How Many Traditional Marriages Were Saved or Strengthened When This Man Lost The Love of His Life and Then His Home?

Comments

1
Patty Murray voted for DOMA! What say you, Patty?
2
But isn't that the whole point of persecution? Nobody says it but all it really comes down to is "I want to hurt people who do things and think things I think are wrong."

Videos like that make sympathetic folks feel terrible but that's a triumphant moment to the bigoted, hateful folks out there. "Serves you right!" they'd scream, and feel justified for doing so.
3
If nothing changes, this is me in 20 years or so.

My partner and I are "registered domestic partners" in WA. Everything but marriage in WA, but completely irrelevant to the Federal government.

My partner has a substantially higher income than me. He'll have substantially higher social security benefits. If he dies before I do, I won't get a dime from SSI. By then we will have been together for well over 40 years.
4
Damn, thank you. Bowersock's matter-of-factness really magnified all the elements. DOMA meets unprecedented foreclosures meets photos of 1970s teeth meets the pain of a husband predeceasing you as you face old age meets the disappearance of the notion that most of us will retire anymore EVER, meets B&W backed by plinky hearttugging piano soundtrackery. Shawn Nee you magnificent bastard.
5
My boyfriend is in the same boat, RP.

Canada here we come.
6
i am in the same boat.
7
I'm also in that boat.
8
@5 Or Massachusetts if the recent ruling holds.
9
And this proves - if proof was necessary - that the whole issue is *not* religious and should not be decided by churches.
10
If it makes me frustrated and angry to keep hearing story after story about this, I can't even imagine what those of you who are truly affected by this bigotry are going through. I hold out no great hope for my former country, the conservatism has become too entrenched. While I think it's great that Get Equal is protesting, and that this blog highlights the issues frequently, I really think that for those of you who can, you should consider establishing residency in Canada. You don't have to live here all year, but if you had to choose where to own a house, where to keep your money, where to get sick and have your recognized spouse making decisions for you in hospital, you could do worse than Canada. A lot of us commenting here are middle aged farts, and we aren't getting any younger. Maybe this is harder than I think it is, but my understanding is that for professionals and/or people who are prepared to *invest* in Canada, immigrating is possible. Look into it. When you get here, give me a call, and I'll show you around...
PS Stick to Vancouver...people in Toronto are snobs... :)
11
@1, so did Bill Clinton. But he was "forced" to do it to get reelected. I wonder how the "fierce advocate" in the White House is doing on getting that repealed. He may have a change of heart in 2012 when the right starts tearing him a new asshole over the state of the economy. I fear the lack of spine on the left more than the religious right whose asses they kiss.
12
I'm officially - legally - married in California; one of the limited edition 18,000 married couples and WE are in the same boat.

Neither of us earn enough to pay the rent on our not quite one bedroom apt in San Francisco on our own.
13
When I heard about this, I decided to reconcile with my money-grubbing whore of a soon to be ex wife and and become a model husband, bearing her every whimsical addiction to drama in lightness and sweetness!

Every time a homosexual is denied basic rights, it makes my horrific, vile, useless opposite marriage a little more bearable!
14
What bull. This is what discrimination is in this country. It is absolutely shameful that ridding the books of DOMA isn't a priority. Its so unfortunate that equality issues are off the table for politicians during election season.
15
Heartbreaking. That is all.
16
My partner was covered by my health benefits for several years until I was laid off. After that, I received a subsidy to partially cover my COBRA health benefits but my partner was ineligible because of DOMA. Now he's on a terrible, expensive plan.

Thanks a lot Patty!
17
I know it will never happen but...
I wish that all the legal part of marriage in this country (USA) would just be civil union and make it so for all types of sexual orientation of consenting adults.
Then, if people want to get married, they get their union blessed by the appropriate ceremony in a church or whatever and keep it separate from the legal part of the union.
18
3,5,6,7,16 - come on up! The water's fine...and my gay friends say Toronto's not too bad. Pretty great here in Vancouver, though!
19
Why can't we fix this? How do we fix this?
20
Be careful about pushing this issue as your argument for same-sex marriages, as this just gives opponents another arrow in their quiver to argue against it.

Most of the ultra-conservatives who oppose gay marriage also oppose "entitlement" programs like Social Security, and see this situation as a reason TO keep denying equal marriage rights.

Can't you see them saying "see, if we allow gay marriages, that's just more people on the government dole taking our tax money in SS survivor benefits!"? They're not going to have any sympathy for this guy.

