Imposing a Gender Neutral Gender Fluid World Order?

Immediately after a baby is born, before it is even handed over to the mother, "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!" is exclaimed in celebration of a precious new life. Why? Because it's so obvious at first glance and really it's the only thing we can determine at this point, all the immutable rest--height, shoe size, etc.-- about this new life will slowly unfold over time. But if external genitalia is not enough--as it's not in incredibly rare cases of hermaphroditic anatomy (0.02% of newborns)--to convince one of the biological reality of males and females, different chromosomes, genes (new study finds 6,500 genes expressed differently according to biological sex), hormones, and internal reproductive organs or lack thereof, and later on, secondary sex characteristics (body shape, voice pitch, breasts, facial hair, etc.) should. Yet, we're told otherwise because...

...gender is irrelevant, yet, at the same time, more relevant than ever before, in the 21st century!

And so it is that gender identity has blossomed into an inescapable frontline issue. You can't turn on your TV, radio, Internet, or open a magazine or newspaper without being confronted with massively-funded gender politics, or more accurately, gender propaganda that cloaks itself in virtue, tolerance, social-justice and anti-bullying campaigns. This so-called fight for gender justice calls for new legislation, educational reform, and a total attitude readjustment for the masses that obliterates fundamental biological differences and once again, tries to redefine nature and turn creation on its head.

'Theybies': Letting Children Decide Their Gender

Is your baby a boy or a girl? Maybe, it’s a “theyby,” or maybe it's a dog or a cat or a labrat. Yes, there is a movement that wants to impose unisêx existence on children keeping their sêx a secret from everyone and referring to individuals in the plural. If this isn't an example of how a post-truth culture of personal conviction evolving into an Alice in Wonderland world, I don't know what is. "Theybies" is the result of the soft-headed, tender-minded ideology and post-modern imaginary thinking world of the coming global civilization as observational and scientifically proven reality is replaced with globally-dictated fantasies that are projected into the immense void that was created when Truth was obliterated. In this case, children become labrats when the will of God is replaced with the will of those who think they are gods or wannabe gods.

Please don't misunderstand.  Like so many people, I was a prime target for bullies throughout my childhood. I was bullied for being too tall, for wearing glasses, for being too shy, for having curly hair, for squinting in the sun, etc., etc. It has left me with my own scars to bear, with a nebulous sense that something was/is wrong with me, with an internalized sense of otherness, and with a sense of disempowerment, because the damage continues even after the bullying has stopped. After a while, children constantly intimidated, harassed and bullied for who they are perceived to be can't help but start to believe their bullies. On the other hand, being bullied in childhood has given me great compassion, sympathy, and empathy for victims of bullies, for underdogs, and the marginalized. In other words, I am in no way condoning bullying behavior, and/or overlooking the plight of those who can't conform to gender stereotypes nor those who are attracted to their own gender. But feelings and beliefs do not determine reality. If that were so I guess I'm 5'8" instead of 6'6". I guess I'm 34-years old instead of 56-years old. I guess I'm black instead of white.  I guess I'm a giraffe instead of a human being....

Although this is changing, most people know  that children  who don't conform to gender roles/norms are at highest risk of abuse by not only their peers but by adults--teachers, parents, coaches, bus drivers,, etc.-- as well. These children are punished every day for failing to fit the ideals of the traditional gender binary. To simply say this is wrong--punishing children for failure to conform to biological sex-- is woefully understated. However, the answer is not to eliminate gender as if that is even possible. The answer is not to encourage children to change their gender at will or replace the gender binary with an array of choices that boggles even the most mature mind. The answer is not to educate children about various forms of sexuality before they even understand sexuality itself. The answer is not to punish those who identify as male or female, and/or punish those who "maintain that there are men and there are women and that the difference between them is fundamental." Well, you get the picture.

