January 03, 2008

This week in Gay

  • The WaPo has a fun article up about the other side of gay marriage, gay divorce and what a pain in the ass it is...

    "One of the benefits of marriage is divorce," said Joyce Kauffman, a Boston divorce lawyer who has handled a dozen same-sex divorce cases. "But for a lot of couples, that benefit is very complicated and very costly in ways that heterosexual couples would never have to experience."

    In the case of the doctor, she and her spouse each gave birth to a boy fathered by the same sperm donor. They then adopted one another's sons. Biologically, their children are half-siblings; legally, they are full brothers.

    "Up to now, I've been lucky with the court," said the doctor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to prejudice her court case. "Giving birth to one of our children has given me leeway because judges often show a preference toward a biological mother. I've spoken to other lesbian women who were in a similar situation, except that they were not the biological mothers of their children, and, in my opinion, they were not treated as fairly by the court."

    While the parties are litigating, a family court in Boston has come up with a Solomonic ruling, saying that each of the women can spend half the week alone in the family home with the children.

    For same-sex couples, divorce can be financially ruinous. Heterosexual couples claim a tax deduction for alimony payments, but that benefit is not available to gay and lesbian spouses because the Internal Revenue Service does not recognize their marriages.

    Divorce lawyers say that, while gay people making alimony payments are hurt the most by the IRS policy, their ex-spouses are also affected, because a tax deduction often provides an incentive for larger payments.

    "In a straight context, alimony is an income stream from one person to another and tax-deductible to the person who is paying it," said David W. Eppley, a divorce lawyer with lesbian clients. "But in a gay divorce, there aren't two parties, there are three, and that third party is Uncle Sam."

  • Oregon passed a civil union law last year. However, an anti-gay group filed a petition to bring this before a public vote as a referendum. In October, the OR SoS told them they didn't have the signatures and the law was set to go into effect on Tuesday. It was blocked by a Federal Judge who is reviewing the petition to decide if the SoS was right. Which makes me wonder why the religious nutters are always hating on 'activist' judges?

  • Parsing Huckabee...

    GOV. HUCKABEE: I don't know whether people are born that way. People who are gay say that they're born that way. But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior

    I don't know nothing about no science or genetics, but I do know that if you suck dick it's because you make a choice to suck dick. In other words, even if you are 'that way' you should refuse yourself any love or affection. So as to keep biblically pure and clean (at least according to Mike Huckabee).

    -- but the important issue that I want to address, because I think when you bring up the faith question, Tim, I've been asked more about my faith than any person running for president. I'm OK with that. I hope I've answered these questions very candidly and very honestly. I think it's important for us to talk about it. But the most important thing is to find out, does our faith influence our public policy and how? I've never tried to rewrite science textbooks. I've never tried to come out with some way of imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution. I've never done that. (The Advocate)

    No, you haven't tried to rewrite science textbooks... you just tried to buy the ones that represented your belief system, not scientific reality. As for not "imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution", that's a matter pf perspective and interpretation of the Constitution. I'm partial to the one that has been upheld for centuries by the Federal Courts, that there is a wall separating Church and State. You don't believe that, Mike. You think the US is a Christian Republic, like France or Germany. That ain't the case, hermano.

  • Have a good'un!

    Posted by mcblogger at January 3, 2008 02:51 PM

    Trackback Pings

    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    Post a comment

    Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

    (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

    Remember me?