Saying equal marriage should be allowed so it gives more people access to entitlement programs is just about the worst argument you could put forward, and is going to do more harm than good.
21
I was a victim of DOMA for the 1st half of the 2000's. At the time, I worked for a company that gave DP benefits, and it was ever so delightful to have to pay taxes on his benefits.
22
We should have passed optional privitazation of portions of Social Security under W's proposal back during his first term. Surely that would have meant designting beneficiaries and getting a larger return. It's high time the GLBT community learn how to walk through life without holding the hands of big government and Democrats.
23
Off topic, but I am at work and only have a moment to pass this along to you, Dan. Enjoy!

Catholic sex scandal as undercover repor…
24
@10: "PS Stick to Vancouver...people in Toronto are snobs... :)"

Oh yeah. And damn proud.
25
Raindrop @22, Nice straw man argument.

The point isn't whether or not SS should be privatized or big government.

The fact is that SS does exist. And right now, because of DOMA, people like me (half of a gay couple with a lower income than the other half) are treated differently by SS than straight married couples in exactly the same circumstances.

By the time I retire, I'll have been with my partner for 40+ years. Yet, to the federal government, we will be treated as complete strangers. That is the issue
26
What a heartbreaking video. It made me weep. Sometimes I think it would be better to become an ex-patriot, and finish raising my kids in a country with a better sense of justice and equality. Of coarse leaving means there is no hope left for change. This video made me want to leave this morning. There is no ethical justification for discrimination, and no amount of espousing "sacred scripture" will change that. Justice is offensive by nature.

On a related note, while I was busy frowning as I drove our eldest to Flute Bootcamp, she related that her friend Nick had found the courage to come out and that all of their mutual friends were being incredibly supportive, even the girls who had crushes on this adorable young man. And, she reminded me that a) neither her generation or my generation have risen to a large enough number in the political realm to bring about the necessary change, and that b) bullies never leave the playground if their victims and those who are appalled by the behavior of bullies' run away. You have to become offensive to bullies to change your world and keep hope alive.

We're not going to move to beautiful Canada. The kid is right.
27
rewind:

homophone error in @ 26. I need more coffee.
28
fbc @20: Ultra-conservatives may oppose Social Security, but they're not going to vote for gay marriage anyway. The overwhelming majority of Americans support Social Security, precisely so that nothing like this happens to them.

Showing the impact of federal non-recognition of our marriages is crucial. We're not just fighting for the word "marriage," we're fighting for our lives and our families. By showing the link between Social Security and marriage, we gain far more sympathy than we lose.
29
@25: True, our generation is sunk, but if we started privatizing portions of SS now, future same-sex couples (as well has non-married hetero couples) will have more financial stablity.
30
BABH @ 28 - I'd disagree. I happen to believe that everyone who would find that video sympathetic is already on the side of gay marriage. I think the best arguments for converting the opposition would be around family stability, or hospital visitation related issues. It just seems to me that using an argument to persuade the opposition that in the end would cost them $ is doomed to failure.

However, the strategy I suggested hasn't persuaded enough people in the many years it's been tried, so maybe you're right.
31
Looking at my 87 year old husband and thinking about this video.
32
@20, we're not trying to persuade ultra-conservatives, but the half of the country that's more moderate, but maybe just a little clueless about the privileges they enjoy and the hardships those privileges have engendered in others (which is sorta the most characteristic American trait, now that I think of it).

Most people in this country HAVE NO IDEA that things like the lack of partnership rights affect real people in real ways. They've never thought about it before. They live in a bubble. Bubbles can be popped.

This powerful video is exactly what is needed. It's painful to watch, but we (straight folks) have to watch it. The pain of seeing what we are doing is piss compared to the pain of living it. Videos like this can open eyes in ways that the hateful kooks are powerless against.

I've put it on my Facebook page, and I feel confident that at least a couple of minds will change right there because of it. I have a lot of decent, well-meaning but fearful and ignorant Christian-conservative relatives who will see it. We don't need every one of them, but we need a few. We're almost there.
33
It's about the money. Just think of all the extra cost to the government if domestic partners are entitled to these sorts of benefits. It isn't right, but that's what it's about.
34
Canuck: I am so hurt you called us snobs that when I find a naked Sergio Ramos pic, I'm sharing it with Gus and not you!
35
More to the point, @28,30,32: There is a huge middle ground of Americans that aren't hardcore anti- but haven't yet moved to pro-same sex marriage. There's a book that's being published in September called "Counted Out." The authors did studies on American's perception of family in 2003 and 2006. They found that more than half of Americans called same-sex couples with children families, but much fewer Americans were willing to call same-sex couples without children the same thing.

