Letter to the President

Mr. President,

Words can't adequately convey how disappointed I am by your decision to have the Justice Department file a brief opposing a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Amendment. Despite your stated opposition to DOMA during the campaign, it seems that you now feel that denying same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples is a legitimate means of "preserving scarce government resources".

In other words, equality is too expensive.

I have been with my partner for over six years. I am fortunate that my employer counts her as a "spousal equivalent" for the purposes of health insurance; however, unlike my straight married co-workers, the IRS considers this to be a taxable "fringe benefit". I also know that should my partner outlive me, she will not be eligible to receive my Social Security benefits; the same benefits that I've worked for all my life, just like any heterosexual person, would be denied to my spouse solely because we are both female.

How is it fair that I should be treated differently from any other taxpaying citizen based on my sexual orientation? How is this anything other than gross discrimination? Why is it acceptable to the U.S. Government to define my relationship as “less-than” because of my gender and my partner’s gender?

I was excited about your election. I honestly never thought that a family that looks like my family would ever be the First Family of the United States. I was also pleased that during the campaign, that you said you would be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT equality. However, since taking office, you have repeatedly and clearly sent the message that I am still a second-class citizen in the country of my birth, this time because of who I love rather than the color of my skin.

Fifty years ago, had either my partner or I of been male, we would still have been denied the right to have our marriage legally recognized in many states because I am black and she is white. Would the Justice Department have filed a similar brief to argue that interracial marriage should not be recognized by the Federal Government? Would you have argued that it’s more important that the government not spend tax money by denying benefits to taxpayers if they happen to fall in love with someone of another race?

If it’s not acceptable to tell me that I can’t marry the person I love because she’s white, why is it not only acceptable but desireable to tell me that I can’t marry the person I love because she’s a woman?

I truly did think better of you, Mr. President. I believed that you meant what you said. How sad to see that your words were empty. It seems that “change” and “hope” are only available for some Americans—not for all.

OH, BARACK OBAMA NO!

"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."

This is from the US Justice Department's filing in a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act in California. This paragraph effectively says that it's okay for me to be taxed on Ruth's health benefits when my straight married co-workers spouses' benefits are tax-exempt--because there's only so much money, and the government has to preserve resources. If I die, Ruth doesn't get my Social Security benefits, and oh well, I guess that's the Gay Tax.

I distinctly remember Obama promising to work to repeal DOMA during the campaign. Yeah, only not so much.

Letter to Amazon

After reading about the massive fail from Amazon, I fired off a letter:

I have been an amazon customer for many years. Recently I signed up for Amazon Prime, because I knew that the savings would pay for themselves within a few months.

Many of the books I buy from Amazon are gay and lesbian themed. I buy these at Amazon because they're difficult to find in my local Borders or Barnes and Noble. I have always appreciated the fact that Amazon does not treat GLBT literature like a dirty secret, something that has to be hidden behind the counter.

Apparently, that policy has now changed, and I am writing to express my disappointment. The excuse given to Mark Probst by customer service representative Ashlyn D that the removal of GLBT books from the sales ranking is because you "exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists" out of "consideration" for your customer base is weak at best. This "reasoning" fails to explain why "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "Hello Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks and Other Outlaws" have been removed from the rankings; the only possible explanation is that you have now decided that any content related to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered people must be sexual in nature and therefore must be hidden away to "protect the children". I am appalled that in 2009, days after marriage equality was affirmed in two states, Amazon has chosen to adopt an attitude toward GLBT people that would not be out of place in 1959.

This policy is appalling, and until it is changed, I will not be placing any further orders with Amazon, even if it means having to order from other sources and pay more. It's worth it to me to do business with a company that doesn't believe my existence should be a dirty little secret.

I do not think that means what you think it means.

This post, about the so-called "Chicago Tea Party" to protest the stimulus package, is truly comedy gold:

When we reached the Michigan Ave Bridge, a tea bag was broken open and dumped into the river to signify the birth of a new American Revolution.

A. Tea. Bag.

That'll show 'em!

And don't even get me started on these fuckwits.

Leaving SGA: "Vegas" [spoilers]

Just watched the penultimate (originally the last of the season) episode of SGA, which was leaked online.

It's well-written, well-acted, even well-filmed.

It's also the whitest episode of SGA ever. And that's saying something. Rachel and Jason aren't there at all. There are no other PoC's as extras; here's one brother who plays a Marine, and he doesn't get any lines. Based on this episode, you would assume that everyone on Earth--or at least, in Las Vegas--was white.

Which, you know, since that's been the implied message for the entire run of the show...I supposed at least they're being up front about it.

This, though, is why I'm really not sorry that the show's been cancelled. It's bad enough to have no people of color on the screen--see also: Avatar casting foolishness--but when they have them and completely ignore them?

Fuck you, Cooper and Wright.