I am more disturbed

[bubie2.5]

Quick question for the wedding planners out there. I wanted to give something special to our guests. I happen to be half Japanese so I thought we'd give everyone a nice set of laquer or wood chopsticks and porcelain chopstick rests. I thought it'd be a nice reference to my own heritage. Joe loves the idea. What do you think?

I love your wedding plans!!! I love the chopsticks idea. I hope you post pics after. BTW what are you panning for your honeymoon? A Disney cruise?

 

[phorsenuf]

Originally posted by bubie2.5
I'm sorry but it is NOT a family issue.
If something were to happen to you (God forbid) is safe to say your husband would get custody of your kids (no matter if his in laws like it or not) as long as he is fit to do so. That's not the case for gay parents, where wills can easily being contested and revoked.

But who is it that is contesting the will? It would be family members.



I have alot to say on this whole subject as it has been weighing heavily on my heart. Unfortunalty I don't have time to post now (it will be long! LOL)
So I will continue this in a few hours.

Fell free to talk amongst yourselves...........LOL

 

[snarfer1]

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with much of your post. I remain committed to Civil-Unions with all the legal protections as provided in a traditional marriage.

I think it is a form of abuse when a spouse doesn't have a will, or a parent doesn't have a will. And sadly, your partner should have though of a DPOA *BEFORE* they needed surgery. You need to talk to your partner about that, you don't need a law for it. How would you prove you were his partner if G-d forbid he was unconscious? and you wanted to be involved in his treatment.

My only objection, and for my own reasons, remains to the word marriage. Sorry but it is how I feel. Other than that word, I fully support equal rights and protections for all.

If that makes me a bigot, or stupid or a coward, than so be it. Afterall, theresa called me far worse. I'm sorry we can't agree to disagree, or that many of you don't feel that I'm entitled to my views. I guess tolerance exists only in the eye of the beholder.

Signing off.

-Tony

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by RickinNYC
To all those that are opposed to gay marriage, I would love to ask you a very simple question. If I live in the same country as you, and I pay the same taxes (and to be perfectly frank, we likely pay quite a bit more than the average household), and we vote, and we never break the law, then how come I am not entitled to the same rights as you? It's a simple question. I am as much of an American as you are.

But whatever the case may be, you will find some reason why I should be treated less fairly. I've no doubt of that. I have every confidence that you will find a way to twist the words of OUR Constitution to explain why I am less of a citizen. I won't be shocked. Trust me, I've heard it all. And yes, if you were in front of me, you would most definitely hear a little disgust in my tone of voice.

All that said, to those that have expressed interest, my wedding plans are going swimmingly! In mid-October of 2005, Joe and I have decided that we're going to fly to Toronto for a private ceremony with my younger brother and his wife and Joe's best friend and his wife as well. They'll serve as our Best Men and witnesses. We'll spend a quiet weekend enjoying the sights and sounds of Toronot.

Then, either that same weekend or the one following, we're going to host our reception in Manhattan. A relatively small one with about 75 guests. We'll start with a cocktail hour with a sake station, a champagne station, a signature cocktail (cosmo anyone?) beer and wine, soda and juice for the little ones, and passing hors douvres.

Then we'll move into the dining area for dinner. Our Best Men will give their toasts, yadda, yadda. Dinner will be buffet. I wanted a sit down thing with waiter service, but Joe wanted the buffet. He won. Anyway, we figure a chicken dish, a beef dish, three vegetables, the basics. But with a NYC flashy touch.

Immediately after dinner, Joe and I will stand to make our own toast to our families and friends. I already have in mind what we're going to say and it will be something like, "Thank you all for coming, not only to celebrate our 15 year anniversary, but for being here for our marriage. Each of you are so special to us in different ways. Some are family (raise glass to brothers, sisters, uncles, etc...), and some old friends (another glass raise to them). We had hoped to be married here, in our own country, but we were unable. We flew to Toronto and now we are official! And we wanted to celebrate with you. You were with us through all of our good times, some of you listened when we went through our bad times. And you are all with us today through the best time yet. So this reception is NOT for Joe and I. We want you to know that this day is as much for us as it is for you all. We love all of you and we look forward to spending the rest of our lives together, with you each by our side."