It's videos like this that reinforce that these two men really were each others families.
36
This video broke my heart. The only real solution is to appeal the decision on the basis of equality rights and have the law overturned. Obviously, the people to whom this happens have no money to appeal and are forced to live with the injustice. "Rigorous law is often rigorous injustice." - Terence.
37
You got the photos, Nurse??
38
@10, 24:
Come to Montreal! We are snobby, but... better than Toronto! (Go Habs...)
39
I hope, if I ever have the same good fortune of finding the love that finally makes me complete, that it won't all end like this. That the times will somehow be different.

My heart goes out to Mr. Bowersock and to anyone else currently in his position.
40
@32: It's heart-breaking to us but I doubt it would trigger a similar response in a conservative viewer.
41
Gah, Nurse, I forgot you were from *there.* I will email you a picture of myself on my knees and genuflecting while chanting "Go Leafs!" if it will garner me a naked Ramos photo. (And just to show how heartfelt this pledge is, I won't repeat the Toronto light bulb joke I just heard...)
42
Lord, the Toronto hate here is sooooo scripted.
43
I am single, so I guess I'm in the same boat at this man. But I've been saving for retirement for the last thirty years, so I'm doing just fine. This couple could have the the same thing, but chose instead to spend all their money. They don't appear to have any children, so what did they spend it all on? Charted cruises?
44
Hey Canuck,
I haven't found a naked Ramos pic yet, but hope springs eternal.

Actually, if you don't know where to hang out, Toronto can be pretty snobby. One of my friends moved here from Iowa, and in her first week, she went to buy dog food at a store in Yorkville. She was wearing shorts and flip-flops. The cashier at the pet store looked her up and down and said, "You do know that this is where celebrities buy their pet food, don't you?"
45
@44 Ha, that is too funny! I wouldn't last a week (sartorially, anyway). It's the opposite in our earthy-crunchy little town west of Calgary, city people come into the clothing shop where I work and lament "not being dressed to go to dinner," as we have some really great restaurants. "Oh honey," I say, "trust me, you're 'dressed.' "
46
Oh lordy, @45, it can't be worse than Vancouver, where it is perfectly acceptable to wear Lululemon to a fine restaurant. Gah. I will cheerfully give "Canadian Best Dressed" to Montreal. And to the person who criticised the couple for not saving - we have no idea about their finances/expenses over the last 25 years, so shut it. For all we know, they were supporting their OWN aging parents, hmm?
47
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Dan.
It's all about the money.
Homosexuals whine that "they can't loooove the person they want to...." but it's not about the love, it's about the taxpayer money.
Love away.
But don't ask us to pick up the tab......
48
DISREGARD THE ABOVE! I SUCK COCKS! HA HA!
49
Another thing to note, straight couples 'living in sin' (but not married) are also disqualified from receiving married couple-type benefits. This often impacts elderly couples who may have been divorced some time ago but have been living for a partner whom they never married.

Those who hope to claim more of the middle (and moderate right) vote on this issue should also emphasize the notion that the DOMA penalizes loving, committed straight couples too, who choose not to get married for whatever reason.

Here's my recommendation: get the state out of the marriage business! Instead, let the state confer uniform domestic partner benefits (to include today's marriage benefits like social security, health care, etc) to gay & straight couples who file the paperwork.

Then, let marriage be conferred by churches, etc, but let it have no bearing on the legal, Federal domestic partnership stuff.
50
Another thing to note, straight couples 'living in sin' (but not married) are also disqualified from receiving married couple-type benefits. This often impacts elderly couples who may have been divorced some time ago but have been living with a partner whom they never married.

Those who hope to claim more of the middle (and moderate right) vote on this issue should also emphasize the notion that the DOMA penalizes loving, committed straight couples too, who choose not to get married for whatever reason. This should be framed as an over-stepping by government into the private love lives of ALL individuals, gays & straights included.

Here's my recommendation: get the state out of the marriage business! Instead, let the state confer uniform domestic partner benefits (to include today's marriage benefits like social security, health care, etc) to gay & straight couples who file the appropriate paperwork (similar to today's marriage licenses & marriage benefits conferred by the state.)

Then, let marriage be conferred by churches and whomever, but let it have no bearing on the legal, Federal domestic partnership stuff. That way, churches & groups can decide what marriage means to them, and the government can insure equal benefits to all committed couples without firing up the neoconservatives by Federally marrying gays.

I think this is the same idea as Washington State's 'everything but marriage' bill.