The people on this board that scare me the most..

[trish]

I'm not saying it's constitutional right, I'm merely contradicting your incorrect assessment that it would be a SPECIAL right.

[hangman]

Technically speaking when it comes to taxes, escorts really don't have to claim the money as it could be claimed as a gift. Financial gifts don't have to be claimed on your taxes, and I how do I know this? Because I went to school and am a certified tax consultant, and could work in that industry if I chose to.

I believe Allanah made very valid points in her conversation and her posts. One thing I've noticed about many of these boards is that whenever a transsexual steps outside of her box and shows she has any form of intelligence, many people try to put them away like pretty dolls that shouldn't speak what's on their minds and should just stand there for the world to gawk at.

We are intelligent, educated, individuals who are afforded many of the same rights as other americans, but not all. We have to fight to get what we want from a country that shouldn't make us have to do that.

"We The People" unfortunately doesn't stand for everyone in our country so if the LGBT Community sometimes seems like its angry, it's because we are. Imagine, some people can get married in this country 5 or 6 times and we can't even do it once. I don't see the logic in that.

So I have stepped outside of my box and I welcome your criticism. I don't always agree with other people's opinions, but I listen before I leap.

M

Meghan we have never met but I always admire your posts, talents, and the way you write. You always exude intelligence and I am always greatful when a fellow trans person steps outside the 'beauty' box to discuss revelant issues.

I completely agree with you of what is expected of us.

I have been critical of President Bush on my website since his election 8 years ago. I have always been very vocal about my political opinions and I used to get hate mail all the time for it.
"Go Back to sucking dick-because it's what you do best"- is one I recall fondly.

It is very important that we question the establishment that for the most part ignores us, and pushes policies that harm us. It's very important that we as trans women take a political stand because just being who we are is a challenge to the establishment.

It's is indeed sad when so many people just see you uss a sex object and just want us to remain that way-silent and convinient.

I am ladies people like you don't.

I have no idea whether you or any other escort reports the your escorting "gifts" or not. However, if you do not report your "gifts" as income and if the IRS seeks to collect the tax on the "gifts", plus interest and penalties, and perhaps charge you with criminal violation of the tax code, I am confident that Meghan's "gift" argument will not work. People have tried that argument, not with respect to escorting but with respect to the rendering of other services, and they have all lost.

[yodajazz]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

[hangman]

I see NOTHING wrong with a goverment that takes care, educates, and feeds it's people if need be.

I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...

That is a very backwards view of things and ofpeople who struggle to make ends meet.

Calling people who are poor, lazy, is an irresponsible and insensitive statement.

are you having problems reading tonight, dear? where did I call EVERY poor person lazy? I was using the prudent example of the MANY lazy welfare abusers out there...those who continue to have kids in order to reap the benefits...are you delusional enough to believe those people don't exist?

maybe you should take your millions of porn dollars and help those out...I'll pass...

There is no need to be condescending.

Of ocurse there are abusers of everything and those should be not be helped.

I have a very relevant story about health care in regard to my mother.

My mother had cancer about two years ago. She is in remission but the surgery and and radiation have led to a myriad of problems that are common after treatment.

She recently had an intestinal infection as a result of her treatment. My mother has private health insurance, with a $785 a month payment.

The anti biotic the doctor prescribed to her costs $1,500.

Yes, $1,500 for 90 pills.

The insurance would not cover the medicine because she had already used her $1000 a year prescription coverage.

They would not cover it, yet if she did not take it her infection would only worsen and she for sure would eventually need to be hospitalized.

Essentially she was shit out of luck if she did not have the $ to pay.
So I stepped in and paid for it.

Am I the only one that seems totally fucked to?

How can that be justified anywhere? How can medication be denied to people?

How exactly is that justifiable in the USA?

