other hand, would have to provide all kinds of financial documentation to prove that they were neither garden-variety platonic roommates nor tawdry casual sex partners. In most cases, they'd also have to go into debt together to prove the seriousness of their relationship.

    The saddest conversation like that I ever had was with a gay coworker who was so grateful for any little crumb that it didn't bother her that she and her partner of 17 years had to jump through all those hoops for so little.

    The most frustrating was with one of those straight bohemian dropout types who thought gays who wanted to get married were endorsing the oppressive hegemonic values of the patriarchy/military industrial complex/you-name-it. ("Wow, you're really, like, buying into the whole marriage thing. That's so weird. Dharma and I could get married, but we don't want some piece of paper that's supposed to prove we love each other or something.") Yes, there really are still people like this.

  • 54. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Their website ( looks so much like NYT website! I think it is not a coincidence! This is their agenda — to look like a well-known media online outlet… pathetic!

  • 55. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Not buying into an option you have is nowhere near not having the option to begin with!!!!

  • 56. Linda  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:09 am

    My understanding was that the whole motivation for DOMA was to keep us from travelling to a state where ssm is legal, getting married, and then going back to our home state with that married status and federal recognition. The argument was that that would be forcing states to accept ssm. Am I on the right track, here?

  • 57. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:12 am

    I am not fond of any organization that makes millions or even billions. How can one ever discern the true motivation!!! Religious organizations are the only tax-exempt organizations that can actually be for profit…Scientology….need I say more?!!!

  • 58. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Somewhat, but there is a legal explanation.
    The United States Constitution has the Full Faith and Credit Clause which means that if one state recognizes same-sex marriage, others will have to do the same under this clause, all 50 states will automatically adopt it and the federal government will be forced to recognize it, too. The only way to prevent this from happening was to butt-plug the US Code with DoMA.

  • 59. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:21 am

    From Wikipedia

    Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, has two effects:

    1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

    2) The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

    The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

    Translation: Shut up and sit at the back of the bus ya buncha queers!

  • 60. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:27 am

    There is a consolation….first it is a law and not a constitutional ammendment, so the SCOTUS can overturn it. Second, On March 2 the Federal Government via Congress will implicitly recognize SSM for Washington DC residents. I believe this will create a conflict with the second part of the law and make it suspect in the eyes of the Judiciary…i.e. If Congress did not see fit to vote the DC ammendment down, what value has the at all?

  • 61. Polydactyl  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:28 am

    *raises hand*

    My partner & I did this. Thank you so much, U.S. government, for making it necessary for the love of my life to marry someone she didn't love in order to be with the person she does.

    This protects the sanctity of marriage? Bite me.

  • 62. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:31 am

    I would further add that some states that recognize SSM are suing the Federal Government claiming that DoMA violates states rights to provide for its constituents.

    I think this whole charade will come crumbling down with a matter of years and not decades!

    Kirill, better get your papers ready, by the time you get here it will probably be legal!! <3 Felyx

  • 63. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:33 am

    "Sanctity of Rubbish!"

  • 64. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Aren't you forgetting something? Like finding a person to love and to commit yourself to for the rest of your lives? Marriage has a value for me (I watched one too many romantic comedies about that… LOL). Even though I understand people's frustration when they enter into sham marriages just in spite, out of anger and desperation, I'd want to be honest about it from the get-go — marriage matters to me much more than to Britney Spears.

  • 65. dieter  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:41 am

    LOL..payback is a bitch: in the news right now:

    WASHINGTON – An aide to Dick Cheney says the former vice president is in George Washington Hospital after experiencing chest pains. Cheney's assistant, Peter Long, said in a statement late Monday that the 69-year-old Cheney was resting comfortably and his doctors were evaluating the situation.

    Cheney has a history of heart problems and has a pacemaker.

