Update on Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court

BREAKING NEWS:

At 3:18EST, the New York Times reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear 2 cases on same-sex marriage!!!

My Thoughts on the Outcome of the Election

After months of intense campaigning, Obama emerged as the projected victor of the 2012 US presidential election. I care about the outcome of the presidential race, but there were three other contests, four including my own state’s senatorial race, whose outcomes worried and excited me almost as much as that for president. They were the ballot votes on gay marriage in Maryland, Maine and Washington.

What is unique about this particular ballot vote is that it had never before succeeded. Massachusetts, Iowa and the other four states that currently allow same-sex marriage were not decided by a popular vote: their courts deemed such discrimination unconstitutional. When attempting to pass same sex marriage via the popular vote, even Maine shot the proposition down 53% to 47% several years ago (http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/maine-and-maryland-say-we-do/).

Now in 2012 things are starting to change. Obama is the first president to openly support gay marriage. Maryland and Maine passed gay marriage in their respective states with promising results thus far predicted for Washington (their submit their ballots in the mail so actual numbers take longer to determine). Wisconsin elected the first gay senator, Tammy Baldwin. To me, these results symbolize a change in attitude in the American population. People have finally realized that the failure to include all people and families in law is flat-out discrimination, religious preferences and propaganda aside. It’s acknowledgement that we are not so different after all and do not deserve to be denied our rights.

There is still a lot of work to be done. Thirty states have banned gay marriage in their constitutions. But if the number of states allowing gay marriage can jump from six to nine states overnight, there may just be hope that those numbers will be reversed by the time by moms turn 65.

Thank you, American voters, for supporting my family last night.  

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Redefine Assault

“It’s no big deal, I’m gay, I don’t want her – I was just having fun.”

Partially as a result of the buzz surrounding Amherst and its failure to properly prosecute rape, assault is a hot topic on college campuses. Then someone shared an article with me describing a new area of un-scrutinized assault: gay men inappropriately commenting on or touching women.

I want to preface this by saying I acknowledge the volatility and controversy of this subject. If you have not read my previous posts, I’m the proud daughter of a same-sex couple so I do not write this to perpetuate homophobia, especially toward gay men. I also do not intend to stereotype gay men. This was hard for me to write about, particularly because of my family structure, but something I felt compelled to comment on.

Author of the article, Gay Men’s Sexism and Women’s Bodies, Yoko Akili addresses a the trend of identifying gay men as the “experts of women’s fashion and by proxy women’s bodies.” Such a position of knowledge and expertise has apparently made some gay men feel entitled and “comfortable” evaluating and manipulating women’s bodies like a piece of pottery. They consider their unsolicited criticism or touch as “benign” because they are not sexually interested.

I have a problem with this. Rather, I have a BIG problem with this. First off, it is never okay to grope someone intentionally. Gay or straight, invading someone’s personal space like that is violating and degrading. It’s time we define assault once and for all. Touching someone inappropriately, regardless of age, sexual orientation, gender, hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc, is not okay and should be prosecuted as such. Though already established in the legal books, it now needs to become equally socially unacceptable. Such practice starts in schools, teaching kids to not only report it but to intervene if they see something inappropriate. Young kids must observe older ones standing up for what’s right rather than giving into the pattern.

Secondly, there is already so much in the media and society chipping away at a women’s image about body. The last thing we need to do is add more scrutiny. I don’t understand why it’s okay for a guy to point out a woman’s “thunder thighs” or “muffin top” yet a woman can’t openly smirk at a guy’s beer belly to his face. How are women supposed to accept and praise their bodies if the group of men not even sexually attracted to them scolds them for not fitting a particular stupid mold? Speaking as someone who spent much of middle school and high school having a bad relationship with food and my body, the negativity comes from all directions. Women cannot stop it on our own. We need allies. Clearly in this case, some of the guys we have turned to be our allies have turned against us.

It's hard enough already to look in the mirror and be satisfied. Why do people have to make it harder?

Photo credit: http://eatingdisorderstreatment.com/eating-disorder-programs-miss-melissa-had-a-thought/ 

I approve my tax dollars to do that: redefine assault.

I Need My Tax Dollars to do That: Support My Family Too

Imagine you’re 80. Your partner of 50+ years just died. You both paid your taxes throughout adulthood so you should be able to live off of your spouse’s social security, right? Wrong.

For the 131,729 same-sex couples who identified their partner as their “husband” or “wife” in the 2010 Census Report (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/28/census-reports-more-than-130000-same-sex-couples-say-theyre-married/), they will not receive their spouse’s social security because the Federal Government does not recognize them as married. As the proud daughter of a same-sex couple, I find it outrageous that my moms pay their appropriate taxes toward social security (approximately 14% of their income), have a Massachusetts marriage license and yet when the time comes, one will be denied the other’s social security.

This is how the Social Security Administration handles it:

“Under Federal law an individual whose claim for benefits is based on a State recognized same-sex marriage or having the same status as spouse for State inheritance purposes cannot meet the statutory gender-based definition of husband or wife of the worker, including one who is divorced. Therefore, for all benefit purposes, the Social Security Administration does not recognize such individual as the spouse of the worker.” (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.03/handbook-0306.html)

photo credit: http://krystlem.tumblr.com/post/3729304852

The equal rights symbol. I have seen it on cars, laptops, binders and water bottles as a demonstration of equal rights for all families. 

The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment). Marriage, or more specifically marriage legislation, falls under state jurisdiction, not Federal. Massachusetts is currently the only state that grants full marriage rights to same-sex couples. Furthermore, my moms’ marriage license is not recognized in any other state (http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/About/Committees/GenderandSexuality/StatebyStateLGBTLegislation.aspx#MA). 

The failure of a state to acknowledge the marriage license of another state simply because of the sex of the couple when driver’s licenses are readily accepted is ridiculous. But the fact that the Federal Government completely disregards the Tenth Amendment in this case is ludicrous.  The Federal Government has no right to redefine a state’s definition of marriage. It needs to recognize Massachusetts’ definition of marriage so that the same-sex couples like my parents who work hard and pay their taxes get the same financial protection heterosexual couples receive. What the Fed is doing is not just unconstitutional: it is flat-out discrimination.