No, you are not the only one that thinks that medicine should be free. Many people think that. Of course, neither you nor the others stop to think that the medicine companies spend millions and millions in research to create medicines that work, and spend millions and millions researching medicines that don't work. If government limited the amount that could be charged, then the companies would cease their research and development, and medical advancements would grind to a halt.

You should be on your knees thanking the medical companies for the opportunity to purchase their medicine to keep your mother alive. Shouldn't you?

[SarahG]

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

In theory, you're entirely correct. In theory, as the document itself shows- there is nothing stipulating that any of the bill of rights et al be conditional based on whether or not someone is trans.

But there is a difference between theory & practice. Someone may have a right to (picking from random) due process, but that doesn't mean our country in every instance, respected due process rights.

It would be incredibly easy to argue that the constitutional rights of trans citizens are NOT respected by either state or federal governments. Case in point look at the way law enforcement handles cases where the victim is a tranny. You'd have to be mentally insane to believe trans citizens have in practice "equal protection under the law" especially since in many cases there are no protections.*

Then there is how the DOJ handles cases involving trans citizens. We already know the Bush admin was illegally using lgbt issues as dictating the hiring/firing/promotional practices at the DOJ to help ensure LGBT citizens DON'T get equal treatment from the justice department.





* Taking this a bit further- there are an almost infinite ways someone could show that equal protection does not exist for the trans citizen. Discrimination law prohibits employers for firing people in some areas/conditions for "being black" or "being female" or any number of other things.... and the system has routinely shown that when these laws exist they need to be universal.

Gender discrimination law prohibits an employer from firing someone "for being male" just as much as it prohibits that same employer from firing someone "for being female"... yet there is nothing to prevent an employer bound by these regulations from firing someone "because they're undergoing a transition"

An employer could flat out fully document that they're firing someone "for transitioning", and tell it to the employee during the exit interview with a smile on their faces... and there isn't anything that the employee can do about it for compensation.

This is anything but equal protection.



Now let's look at marriage law. Marriage status is used in BOTH the state and federal governments to impact how the government interacts with couples on ALL KINDS OF LEVELS. Its not just tax law here. It would take me all day to list all the times the feds or states care "if someone is legally married." And yet, using the constitutional right to equal protection (thats #14 btw in case you wanna look it up), we can see that the government's protections differ (aka are NOT equal) based on whether or not a given couple can legally marry.

I will give what I consider to be the most important differences here.

A couple with a legally standing marriage cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse because of confidentiality. Its about (if not more) difficult to compel a spouse to testify against the other party as it is to force a preacher, or lawyer to do so.

BUT, because some couples cannot be married under the law, some couples cannot claim spousal confidentiality. Let's say I am with a guy in a state where I cannot marry one, and I am married symbolically but not legally. Now, the state OR feds can come in- and force me to testify against my husband (in the example, I am not in such an arrangement ATM) and I cannot claim "confidentiality'

There you have it, two near bullet proof examples of how equal protection does not exist simply because of LGBT-aimed bigotry.

Do I really need to post more? I could.

[hippifried]

When you marry, your spouse becomes your next of kin. Everybody else, including parents, offspring, & siblings, gets once removed. Marriage is the personal choice of people to become next of kin to each other. No other definition has universal meaning. If it was about love, the contract wouldn't be breakable, & there would be clauses in the law to keep people from engaging in family mergers. Yet 90% or better of all marriage law is about how to breach the contract. If it was about children, licences wouldn't be issued to post-menopausal women. It's written into the rituals & religious texts: "...cleave only unto...", "...forsaking all others...", ", till death do you part...", & blah blah blah.

There's no other reason to get married really, & it's the only reason for the State to justify its involvement. It's a change in familial status that needs to be recorded. I'm not all that keen on the idea of state licencing. I'm even less enthusiastic about the fact that the contract is non-negotiable, written by a third party, & subject to change at the whim of the third party without notice to the principals. Doesn't matter anyway because nobody ever reads the contract. Vows at the altar mean jackshit & all the principals ever see is the licence certificate. Once you sign the licence, you've agreed to abide by the terms of the contract that you've never read & even your lawyer can't figure out, & you're not married till you sign the contract.