  • 66. dieter  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:43 am

    and the good news comtinues:

    ORANGE, Calif. – The wife of televangelist Benny Hinn has filed for divorce from the high-profile pastor, whose reputation as an advocate of prosperity gospel has attracted millions of followers and criticism from lawmakers and watchdog groups over his lavish lifestyle.

  • 67. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:53 am

    I'm gonna be the first Gay Bachelor…..I called it…..Back off Betches…..ABC if you're reading this….I'm 25yo, 5'10" brown/hazel….I love to swim,run, surf, ski,cook, boxing/kick boxing, I'm a Comedy artist, and all adventure sports….I'm a Fashion Designer/Entrepreneur……I want to get married and I want 2 kids…..I use to work for Abercrombie & Fitch and Gay College Party in NYC(both about 2 years ago)…..My favorite book the Hobbit and My fav. Movie is a tie btw. Howard The Duck and Breakfast Club….I love pizza and orange soda….I have 1 dog named Woody(a long haired chihuahua) and 2 female cats, Serenity(persian mix) and Cashmere(a tall white and mixed color shorthair)….and I'm a good dancer too.

    I will definitely make good reality TV….Pick me as the next happy c(I mean first gay bachelor)….<3…Ronnie

  • 68. G. Rod  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Saturday, February 20, 2010

    "Tolerance is not Enough
    You. MUST. approve of gay marriage or be pushed out of the public square.

    The purpose of gay marriage is to provide a foundation for persecuting and punishing the Church.

    The Church will survive, of course. What may not survive is the United States if the gay brownshirts succeed in crushing the Church's involvement in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy that keep our strained society from overheating and burning up.
    Mark P. Shea, Catholic and Enjoying It”

    Just what part of America did Mark grow up? Or is Mark one of your neighbour?

    In Canada, few of those filling church pews would not take Mark seriously – five years after SSM became the law of the land. Churches have remained involved in ‘corporal and spiritual works of mercy’. SSM is just not a topic of a sermon, or a topic on the street. Mark should come to the Olympics in Vancouver, and get out of his myopic world.

    Perhaps the faithful of this site ought to spend time on less friendly sites trying to understand the mentality. It certainly would not be to persuade subscribers.

  • 69. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:04 am

    What HE-double hokey sticks is a Gay brownshirt?…..I don't even own a brown shirt…..and why do they keep excluding Lesbians and the rest of the LGBTQQI community….I mean I'm so flattered that as a Gay man myself I clearly rank the highest on that list in their eyes….but I'm offended for my Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, and Intersex brothers and sisters….and then there is our heterosexual allies who for some reason the Hateros forget to mention….JMHO….<3…Ronnie

  • 70. Straight Dave  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:11 am

    You got it exactly right.
    They don't want you in their stinking club.
    They don't want you held up on an equal level in any regard.
    It's just their own insecurity showing through.
    They can't think of themselves as equal to "queers" without totally freaking out, which instantly freezes all their brain cells.

    And that is the misguided result of their parents' superior child rearing abilities and sacred religious tradition. Really??
    Good God, man! What were they thinking?

  • 71. G. Rod  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Kirille, moving to America may appear ideal. But the dust there will not settle on the SSM issue in your lifetime. In Canada, five years after it became the law everywhere, it's mostly a non-issue. Once there, you can consider moving south. You will just need to locate a Canadian who finds you the love of his life.

  • 72. Bill  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:17 am

    I tried to read the catholic article. Really. I tried.


    Both times, I became so scarily hyponotized by all of the "scare quotes" that I fell off my chair.


    But seriously, Catholocism, you can not be expected to be taken serioulsy if you feel that you can just "scare quote" anything that you don't agree with (brilliant inter-Catholic code, your popnesses) and make it go away.

    I mean, are we truly to use as our moral compass the church that gave us years and years of child molestation followed by years and years of cover-up and denial about said molestation???