My point is that the bullying issue--an issue that's been around since the dawn of man--should not be fodder for cultural and political agendas, because, you see, national "anti-bullying" campaigns and educational reform and adding more laws to the books  have very little to do with stopping bad behavior or with protecting the traditional targets of bullies and everything to do with creating an Orwellian postmodern society that denies objective and immutable reality; it has everything to do with socially engineering dysfunction because in doing so, they create an indoctrinated, traumatized population  that will accept the illusion they call "reality," where hate is love, war is peace, white is black (see Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman when she is clearly not) and people are genderless, like robots.

Under the guise of "social justice" and "anti-bullying", the political elite use the machinery of state education, the mainstream media, and their power to craft legislation to compel children and adults alike into adopting "politically correct" attitudes that supplant objective reality with the supremacy of the subjective desire of elite globalists who push extreme egalitarianism to the point that anyone who states evidence of difference is considered a bigot and/or prejudiced. Today, even to question the notion of gender fluidity is considered a hate crime in a growing number of  circles, despite the fact that it leaves children confused or distressed as the political elite endeavor to "undo" normative concepts of fixed, binary gender identities within our culture.

Gender politics continues to escalate despite the fact that incidents of bullying and intimidation have dropped markedly in recent years, according to surveys by the Department of Justice, yet the transgender or gender neutralizing ideological propaganda continues.  People who don't feel comfortable identifying with their biology are real human beings and should be taken seriously, they should not be marginalized, however transforming the problems of an infinitesimally small fraction of the population into an ideology, a movement that in reality is cover for a much more sinister agenda is not the solution.

“And while the task force gives the impression that LGBT students are a primary focus of bullying, evidence suggests that the vast majority of bullying is directed at other students. The DOJ surveys indicate that the percentage of 12- to 18-year-old students who reported being targets of hate-related words based on their sexual orientation fell from 1.0 percent in 2007 to 0.6 percent in 2009.

You see, this is why modern day "scientists"  claim "philosophy is dead" because by eliminating philosophical and critical thinking,  it allows them to recreate reality on their own terms  and push it on a highly brainwashable population who has been taught what to think, not how to think.

“Philosophy is dead is the declaration of scientific materialists because it leaves the individual epistemologically stymied because you’re only left with what is quantifiable and empirically demonstrable. Because philosophy is dependent on terminological exactitude and definitional clarity, by eliminating philosophy it allows them to play fast and loose with the terms they invoke such as evolution. They invoke these terms with a great deal of interpretive elasticity. Without terminological exactitude, they invoke this esoteric vernacular that can mean whatever happens to be advantageous to them, the masters of the Anglosphere or Anglo-American empire whose operating system or doctrine is Darwinism, materialism."-- Phillip/Paul Collins

 Despite the fact that bullying is decreasing, the most powerful sectors of our society are bullying us into accepting a prescribed orthodoxy--by using the buzzwords of identity politics to trump both clear thinking and civic disagreement--in this case, muddling gender, claiming it is mutable, irrelevant, and strictly a social construct. We are being bullied into accepting state-approved views of sexuality with sweeping new statewide antibullying regimes that bully because using classic indoctrination techniques to pressure children into adopting the curriculum designers' attitudes and beliefs is bullying. Any differentiation in value between behavior or attitudes from this orthodoxy is considered bigoted and strictly prohibited. Moreover, by pushing extreme gender ideological agendas on the masses, they're not only failing to adequately address the real issue of LGBTQ rights in employment, housing, healthcare, government services, and the military, they're playing divide and conquer games.

The bottom line is that gender identity issues that promote philosophical postulates "Cogito, ergo sum" are best left to, well, philosophy, not science because there is more than enough scientific evidence that proves biological sex is a scientific reality.

“...the central issue is not to determine whether one says yes or no to sex…but to account for the fact that it is spoken about, to discover who does the speaking, the positions and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speak about it...