And then we're going to tell them that we didn't want a "first dance" but we did want to do something special and that we selected a song for EVERYONE to dance WITH us. And then we'll play, "I Hope You Dance."

We'll also have a cake. Joe has his heart set on a strawberry shortcake thing with whipped cream frosting. I'm not a cake guy so I'll let him handle that. And no, we don't want two little men standing on the top. I'd probably laugh myself senseless.

Then the rest of the night will be fun and frivolity. Lots of laughs. Some emotion. But best of all, we'll be with our loved ones.

A few other things that we're planning on is to state that we do NOT want gifts. If anyone is compelled to offer anything, we've selected three different charities that we'd prefer they donate to: American Diabetes Associaion, American Heart Association and City Harvest

Quick question for the wedding planners out there. I wanted to give something special to our guests. I happen to be half Japanese so I thought we'd give everyone a nice set of laquer or wood chopsticks and porcelain chopstick rests. I thought it'd be a nice reference to my own heritage. Joe loves the idea. What do you think?

Anyway, that's our plan for now.

And if these plans threaten anyone's own marriage, I'm gonna point at ya, snicker, and mutter "Oh gimme a friggin' break."

I wish you both long life, much happiness and a perfect marriage.

-Tony

 

[bubie2.5]

Originally posted by phorsenuf
But who is it that is contesting the will? It would be family members.



I have alot to say on this whole subject as it has been weighing heavily on my heart. Unfortunalty I don't have time to post now (it will be long! LOL)
So I will continue this in a few hours.

Fell free to talk amongst yourselves...........LOL

Yes it would probably be the family members of the deceased partner. But in the eyes of the law those family members have more rights to contest a will than the family members of a deceased hetero partner.

 

[Maleficent13]

Basically, 14 pages of debate, and what it appears we're all talking about is an issue of semantics. You say civil union, I say marriage. Tomato, Tomahto.

I highly doubt anyone would be getting this worked up about it if it were simply about semantics.

 

[septbride2002]

Well, it seems to me then that the people that would be contesting any legal document would be your own family members. They are the ones then that need to accept the relationship and not the world around them.

There have been many many many post right here on the DIS where people have admitted that they either don't talk to their own families or they don't talk to their spouses families. Different reasons are given - the biggest ones being neglect and abuse. If you choose to leave that situation and are gay then your family can come in after you death and contest a will and get everything. Including children. You cannot choose your family - and people shouldn't continued to be punished for the sins of their parents.

Someone sent me a great email from a Human Rights Group today.

As for the battle that lies ahead, our work must continue in the states - particularly the 11 states that passed constitutional amendments denying marriage to same-sex couples, as well as civil unions and domestic partnership rights. These amendments protect no one but instead discriminate against millions of American families, and were put on the ballot to divide people during the heat of the campaign.

I especially love the part that says the amendements protect no one! Not one single person! However yes it does discrimintate against millions - how is that right?

~Amanda

 

[sha_lyn]

RickinNYC
I wihs you and Joe many many more happy yrs together. Your post has brought tears to my eyes. What a beautiful plan the 2 of you have.

 

[ripleysmom]

"They can, at any point, make each other the legal/health DPOA of each other and then that won't happen."

That is not true Kristy. There have been partners that have been denied even with a DPOA.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Rick, I'm determined to get away from political threads on the DIS and maybe even the DIS itself for a while but politics has nothing to do with this in my opinion. Your relationship with Joe and my Chelle's relationship with Kim were used by Karl Rove and Co. as a red herring to draw the rabid right out to vote for Bush. They won the battle but they won't win the war!