    As I have said in previous posts, I was in South Africa last year when the Pope told Africans not to use condoms. And that they actually HELPED to spread HIV/AIDS, so he is not on my list of people to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form. He was speaking before a country where 80% of HIV/AIDS is from heterosexual sex. His words will cost people their lives. But to bear witness to that in person is something that changed who I am as a human being today. It changed how I see the world. How I see God. How I see religion, and how I see myself and fellow humans. That is, to say, it had a strong, lasting impact.

  • 73. PDXAndrew  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Howard the Duck, FTW!!!!
    Gotta love the Cajun sushi bar. Cowboy Bob's or something like that, I think?
    "Cleveland; interesting name for this planet."

  • 74. Kevin S.  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:39 am

    She's got no interest in getting married, and it's not like her opinion affects me on a personal level. It's unfortunate when our friends' opinions are grounded in ignorance, but ignorance is not malice, and differing opinions don't necessarily ruin friendships. I wish she'd open her eyes though, and I don't intend to give up anytime soon. If my sisters and I can convince my dad, the devout Catholic, that he can keep his personal religious convictions while still supporting the government treating all couples equally, there's hope for her.

  • 75. G. Rod  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:41 am

    Bill, your comments were a tad insensitive! I read Roger's contribution in the context of comments made by pdxandrew and by Felyx. Roger's observation about civil unions are not frightening to me. It is debatable how best to achieve equality among all. If any of us knew the way forward, we would not be here. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court and the judges rule against SSM, will we not be asking ourselves had there been a better way.
    Bill, yes, it is about equal rights for all of us.
    There are those I would justifiably call a tool.
    Roger, in my view, you’re not one of them. Have the courage to keep expressing your views. Indeed it might be your ideas that lighten the way.
    Bill, over the last weeks, it is your comments that are most in sync with my own. Occasionally have the courage to endorse them.

  • 76. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:45 am

    But Kirill, you are talking so earnestly with Dieter! Hehehehe.

    Joking aside, if you find someone there, or here or Canada or if you just want to be here so that you will be able to find someone then you will be prepared…that is all.

    Really, it was a statement of faith that this thing will come to pass sooner than later. I am saying that maybe it will come to fruition before you could even become a full citizen since that would take quite some time…even with marriage!!!

    Anyway you work it, I see a very positive outlook. Felyx

    PS: I am very hopeful that you find someone that is as special to you as you are to him!

  • 77. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:47 am

    heheh….LOL….it's Joe Roma's Cajun Sushi Bar and diner…..hehehehe…..<3…Ronnie

  • 78. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:57 am

    I liked PJPII. At least he was a real Pope. This one did not get elected in a traditional manner….too much politics. His suspect Nazi involvement alone should have disqualified him, but there are many other things that make him very suspicious. Most of all, he was specifically chosen for his dogmatic fundamentalist outlook. PJPII was just a little too progressive for the likes of some. PJPII even had convened a comittee to study what the Churches relationship to the Gay community should be; gets a stroke, committee disbanded immediately. Furthermore it is known that he had requested to step down but was convinced otherwise. I suspect it was to allow the powers that wanted to be to do some maneuvering behind the scenes. This pope smacks way too much of politics and secular machinations. PJPII also wanted to bring faiths together. That has all dissipated now. PJPII was not perfect but he seemed far more progressive and honest. This one is just plain unworthy IMO.

    I find this an excellent time to NOT be a Catholic. (Never also suits me as well.)

  • 79. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    But my all time favorite movie is ET…hands down….the other two are conversation starters….ET has a special meaning for me because the first time I saw it was with my Uncle before he died in 92(I mentioned it before, he was HIV positive)….<3…Ronnie

  • 80. G. Rod  |  February 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    For a dude who is not North American, you amaze me. And American is not your first language! Are you sure your Russia is not part of the USA . You have a find mind for detail. You observation are always thought provocating.

  • 81. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Can you explain what you mean by 'dust not settle in his lifetime'? Are you suggesting full equality will not be reached in the next 70 years?….