...one had to speak of it [sexuality] as of a thing to be not simply condemned or tolerated but managed, inserted into systems of utility, regulated for the "greater good" of society. Sex was not something one simply judged; it was a thing one administered."

“We must not think that by saying yes to sex, one says no to power; on the contrary, one tracks along the course laid out by the general deployment of sexuality”-- Michel Focault   (emphasis mine)

I know I have not fully answered, why, as Michel Foucault asserts, campaigns are whipped up by the ruling class and its middle-class allies to impose family structures and values, [or lack thereof,] upon the masses," as that would require, at the very least, a book that fully explores all of the reasons, but to put it very simply: destruction of God + destruction of family + destruction of objective reality including a total rewrite of the biosphere (HG Well wrote of the complete control of all biological forms of life) = personal and state power-motive to arbitrarily define and or create "reality" without any regard for Truth.

Links/Sources:

It’s dangerous and wrong to tell all children they’re ‘gender fluid’

Legalised lying and gender engineering. This is conservative?

Cultural homogenization

The real agenda behind antibullying campaign

Why is the political class is obsessed by gender issues?

The Philosophical Contradictions of the Transgender Worldview

When Harry Became Sally

New Israeli Research Reveals that Men Are Men and Women Are Women

“The researchers also found that biological sex also plays a role in preventing specific illnesses. For example, some genes expressed only in the left ventricle of the heart in women work to protect their hearts from disease until the women reach menopause. Another gene, in the liver, processes drugs differently according to the gender.

6,500 genes biased toward one sex or the other

“6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue, adding to the already major biological differences between men and women.’

'Language Is So Important': Non-Binary/Trans Listener Weighs In On 'Theyby' Discussion

Read more...

What Kind of Message is the Debate on DADT Sending?

Historic votes don't assure end to 'don't ask, don't tell'?

Really? Even when, overwhelmingly, public opinion is pro-DADT repeal, but the Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, is urging caution and delay.  He says that he is concerned about the potential impact of the repeal of the discriminatory policy  that is DADT, because he's afraid the repeal will interfere with  "military's readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention". Mullen is sorry that the vote went through before the Pentagon completed its policy review, the Pentagon's survey of troops and their families, which will supposedly demonstrate how to gradually pace the implementation of the repeal. What does that even mean?  

“So since they know DADT is almost certainly on the way out, the real question for senior military leaders is to negotiate the best terms for its repeal. And what they want to protect more than anything else, as ADM Mullen’s comments indicate, is their ability to retain control over military personnel policies generally. If they fight a repeal that happens anyway, the loss of control would reverberate over the long term. But if they hold off implementing a repeal that is coming no matter what until they can say that they completed a study that endorses repeal, they can put themselves on the “winning” side. It’s a neat political sleight-of-hand that is a well-worn tool among Washington insiders — those who control policy implementation in a given area can position themselves to be the champions of a policy change that they know is coming rather than fighting it and being seen as defeated.”

“DADT will probably be repealed, but implementation will probably be delayed until the military makes a climactic endorsement of the policy change that’s coming anyway. The modern military is politically savvy enough to make itself the winner of the turf war in the process.” -- Jason Arvak

Why, all of a sudden, is there is an abundance of concern for the opinion and/or feelings of the military's rank and file?  Were surveys completed on how the rank and file feel about compensation policy, consecutive tours of duty without any additional support, soldiers on food stamps, Blackwater, etc?   

Anyway, the  "don't ask don't tell" compromise seems to think that the military's rank and file  are so fragile that the admission of the true sexuality of a colleague, who is equally willing to put his or her  life on the line for this country, will send them spiraling over the edge. If that's true, how can they expect these"fragile" men and women to risk  life and limb, as they endeavor to endure live combat?  Nevertheless, the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff must certify that the repeal will not affect the military’s ability to fight.