As far as I'm concerned, the government, at any level, should be relegated to recording the change of status & nothing else. They sure as hell shouldn't be interfering with people's choices of life partner/s. It's really none of their business who or even how many. The problem with this is that somebody still has to write the contract. I'm of the opinion that all principals should be required to negotiate their own contract & sign a form of fully informed consent in lieu of a state issued licence. What the hell. If you can't agree on what you want & expect out of the relationship, you probably shouldn't be getting married.

[hangman]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

[hangman]

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

In theory, you're entirely correct. In theory, as the document itself shows- there is nothing stipulating that any of the bill of rights et al be conditional based on whether or not someone is trans.

But there is a difference between theory & practice. Someone may have a right to (picking from random) due process, but that doesn't mean our country in every instance, respected due process rights.

It would be incredibly easy to argue that the constitutional rights of trans citizens are NOT respected by either state or federal governments. Case in point look at the way law enforcement handles cases where the victim is a tranny. You'd have to be mentally insane to believe trans citizens have in practice "equal protection under the law" especially since in many cases there are no protections.*

Then there is how the DOJ handles cases involving trans citizens. We already know the Bush admin was illegally using lgbt issues as dictating the hiring/firing/promotional practices at the DOJ to help ensure LGBT citizens DON'T get equal treatment from the justice department.





* Taking this a bit further- there are an almost infinite ways someone could show that equal protection does not exist for the trans citizen. Discrimination law prohibits employers for firing people in some areas/conditions for "being black" or "being female" or any number of other things.... and the system has routinely shown that when these laws exist they need to be universal.

Gender discrimination law prohibits an employer from firing someone "for being male" just as much as it prohibits that same employer from firing someone "for being female"... yet there is nothing to prevent an employer bound by these regulations from firing someone "because they're undergoing a transition"

An employer could flat out fully document that they're firing someone "for transitioning", and tell it to the employee during the exit interview with a smile on their faces... and there isn't anything that the employee can do about it for compensation.

This is anything but equal protection.



Now let's look at marriage law. Marriage status is used in BOTH the state and federal governments to impact how the government interacts with couples on ALL KINDS OF LEVELS. Its not just tax law here. It would take me all day to list all the times the feds or states care "if someone is legally married." And yet, using the constitutional right to equal protection (thats #14 btw in case you wanna look it up), we can see that the government's protections differ (aka are NOT equal) based on whether or not a given couple can legally marry.

I will give what I consider to be the most important differences here.

A couple with a legally standing marriage cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse because of confidentiality. Its about (if not more) difficult to compel a spouse to testify against the other party as it is to force a preacher, or lawyer to do so.

BUT, because some couples cannot be married under the law, some couples cannot claim spousal confidentiality. Let's say I am with a guy in a state where I cannot marry one, and I am married symbolically but not legally. Now, the state OR feds can come in- and force me to testify against my husband (in the example, I am not in such an arrangement ATM) and I cannot claim "confidentiality'

There you have it, two near bullet proof examples of how equal protection does not exist simply because of LGBT-aimed bigotry.

Do I really need to post more? I could.

Sorry, Sarah, but this is the real world. And, as much as I think ignorant people are ridiculous, I don't want it to be a purpose of government to make sure that everyone is nice to each other. People need to get a thicker thin and stop seeking to hold themselves out as victims.

[SarahG]

When you marry, your spouse becomes your next of kin. Everybody else, including parents, offspring, & siblings, gets once removed. Marriage is the personal choice of people to become next of kin to each other. No other definition has universal meaning. If it was about love, the contract wouldn't be breakable, & there would be clauses in the law to keep people from engaging in family mergers. Yet 90% or better of all marriage law is about how to breach the contract. If it was about children, licences wouldn't be issued to post-menopausal women. It's written into the rituals & religious texts: "...cleave only unto...", "...forsaking all others...", ", till death do you part...", & blah blah blah.