Your wedding plans sound fantastic. Wish I could be there to dance at your reception. Congratulations and my very best wishes!

 

[PoohnPglet]

Originally posted by Dakota_Lynn
I’m responding to 13 pages so be prepared for a long, long post. I’m going to cover it all. This is not directed to everybody here, but I’m sure some of you will know I’m responding to your posts.

I believe that everybody has a right to their opinions, regardless of how bigoted those opinions may be. The point that you cross a line is when you want to use that bigotry to take discriminating action against a group of people. I won’t stand by and let you. You can hate us, declare of morally bankrupt, and wish with everything in you that homosexuals didn’t exist. But the point in which you support legislation to eliminate human rights is the point in which I will fight you every step of the way. Your opinion only counts as long as you don’t force your opinion on me. I want the right to marry my partner. My having that right doesn’t affect you. Your having a negative opinion doesn’t affect me. Your taking action against my right does affect me. Worry about your own life and what happens in your marriage. You need to keep your religion and your politics out of my life and out of my bedroom.

I’m about sick to death of people who use the slippery slope argument to justify their bigoted beliefs. You’re afraid that if homosexuals can marry then other people will want the right to marry their dogs, their children, their cousins, or their automobiles. First of all, I think I can promise you here and now that no sane person will ever ask to marry their car. Obsessions with inanimate objects are fetishes, which are mental illnesses. Homosexuality is NOT a mental illness. If you seriously think it is possible that the law will allow such marriages then medication is in order as is treatment for paranoid personality disorder. Second of all, I also think I can promise you that the law will never allow for a marriage that involves a victim. Since children and animals can’t consent to sex, I seriously think you can stop worrying about such things. Third of all, the law isn’t likely to allow two people to marry if their gene pools are so similar that the odds of producing sick children are too high. That would probably discount father/daughter and perhaps even sibling marriages. Beyond that, I don’t give a **** who marries whom, and neither should the law. If first cousins fall in love and want to marry, then why should we tell them no? If some dude wants three wives, and those wives are old enough to know what they are doing, then who are we to judge?

Another thing, there is NO evidence whatsoever that the “slippery slope” fears have manifested in other countries that allow gay marriage. I’ve sure not seen evidence of this. I have friends in all the Scandinavian countries and I e-mailed all of them this question earlier today and they have all responded like it was a big joke! Of course people don’t want to marry cars or children or siblings! What kind of idiot would suggest such a thing? Don’t worry, I didn’t give them names!

Oh, and to whoever suggested marriage is only about the “warm fuzzies,” give me a frickin’ break! Is that really all you think it is about? Here’s a real-life situation for you if you think it’s just about the warm fuzzies. I own a house. It’s only in my name, not my partner’s. Together, the two of us could buy a much nicer home. My house is nice, it’s just that it’s way out in the country because that is where property was cheap enough so that I could have the house I wanted. On my income alone, I could never get a nice house in town. Our combined incomes could purchase our dream house easily. One problem. I would NEVER buy a house with her. Why? Because she has an adult daughter who would think nothing of taking the house from me in the event her mother passed on. And since my partner is 17 years older than I am, there’s a pretty good chance that I could find myself paying lawyers everything I have to save my home and still lose it! Why? Because that “warm fuzzy” feeling isn’t going to be enough to keep her daughter from trying to steal my house! Now if we were married, it would be all but impossible for her daughter to contest a will successfully. Yes, it COULD happen, but it would be very unlikely. Without marriage, it would be inevitable. And yes, I do know of cases where this has happened, even when wills were made. If two people aren’t married, the biological children have more power than the will…at least that is my experience of watching the partner’s of two deceased friends trying to sort out such messes.

Last month I had to have a triple hernia repair. Because I was alert going into the surgery, I was able to request my partner’s presence. But had it been emergency surgery, technically speaking, the nurses would have had to refuse my partner. Real warm and fuzzy, isn’t it?