The focus of this debate in the media has accentuated all the "negative" aspects or repealing DADT, when in fact, very few, if any negative aspects exist.  Tune in and you will hear about the poor timing, "implementation problems" (gradual pace), and undermining "military cohesion" just to name a few.  And even though the repeal is non-controversial at this point, with recent polls showing as much as 75% of the public in favor, the corporate media has turned the repeal of DADT into a political football, making the repeal far from a done deal as "two hurdles remain before the demise of "don't ask, don't tell" can be assured".  McCain being one, and

Since it became law in 1993 under Bill Clinton, DADT has forced lesbian, gay and bisexual service members to stay in the closet or face discharge.  To date, 13,500 members of the armed forces were discharged under this law, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, SLDN, an advocacy organization, while tens of thousands of current service members are forced to hide in the closet.

At  a time when the military and U.S. intelligence agencies did not have enough Arabic linguists - their skills indispensable - the military  fired at least fifty-eight Arabic translators placing the anti-gay position over national security, exponentially adding to the hidden cost of this onerous law.    How many terrorist messages went untranslated because an arabic or farsi or urdu translator was not OMG! heterosexual?

Recently, Dan Choi, the most visible gay spokesperson in favor of the repeal, and a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic with a degree in environmental engineering, and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

Other nations that have lifted similar bans involving gays — including such close allies as Australia, Britain, Canada and Israel — report no harm to military effectiveness. As many as 66,000 gay men and women may be serving in the U.S. military, about 2.2 percent of all personnel, including 13,000 on active duty, according to a study by the Williams Institute of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.

But the homophobic GOP prepared to refuse an up or down vote in the Senate on a bill that funds the troops during two wars because Americans will eventually be able to serve in the Armed Forces, without hiding their sexual orientation. Unsurprisingly, in Fox’s nine segments that mentioned Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell following Obama’s announcement, not a single gay source was featured.

What kind of justice forces homosexuals, who serve our country, in the military, hide who they are, as they make the ultimate sacrifice?

Links:
Repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Would Honor Gay Veterans

"Except that it wasn't. At a ceremony to recognize our completion of basic training, the base commander gave a speech in which he said, "If you're homosexual, you have no business being here." As much as anything, it was the tone in which it was said, as if to say, "If you're hiding, we will find you."

I was shaken by the commander's statement. It was as if he had said it directly to me. Though I went on to complete my technical school training and was subsequently assigned to an Air Force base in West Texas, the damage had been done. I became overwhelmed by doubt and depression, fearing that if my secret were found out, only the worst of fates -- court-martial, for example -- awaited me.

My military service ended some three months later after I approached my supervisor about a discharge. I didn't tell him I was gay, just that I thought I was incompatible with military service. A compassionate man, he was sorry to me go, but worked with me to get me discharged. Less than eight months after I had enlisted, I was heading back to Denver as a civilian once more."

Palm Center - "Blueprints for sound public policy." The Palm Center is a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Since 1998, the Center has been a leader in commissioning and disseminating research in the areas of gender, sexuality, and the military. For more information visit

Myths and Falsehoods of Don't Ask Don't Tell

Media reports are legitimizing the fear tactics of anti-gay obstructionists with uncritical reporting about gay troop disruptions.

But Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, says this is a “false debate” taken up too readily by even mainstream journalists. “There is zero evidence that the transition will be difficult,” he said. “In fact, research across the board shows that implementation of openly gay service is a non-event and that the only thing that could make it bumpy is the suggestion by leaders that there’s cause for alarm.” Belkin pointed to research by the Government Accountability Office, the RAND Corporation, and the Palm Center showing that just two variables are relevant in ensuring a smooth transition: signals of confidence by leadership and a clear, single standard of behavior that applies to everyone. He also said that, unlike ending racial segregation, lifting "don't ask, don't tell" does not require massive change, such as the movement of personnel or newly integrating units, since gays are already integrated into units throughout the force, and polls show that many of them already serve openly.

Read more...