There's no other reason to get married really, & it's the only reason for the State to justify its involvement.

But if it were simply for establishing next of kin- then there is no point for having marriages, people could merely go out and make wills stipulating where they want their assets et al to go when they die.

Unless I am mistaken (which I will admit happens) I believe a married citizen can, in fact, leave their entire estate to some 3rd party, leaving their spouse high & dry.

It's a change in familial status that needs to be recorded. I'm not all that keen on the idea of state licencing. I'm even less enthusiastic about the fact that the contract is non-negotiable, written by a third party, & subject to change at the whim of the third party without notice to the principals. Doesn't matter anyway because nobody ever reads the contract. Vows at the altar mean jackshit & all the principals ever see is the licence certificate. Once you sign the licence, you've agreed to abide by the terms of the contract that you've never read & even your lawyer can't figure out, & you're not married till you sign the contract.

Agreed, and that's without getting into when marriages, what should be a natural right imho, are being used by govs as leverage to cause citizens to unnecessarily jump threw hoops solely for either raising money, or instituting reform, or data mining (i.e. the states that require having std tests to get the license). I think that in most cases all the marriage license is and originally was, was a way to raise funding for local governments, but when combined with eliminating common law marriages it does come off disconcerting... especially since there is no real benefit to the gov's hand in the picture.

Sorry, Sarah, but this is the real world. And, as much as I think ignorant people are ridiculous, I don't want it to be a purpose of government to make sure that everyone is nice to each other. People need to get a thicker thin and stop seeking to hold themselves out as victims.

YOU are the one who brought up constitutional law insofar as claiming that trans people have the same constitutional rights, which is all about theory. I also showed how "in real life" trans rights are not respected.

Hate to tell you this but in real life the government is supposed to treat everyone equally regardless how it impacts "feelings," and we see this time and time again.

We also see that time and time again it doesn't happen for trans people.

This isn't "to make someone feel nice"- that is complete nonsense (not attacking you, just saying how little that argument flies) especially when we are talking about issues like hippa-law, whether individuals in a LTR can be called to testify against the other, access to employers benefits, all that stuff.

Honestly, as far as trans issues go- I would care less about whether spouses can be forced to testify against each other, access to private health care, and medical records access AS LONG AS every couple is treated THE SAME. I am sure most people here are by now familiar that I am not advocating for hand outs- simply equal treatment. But there can be no equal treatment in these areas as long as some couples can marry while others cannot.

how is this for an argument: This is the real world, some couples should not be forbidden from being married simply to make the couples who can "feel good."

Especially in a system that claims its citizens have a natural and constitutional right TO EQUAL TREATMENT.

[SarahG]

now here's some food for thought regarding civil unions...

If civil unions are for all couples who do not met the "one xx girl, one xy guy" definition, then provided civil unions have all of the same benefits (see prior post)- for MOST people, gay's particularly- that works.

But for trans people, this creates a "we have given you accommodation so you have to use it" scenario in which, in order to be married & trans you have to use a "civil union."

This would do a number on stealth life, especially if there are differences between "civil unions" and "marriages." To give an example if someone is required to use the term "partner" instead of "husband," then that is going to out girls who for all extensive purposes, are in typical heterosexual relationships.

But if the choice is "no marriage rights" or "civil unions" (with all the same benefits AND disadvantages) then it is a no brainer.

Although I still want to know how that system would deal with someone who is not XX or XY, considering that our current usually exclusionary system has no idea how to handle it in some states. Littleton is still the law of the land in Texas, yet afaik there has never been a texas ruling for chromosomal abnormalities.

All of this talk is premature however if people are falsely believing that we already have equal treatment and there go have no reason to modify the system.