    Sounds highly implausible. I think this issue will go Federal very soon. Well within this decade!

  • 82. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    I would gently point out that 'American' is not a language, it is not even really a dialect.

    If you are refering to Kirill's linguistic abilities, I would also then point out that English is not my first language…it is my fourth.

    Why should it be in any ways amazing that non English natives are fluent in English. If there is any question as to whether Kirill has Russian fluency, I myself can verify that he at least 'fakes' it pretty damn well!!!

    S Lubovyu,
    Felyx Fomasovitch (Hehehehe! For you Fomas Fredrikovitch!)

  • 83. Roger  |  February 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm


    Equal rights are the basic fundamentals of all human rights especially gay rights in the western hemisphere, while you may think I am horrible and I am for also believing that even Nazis deserve the right not to have laws retroactively imposed on them as per the declaration of human rights I believe that all people should have equal protection under the law as per the 14th amendment.

    You focus on specifics, I focus on fundamentals.

  • 84. Ed-M  |  February 22, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    butt-plug for scared hateros… good one! XD

  • 85. Ed-M  |  February 22, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    The hateros shot down CUs in Hawaii and DPs in New Mexico, before they passed the legislature!! And what did some of our allies in each legislature do? Oh, yeah. Head for the hills and hide their heads in the sand!!! With friends like these… grrrrh… )-:<

  • 86. Ed-M  |  February 22, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    @Bill and Straight Dave:

    You are absolutely right! For the hateros, it's not about a name, it's about having a referendum on OUR LIVES and keeping us queers down!!! For they think we really do not have rights of US Citizens, they think we ought to be SUBJECTS, singled out for extermination like RATS!!!

  • 87. waxr  |  February 22, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Religion does not, and should not, have a monopoly on the use of the word "marriage". Numerous couples prefer a non-religious ceremony. They may be agnostic or atheist, their own church may not recognize the marriage, or the couple may be of mixed faiths. Whatever the reason, they still have the right to call their union a marriage.

  • 88. Ronnie  |  February 22, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Not to mention, Waxr, the word marriage never really appears in any original scripture….and not even in the exact letterage/wordage….so this notion that any religion and any one type of person own the use of a word is ridiculous, ludicrous, unfounded, irrational, uneducated, greedy, selfish, and spoiled…..I mean it's like me saying i made up the word Swatzy and nobody can use it unless they believe everything i believe….Hey Bigots….you can't own a word….its not a thing….its not a puppy…its not a great pair of Gucci shoes….mmmmm…..secondly by telling me I can't use the word marriage you are taking away my freedom of what?….hint…hint….Say it with me everybody…loud and proud…..all as one…..MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!…you dig?…..good that's what I thought….<3…Ronnie

  • 89. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 22, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    forgot to subscribe again.

  • 90. waxr  |  February 22, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Daily Bible Passage

    Song of Songs 7:2-5

    How beautiful are your sandaled feet,
    O nobleman’s daughter!
    The curves of your thighs are like jewels,
    the work of the hands of a master craftsman.
    Your vulva is a round mixing bowl –
    may it never lack mixed wine!
    Your belly is a mound of wheat,
    encircled by lilies.
    Your two breasts are like two fawns,
    twins of a gazelle.
    Your neck is like a tower made of ivory.
    Your eyes are the pools in Heshbon
    by the gate of Bath-Rabbim.
    Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon
    overlooking Damascus.
    Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel.
    The locks of your hair are like royal tapestries –
    the king is held captive in its tresses!

    The Hebrew "shorer" is traditionally translated as "navel". However, an examination of the passage shows that "navel" does not fit the order of the poem which progresses from the feet up to the hair. It is also difficult to picture the navel as a bowl "which never lacks mixed wine."