Gay Marriage: Going for the Gusto

State by State: The Legal Battle over Gay Marriage
Hundreds of thousands of gay Americans have fought and died on the front lines of freedom throughout the history of this great nation. Millions more pay and have paid taxes throughout the history of this great nation. Yet despite their sacrifice and contribution, gay men and women are the only group of people excluded from certain benefits and freedoms, central to living the American Dream, that the rest of us take for granted, and that is the freedom to marry and receive all the benefits that accompany marriage.

Today, the stage was set in San Francisco for the first federal trial questioning the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. This trial, likened to a modern version of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the issue of civil rights became a legal matter, is expected to make its way to the US Supreme Court for what could result in a landmark decision on gay marriage. Currently, only five states recognize same-sex marriage. Thirty-six have banned it.

Stuart and I have been a loving, committed couple for 23 years. We're legally married in the state of California. But we're not just Californians. We're Americans, too. And we will not rest until we have the freedom and liberty that our Constitution promises us in every single state in this great nation. -- John Lewis, legally married to Stuart Gaffney, previous plaintiffs in a gay marriage suit

Specifically, the case turns on Proposition 8, the California referendum that barred gay marriage, winning voter approval in November of 2008. Two same-sex couples filed suit over Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-approved initiative that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, on the grounds that it violates their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law.

"If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Olson and Boies' side, then you would have legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country. That's a big if at this point, but that would be the implication, ultimately." -- Margaret Talbot, a staff writer at The New Yorker.

Read more...

A Professor's Influence Suggests A Promising Outlook for the Future Gay Rights.

Despite the defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine and the possible upcoming battle over same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, where two legislative proposals aim to overturn the new law set to take place January 1 of next year, it's important to realize that the legalization of gay marriage is inevitable.

Exposing the hypocrisy - most recently evident when Carrie Prejean, who is against gay marriage, and at the same time, known for hard-core sex tapes, nude pictures, lying, and cover up, took her microphone off in the middle of an interview on CNN's Larry King Live. Why? She did not want to answer questions from Larry King and a caller inquiring about her views on gay marriage - is crucial to speeding up the process of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Laurence H. Tribe, author of An Invisible Constitution, Professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, who said that Obama was "overall the most impressive student he's ever had" (out of 7,000 students including Chief Justice John Roberts ), and who also served as judicial adviser to Obama's campaign, has the experience, depth of knowledge and understanding of what it takes to evolve gay rights to a point of total equality.

In his article, Toward a Less Perfect Union, written in 1996, Tribe pointed out the irony of eviscerating the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause —by giving a state the right to deny the validity of a marriage already sanctioned by a another state - the provision in DOMA that discriminates against gay marriage,

"..The Constitution's principal device for assuring a "more perfect union" is the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires that each state must fully credit "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." More than half a century ago, the Supreme Court described the clause as "a nationally unifying force" that transformed the individual states from "independent foreign sovereignties, each, free to ignore rights and obligations" created by the others, into integral parts "of a single nation, in which rights . . . established in any [state] are given nationwide application."

And he went on to say,

This would convert the Constitution's most vital unifying clause into a license for balkanization and disunity.

Laurence Tribe, knowingly gave up any chance of winning a place on the "Reagan" Supreme Court when he argued Hardwick’s case in Bowers v. Hardwick, which resulted in a US Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults which was primarily targeted at homosexuals, even though heterosexuals violated this law nightly. Regarding that case, Tribe said he knew he "couldn't win but wanted to get some good dissents in".

"Tribe, was at the time, probably the only straight lawyer in the country to receive the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association’s Allies for Justice Award, which was bestowed on him in 1996. Tribe was so pleased when notified of the honor, that he asked the person on the phone if he could bring his wife to the award ceremony. There was a few moments of stunned silence on the other end. But, of course, this was all part of that same cultural change. The struggle for gay rights had transcended the gay community — equality under the law had become a fight by all and for all." -- Kathleen Sullivan, his student and later faculty colleague who went on to be named dean of Stanford Law School

After the Bowers decision, Tribe told his students that "time would correct the injustice". Seventeen years later in 2003, his words came true in Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark U S Supreme Court case, that struck down the sodomy law in Texas. Tribe wrote the ACLU brief that the courts accepted when it overruled Bowers.