Let’s move on to the those who think homosexuality is a choice. I was born to heterosexual parents in a right-wing conservative midwest town. I didn’t even know what a homosexual was when I started feeling attracted to the female body. I can remember being five to six years old and sneaking the Sears catalog into my room so I could look at the pretty woman wearing the scanty bras! Tell me that a six year old made the choice to like women. Oh, and my oldest brother eventually came out too. Do you honestly think we both made that choice? Or could it be possible that my parents carried a recessive gene and passed it on to both my brother and me?

One more thing, I was a biology/psychology major in college. I once took a class called behavioral genetics. The professor was a conservative right-wing jerk who was despised by everybody for being such a conservative presence in a liberal college. But I’ll tell you one thing…this conservative professor insisted that homosexuality was genetically passed from parent to child. Even he believed it to be genetic, despite his conservative ways. Many, if not most biologists and behaviorists believe there is a strong genetic component to everything we do. There’s evidence that supports this with many behaviors, but not all…only because the genes have yet to be isolated. It’s just a matter of time.

There are fascinating twin studies that support the “homosexuality is genetic” argument. There are studies of twins separated at birth that show a tendency for both end up gay or both end up straight. In monozygotic twins, there is an even higher likelihood that both will be homosexual, even when they were raised in different households thousands of miles apart! How can you seriously say it’s a choice?!!!? And I know from personal experience how common it is for parents to have more than one gay child. I know many, many lesbians and gay men who have gay siblings. Very, very common. It’s also very common for gay kids to have gay aunts or uncles. There is a very clear genetic connection, like it or not.

Another thing. I’ve heard it hypothesized many times that homosexuals do play an important role in the natural world, the same role as infertile men and women: population control. If even five percent of the population didn’t procreate because of homosexuality, that is one huge amount of people not being born. Unfortunately, mother nature didn’t assume that BIGOTS would drive so many gay people into “playing straight” and having babies anyway. Imagine, though, if worldwide people would stop letting religion rule them and just let homosexuals be homosexuals. We would indeed help keep populations lower. That isn’t a bad thing when you look at the current growth rate on our planet. Like infertile men and woman, homosexuals should have every right to marry and find happiness, even if they don’t produce any children.

As far as the Anne Heche comment…that woman is bisexual (as well as bipolar). Bisexuals like both genders. That means they might date a woman one time and a man the next. A homosexual can’t do that! You want me to marry a man? Be prepared to watch me vomit at the alter when he tries to kiss me. Yes, I’m as grossed out at the thought of “being” with the opposite gender as you are of being with the same gender.

Let me ask those of you who think it’s a choice one question. Could you EVER make the choice to be with somebody of your own sex? Or would you feel sick at the idea? If you get ill at the thought of forcing an attraction that is unnatural to you, then why on earth do you think gay people can force themselves to be attracted to the same gender? And why, why, why would they want to???? Why would any little girl who likes boys wake up one day and say, “gee, it’s a nice Tuesday afternoon…I think I’m going to force myself to like girls today…just for the hell of it!” Does that really make any sense?

And no, I’ve never been abused by any man and I had a wonderful relationship with my father and my brothers. There is nothing to make me not like men. Nothing except GENETICS. If fact, some of my closest friends are guys. I like guys fine as friends, but I’d rather die than be intimate with one! Yuck!

That is all.

Bravo. You go!!

 

[ripleysmom]

"Sorry if wills can be contested in the Gay world. Guess what they are also contested in the Straight world. With proper planning the effects of a contest can be negated. Nonissue. You want change, deal with the Lawyers, especially the vast majority in our Congress. Spousal rights depend on the state where you live, some recognize 'common law' relationships, some don't. Spousal rights are not an absolute, except with regards to retirement plans. Sorry."

Spousal rights may not be an absolute in all states, however, in the states that do grant them that is an option that homosexuals do not have.