    Certain scholars (Lys, Pope) believe that "shorer" is related to the Arabic "srr" (“secret place, pudenda, coition, fornication”) and should be translated as "vulva"

  • 91. Sheryl  |  February 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    I know you are not talking about the allies of the LGBT community. However, I was one of those that didn't understand how little a DP provided, did think it provided the same as a marriage. Decided to check it out and was totally amazed and wondered why anyone even bothered with a DP.

  • 92. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    @ G. Rod
    Well, actually, I am thinking about moving to Canada, not USA. I only mentioned USA as an pertinent example. For now, I like Canada more than USA (no offense intended). And you're right — we don't know when marriage equality will no longer be an issue in USA. Though, I hope it will be achieved in my lifetime: you see, I'm only 25, so either you are very pessimistic about the movement, or very pessimistic about my longevity. Either way, you upset me! :( Let us hope for the best! We can't afford losing hope!

  • 93. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    Dieter is just joking around :)
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, though!
    I wish you all the same!

  • 94. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    I know he is joking, I was also kidding around.

    I just think there are too many factors to ignore, Prop 8 case, DADT repeal, DOMA challenges 'and in just 7days' the DC Marriage Bill will pass the review period in Congress! That last one stuns me…Congress said it will only recognize man/woman, but here it is about ready to recognize a law for same sex!!!

  • 95. new  |  February 22, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    Time Flies!!!
    There's only six days left until closing arguments.

  • 96. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    @ G. Rod
    If that "For a dude" comment of yours was, in fact, meant for me (I don't recall anyone else claiming to be from Russia), I'm pleased to amaze you! And thank you for your kind words!

    BTW, English is not even my second language! :) First 8 years of my life I've spent in Georgia (not the one with Atlanta, but the one with Tbilisi, in Caucasus); and there I spoke two languages — my native one (Russian) and the local one (Georgian); and I was pretty good at both languages (for a 5-6-7-8-year-old boy) — for kids it's very easy to learn any local language, I can tell from my own experience… Our Georgian neighbors were also "amazed" at my language skills in their language, and I was like “So what? Big whoop! It's not that hard, people! Get over it, for crying out loud!” But after my family moved back to Russia, my knowledge of Georgian language was lost forever — alas!

    I guess, that experience helped me develop that part of my brain that is involved in language-learning processes, and that's why I'm good enough at English. Also, I'm a nerd, so this should explain everything! :)

    I live 175 miles away from Moscow, the capital of Russian Federation, so I'm pretty sure it still counts as Russia! LOL!

    Fourth language? WOW! I wish someday to get to learning Spanish and French — love both of them!
    I think G. Rod meant that it is one thing if you are not native to this country, but live there anyway after you immigrate — you get a chance to interact with real people and you live in the circumstances of this culture, that's how you get to know it better. And it is completely different if you live in your country, but know the language of some other country and are aware of its culture, laws, politics, events, etc. It takes an additional effort. That's why all the doubt.

    Касательно же того, что некоторые не верят, что я действительно живу в России и что я действительно русский (вернее сказать, россиянин) — ну, я не знаю, как вам ещё это доказать? Да и вообще, должен ли я что-либо доказывать? Для меня всё это забавно. В некоторой степени даже приятно: приятно знать, что мой уровень владения иностранным языком оценивается носителями этого языка столь высоко, что они даже не могут представить себе, что я не проживаю на территории их страны на протяжении хотя бы пары лет; в не меньшей степени приятно видеть, что моё знакомство с культурой, традициями, законодательством, политикой, текущими событиями и многим-многим другим в США также оценивается достаточно высоко, по крайней мере, для человека, не то чтобы не проживающего в этой стране на постоянной основе, а даже вообще никогда не бывавшего там. Для меня абсолютно удивительно, что в современном мире высоких технологий, широкой распространённости интернета и столь обширной и моментальной доступности самой разной информации, находятся люди, которые сомневаются, что для любого интересующегося человека всех этих технологий вполне достаточно, для того чтобы всегда быть в курсе всех событий и чтобы иметь возможность расширять свой кругозор не только в области культуры, политики и событий в разных странах мира, но и в области изучения иностранных языков. Я — живой пример того, что это реально достижимо. На этом у меня всё.