He said that this is the only case in history that he knows of, where the court said that the earlier decision was wrong on the day it was decided. In other words, the court did not preface their decision with the rhetoric normally spoken before overruling, such as: things have changed, the world has changed, Brown v. Board addresses a world that's different than Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. Instead the court said, "the original decision fundamentally denied the dignity and equality of gay people and was wrong from the start."

One has to ask in light of the recent election results regarding Prop 8, if the right at issue (gay marriage) belongs to the public at large or is it, rather, an individual right that is not subject to majority infringement? Could the following be applied to same-sex marriage? I think so, but what do I know, I'm not an attorney.

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been interpreted to require non- discrimination in treatment of people.

Specifically, regarding gender, * Reed v. Reed, established that, "arbitrary preference established in favor of males by § 15-312-14 of the Idaho Code cannot stand in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment's command that no State deny the equal protection of the laws to any person within its jurisdiction." That later lead to the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause stated this way: "confers on petitioner a federal constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination that does not serve important governmental objectives or is not substantially related to the achievement of such objectives."

In addition, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was used in deciding Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that stated blacks and whites could not be prevented from marrying as it clearly violated the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

In Laurence Tribe's book, The Invisible Constitution, he refers to the Ninth Amendment as an example that supports the recognition of rights not explicitly mentioned.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We can only hope the influence of Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe will shape the fundamental character and underlying assumptions that will inform the Obama administration regarding equal rights, freedom, liberty, and the chance for all citizens to engage in the pursuit of happiness.

Major court decisions effecting same sex marriage:

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Connecticut law prohibiting the sale and use of contraception could not apply to a married couple because the U.S. Constitution generally guarantees a right to marital privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Virginia law banning interracial marriage, partly on the ground that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees a fundamental right to marry.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of birth control to single people.

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy statute on the ground that the constitutional right to privacy does not guarantee the right to have private, consensual sex with a person of the same gender.

Romer v. Evans (1996)
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that nullified local anti-discrimination protections for gay and lesbian people.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Texas anti-sodomy statute for violating the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, thereby overruling Bowers v. Hardwick.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex unions violated the Massachusetts Constitution.

Marriage Cases (2008)
The California Supreme Court held that sexual orientation is a "suspect class" under the California Equal Protection Clause, and state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex unions therefore violate the state constitution.

Links:
Same Sex Marriage Timeline

"I want judges who have a heart, have an empathy for the teenage mom, the minority, the gay, the disabled. We want them to show empathy. We want them to show compassion." -- President Elect Obama

*An example of how some twist the meaning and intent of the law in the most outrageous ways to fulfill their own discriminatory agenda. This guy wants feedback. Give it to him.

Read more...

Same-Sex Marriage in USA

Government recognition of same-sex marriage is presently available in seven countries and five U.S. states. Currently, however, gay married couples fork over $467,000 more than straight married couples in the US.

Upwards of $467,000, when you account for the 1138 federal rights and benefits afforded to heterosexual couples that are denied to same-gender couples. That's how much the Times estimates a gay couple will pay -- in a worst case scenario -- over the span of their lifetimes for extra costs related to health care, legal affairs, and other issues.

The Respect for Marriage Act introduced in September by Rep. Jerrold Nagler (D-NY) and has 91 co-sponsors would fully repeal DOMA.
Although similar to marriage, a domestic partnership does not confer any of the 1,138 rights afforded to married couples by the federal government.