All the planning in the world will not protect a homosexual from a greedy family and a judge that does not approve of their lifestyle.


"Children, (This is from memory, I will search for a link) In NJ a lesbian couple had a child (AI), the non-genetic Mom adopted the child and sucessfully sued for visitation when the couple broke up. In the real world, parents have their children taken away all the time (DYFS in the case of NJ). Again a non-issue, but of all the issues, comes close to actually being an issue, especially if I misquoted/misremembered this example!"

Visitation is one thing, custody is another thing completely wouldn't you say? As for parents having their children taken away, how many heterosexual couples lose their child if the spouse dies?


"The issues of birth do count, adoptions being reversed after 3 years by a birth 'Father', switched babies being returned to the actual parents, wrong egg AI suits, so sorry again a Non-issue."

None of those examples contain removal of a child due to the death of a spouse do they?


"The ICU statement is blatently false period. A document called the Duarable Healthcare Power of Attorney can give irrevokable rights for the decisions of an individual's healthcare to another party, regardless of the relationship.

Barring a person from hospital visits would not only take legal action and an enforcement action, but would take so much time, that the person would recover or sucumb from/to their illness before it became an issue. TOTALLY BOGUS POINT."

No it isn't. There have been several cases where the hospital did not follow the HPOA.


"Under HIPAA Protected Healthcare Information can not be shared without the prior consent of the patient, excepting Treatment, Payment and Healthcare Operations matters. Non Point."

Um...how is this a non point. What if the person cannot give consent and the hospital is refusing to obey the HPOA because of the patient's family? It has happened before and will happen again. All you need is someone who does not approve of a homosexual lifestyle to negate all of these supposed protections that people have.

 

[bubie2.5]

Wow Dakota!! Great post!! Long, but great.

 

[Dakota_Lynn]

Originally posted by bubie2.5
Wow Dakota!! Great post!! Long, but great.

I talk a lot when I'm pissed off. But I do feel better for having done it. Just don't let pop daddy know.



By the way, where are those lost brownies????

 

[ripleysmom]

Great post Dakota!!

Rick your wedding sounds like it is going to be wonderful. I wish you all the best in the world!!


phorsenuf, speaking from personal experience I can tell you that people get weird when it comes to money especially after a death. Even in families that get along. Imagine though how it is for someone whose family does not approve....

 

[septbride2002]

Dakota I sent you a PM

 

[roger_ramjet]

Man, this debate strikes me as being such a red herring. Of all the important topics that could be debated and looked into - they include a referendum about MARRIAGE in the damn ballot? I just don't get it. It's not important. I'm sure gay rights activists see it that way, and I sure as hell hope that they get civil rights to be recognised in some form under the law - but I just can't understand the fuss. Pandering to the bible belt in this matter for some cheap votes seems pretty underhanded, and pretty pointless too. Marriage between homosexual partners will NEVER affect anyone else, and I don't think it's anyone's place to legislate on the basis that it might send people to hell. Or whatever the arguments I've seen are all about. Who cares what the Bible says?

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet
Marriage between homosexual partners will NEVER affect anyone else, and I don't think it's anyone's place to legislate on the basis that it might send people to hell. Or whatever the arguments I've seen are all about. Who cares what the Bible says?

Oh, but *they* believe it will. They believe that allowing homosexuals to publicly be married or their relationships recognized legally then makes it okay. This kind of condoning of behavior will breed more gays, because it is okay now to indulge your predilictions. They believe it will make their own children "become" gay when their children see that it is a viable option in life. In this way, they believe it must be stopped.

 

[roger_ramjet]

Why the hell would children want to become gay? Why would they expose themselves to the prejudice that still exists? It might be a viable choice, but it's not nearly as viable as ordinary heterosexual relationships. It's a mostly natural, consensual relationship between two loving adults - I don't see why this should be particularly frowned upon. The vast majority of the populace will still be heterosexual.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Dakota, a very public and a Thanks for sticking your neck out.