    С уважением,
    Кирилл из России

  • 97. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Let's hope Congress won't do anything stupid at the eleventh hour! They still got time.

  • 98. Urbain  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    If a couple has state marriage rights and is married, can they still face housing discrimination? Turns out that 30 states have no protective laws, and neither does the fed. I haven't researched yet whether there are states that allow SSM but still do not have housing protection on the books. This is what happened to a lesbian couple in West Virginia:

  • 99. Dave T  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:49 pm


    Or, if you do happen to find that special Canadian, you could stay in Canada.

    Speaking as a Canadian living in California, it really is a very nice place. If you want to live in a big city, I'd recommend Vancouver, where there's a huge LGBT community, plus just about every type of ethnic cuisine you can imagine (except I never could find a decent Mexican restaurant), or Montreal. I don't know much about the LGBT community there, but it's just a great city. I've never spent any time in Toronto, so I can't comment on it. Small towns on the west coast are generally very progressive and welcoming too.

  • 100. Urbain  |  February 22, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    The closing arguments should be interesting! Some of the amicus briefs were good reading.

  • 101. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 12:03 am

    @ Kirill,
    Ow! My brain hurts! That one about completely snowed me! Hehehe. I still can't figure out one word, it is not in any of my dictionaries. What is 'бывавшего'?

    I would share in your amusment and delight! I have done that many times myself as others would look at me standing in their own country astounded that I was not of their people and language. I have been here in the US and people would be stunned to realize I was not from their country as I spoke their language (and culture)TOO well.

    Libraries and telephones and now the internet mean for me I can know just about anything I want to know almost instantly. Still, the command of a language, even using translators, dictionaries and grammaries, is still a skill and a talent. Bravo to you!

    BTW, Я знаю, как говорят на французском и испанском языках. Возможно, я смогу тебя помочь.

    С миром,

  • 102. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 23, 2010 at 12:08 am

    @ Dave T
    Yeah, I believe Canadian government recognizes that same-sex marriage between a Canadian and a foreigner gives this foreigner a right to get the citizenship.
    And Vancouver has been at the top of my list all along. :) I like cities just like that — not too big, but not too small. 2 million people in Vancouver metropolitan area is a great number to have a better chance at finding that special someone. Beside, I love ocean, I love mountains (would like to hike there all the time), I love the nature and climate there. It would be a perfect place to live for me, the best city in the world!
    Immigration is a problem that stops me. I'm not "cool enough" to be Canadian. :( Alas! Gotta become cooler. :)

  • 103. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 23, 2010 at 12:23 am

    Для человека, никогда не бывавшего там” =
    For someone who has never been there before
    This is one of the multiple ways many Russian words change to reflect something, in this case it is a past participle, even though we do not translate it as such into English.

    I had a suspicion that you know French after one of your comments if French to that Straight Grandmother. And Spanish — your Puerto-Rican heritage tipped me off about that. However, before taking on such a complicated project as learning a new language, I'd like to deal with my memory problems first, you know what I mean.


  • 104. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 12:26 am

    So I guess you would know pretty well what it takes to immigrate there. What is involved? Maybe someday soon I will join those who go to Canada, not for Gay Marriage reasons but for other reasons. Just curious…


  • 105. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 12:39 am


    Ahh….figures it was something like that….declinations, conjugations and punctuations Oh my!

    Memory problems? I don't remember any of those!! ;P


  • 106. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 23, 2010 at 1:26 am

    I haven't been to Canadian embassy just yet. Only done some research online and passed their online test that said, “We're sorry, but blah blah blah yada yada yada… Sucka!:)

    I also was advised not to tell the immigration officers that I'm gay and this is the reason I want to immigrate… What? Now I should lie about my homosexuality to the representatives of the government of this country that is supposed to have overcome those issues and embraced gays as equals, in order to get a chance to live in this country for exactly that reason?