The following is a review of a 1997 and 2004 government report that outlined the specific benefits afforded married couples in the United States. These are benefits and rights denied gay and lesbian couples taken from the website Equality Matters:

Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:

-- Social Security pension
-- veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
-- survivor benefits for federal employees
-- survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
-- additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
-- $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
-- continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
-- renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
-- continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
-- payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
-- making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

Right to benefits while married:

-- employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
-- per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
-- Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
-- sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:

-- veteran's disability
-- Supplemental Security Income
-- disability payments for federal employees
-- medicaid
-- property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
-- income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

Joint and family-related rights:

-- joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
-- joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
-- family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
-- next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
-- custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
-- domestic violence intervention
-- access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
-- Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
-- Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
-- Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
-- Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
-- Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
-- Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
-- Court notice of probate proceedings
-- Domestic violence protection orders
-- Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
-- Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
-- Funeral and bereavement leave
-- Joint adoption and foster care
-- Joint tax filing
-- Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
-- Legal status with stepchildren
-- Making spousal medical decisions
-- Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
-- Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
-- Right of survivorship of custodial trust
-- Right to change surname upon marriage
-- Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
-- Right to inheritance of property
-- Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:

-- veteran's medical and home care benefits
-- housing assistance
-- happy birthday housing loans for veterans
-- child's education loans
-- educational loan repayment schedule
-- agricultural price supports and loans
-- eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
-- Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
-- Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
-- Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage

There are some laws that either benefit or penalize married couples over single people, depending upon their own circumstances:

-- Marriage penalty/bonus
-- Someone working for their spouse cannot be defined as an "employee"
-- Someone cannot change beneficiaries in a retirement plan or from waiving the joint and survivor annuity form of retirement benefit, without the written consent of his or her spouse
-- Wages can be garnished at a maximum of 60% (instead of the normal 25% limit) if the garnishing is for alimony or child support

The Netherlands was the first country to authorize same-sex marriage in 2001, and now Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and in the US: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

New York, Rhode Island, District of Columbia (DC) and New Mexico do not allow same-sex marriages to be performed, but do recognize such marriages performed elsewhere.

In the US, domestic partnership is a city, county, state, or employer-recognized status that may be available to same-sex and, sometimes, opposite-sex couples. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined by each state or local jurisdiction, so there is no nationwide consistency on the rights, responsibilities, and benefits accorded domestic partners.

Related Headlines:

Outcome Over Gay Marriage in Maine is a Toss-up.

Gay marriage question focus of Maine TV debate

Focus of Gay-Marriage Fight Is Maine

A marriage equality bill that respects religious objectors

In Battle Over Gay Marriage, Timing May Be Key
NY Sen. Schumer-Gay Marriage in All 50 States is Goal

Read more...

It's OK to Hate Gay People?

It should come as no surprise that Mr. Bush and the Republican Party think it's OK to hate this group of Americans. Mr. Bush and friends are making sure "gay-bashing" remain alive and well in this here country.

Hate crime legislation exists to protect marginalized Americans from violence because members of minority groups are more likely to be targeted for this type of crime. But when our own government has no qualms about "bashing" this group (LGBT) of Americans, especially when Bush, Cheney and Rove want to focus our attention elsewhere, there is little to no chance that they will support a bill that condemns their strategy for success.

There is no question that people in the LGBT community have always been a target of hate crime and continue to be an "acceptable" scapegoat of haters today; this group, in particular, need the extra protection this law provides.

"Hate crimes" affect a group or community of people rather than an individual, therefore having greater impact than a crime committed against an one person. The victim of a hate crime acts as a symbol of the community that person represents and sends a clear message that any person associated with that group could be next. It's an act of terrorism and we know how strongly the President feels about terrorism, so why does the President object to legislation that will aid in curtailing terrorism against this group of Americans? Maybe because "gay bashing" is what enabled this administration to "accomplish" all that they have "accomplished".

"A White House spokesman has reiterated that President Bush will veto Congressional efforts to extend federal hate crimes legislation to cover gender identity and sexual orientation."

Read more...