    What am I supposed to say to them about the reason why I wanna live in Canada? And why should I lie? I was disappointed to hear that! I know the world is not perfect and there are bigots everywhere, even in Immigration Agency, but I don't think this is something I should be hiding from them! So, I'm not gonna. If that would be the reason for them to deny my application, so be it. Not gonna hide it, not from them. Let it be on their conscience (for denying me the opportunity to live a normal and honest life), not mine (for getting that life through lying about the very reason I want to move).

    In my life I've done some things I'm not proud of, things I cannot correct or be forgiven for, and I know that if I lie about that, I would regret that for the rest of my life, for not standing proudly, for making it a shameful feature of mine, for being a hypocrite. I don't wanna do anything I would regret anymore. It's too hard to live with this burden, it's self-destructive, it destroys your self-worth. I have been doing this for a long time, hiding in my Russian provincial city, hiding in plain sight, among people who have no idea who I am. I may not be a military man, but I know what it's like to have to hide it from everyone because it may cost you your job, your future… I understand. I live under my own version of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, everybody who's gay here lives under it. We know what it's like. And this is more the reason for us to support its repeal.


  • 107. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 1:34 am

    It takes more guts to stand proud in the face of those that simply hate you than it would to stand proud in front of a firing squad!! Stand Proud! I support you! Felyx

  • 108. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Did anybody watch "The Bachelor: women tell all" last night?……….OMG WTF!!!!!!!….That Rosalind chick…."I swear on my son's life" (crossed her heart and rolled her eyes)….scanks like that can get married and have a son….but we can't?!!!……..Rosalind honey…I love you…your Fashion sense is FIERCE honey….I don't know you personally…you may even support LGBTQQI rights…..but sweetie…seriously….every single one of those women caught you at some point….a man lost his job because of this….and swearing on your sons life….tisk tisk…..all i can say if there is a God..she sees all….Go with peace sweetie…its just a reality TV show…..<3…Ronnie

  • 109. Ben  |  February 23, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Humor me and let me give my own little story of headaches that I'm going through right now:

    My partner and I own our home together here in Atlanta. When we bought the house, he had much better credit than I did (bad credit card decisions while I was in college), so we got better financing rates using only his name as opposed to both of ours. When the mortgage payment comes due, however, we are both paying equally (actually, the money just comes out of the "pot" made of both our paychecks, like most people). Fast forward three years to last month. Our house gets burglarized. We file the police report, lots of stuff taken from computers, xbox, jewelry, the whole nine yards. We go to file the insurance claim and learn I am not covered by our homeowners insurance. The policy only covers the owner (which in this case is my partner), the immediate family of the owner (there's that lack of marriage coming up again) and houseguests (which they say I am not since I do in fact live here). So now we have to prove to them who "owns" everything that was taken before they'll pay for it. Of course, when we were buying the TV, we didn't say this is "his" tv or "my" tv. There was just the tv. These were our things. This is our life together. Now because of this ridiculous discrimination, we don't get the same coverage from our homeowners insurance.

  • 110. G. Rod  |  February 23, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    There is no intolerance greater than the intolerance of the rigidly tolerant

  • 111. James  |  February 24, 2010 at 8:43 am

    The company I work for recognizes domestic partnerships even though the state does not (New Mexico). However a certificate is needed to use for heath benefits, etc. My partner and I recently purchased a home together (joint ownership with rights of survivorship). They automatically put me as the primary borrower possibly because of income. So now every year we have to notify the mortgage company to transfer the status of the primary to my partner's name so that he can claim the interest on his taxes for the following year. Visa Versa for subsequent years. What a mess!!!!

  • 112. Woodworking4home&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Jake’s Woodwork Blog…

    […]just beneath, are a lot of totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth looking into[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!