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

[SarahG]

I'm trivializing don't ask don't tell because you're just using it as an argument when the law doesn't even apply to you.

Really? And how would you know either way? You don't know a thing about my personal life. Like I said, this applies to more than just people who are in the active service.

I honestly doubt it will even be official policy for much longer, regardless of who is in control of the white house

I have said for years that don't ask would probably be the first casualty if they ever reinstitute the draft. Everyone would try to get out of the draft by presenting themselves as openly gay.

Do you have any other examples of government sponsored "oppression"?

In the military specifically? Depends, are we including the Veteran Affairs in that group?

[Justawannabe]

Um... coming from that tax bracket you think will be so onerous under Obama... I can tell you (and I think it's slightly over 200K and not quite that high percentage wise when I ran the numbers, but I won't argue that at the moment) that the money he is talking about won't affect my standard of living at all.

My family and I are all supported from largely one income that is distributed to avoid paying the maximum tax when my parents eventually pass... and it wouldn't even dent us. (For the record my brother and sister are independently in the class you describe and, even with my brother's five kids, he says it won't hurt them either.)

The price of necessities does not scale up with income... and 100K earning folks are more than past the basic luxuries.

The 'he's gonna raise taxes!' crap get's so overblown it makes me sick watching the tube... because it never really gets into what that means on an actual physical level to the people who are supposedly gonna be hurt, and how few of them their are. It talks about percentages, but rarely real dollars. When I watch some of the people I know buy their fourth car to use just for that twice a year ride to Florida I get sick when they complain that they might have to pay half the price of that car in higher taxes.

As to affirmative action being one of the things that cost the average white guy jobs (me when I was young before the family made its money), education and access to government money... um... yes it does happen, but not very often, and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the number of times the color of your skin will cost you all the above and more.

All things have to be equal for the white guy to say the playing field was tilted against him by affirmative action, the black guy is often correct when he complains he got shafted even though his application was better.


<kick soapbox back to the corner>

That said I tend to be financially conservative in my own approach philosophically. You earned it you should keep it. As long as we understand that some regulation is necessary to prevent large corrections like we're going through now, and we do at least some social justice work, becaues the playing field is not even...

The vast majority of the resources are controlled by people who don't want people like us to get ahead, and unrestricted they can indeed keep us from succeeding. Until such a time exists that that will not be the case, we have to deal with having government intrusion into private business... strictly in our own self interest.

Oh, and on gay rights... um... one state making gay marriage legal (or two) and both effectively by court order, does not outweigh the 11 states that banned it, or wrote laws/amendments that said they don't have to recognize those laws from other states. It does not outweigh changes in adoption law we've seen over the past decade in a number of states banning gay adoption, or the reverses of marriages by trans people years after they were performed. Doesn't outweigh the trauma of Bush trying to deport families that had trans marriages from other countries after they had been allowed entry to this nation (they did back off when the media came for them).

Gay rights has made some headway with central/liberal voters... but it had much more working capitol under the Clinton administration. Every major attempt to get national recognition for those rights has been beaten up pretty bad, and half the rights we've gained have been through judicial action, which can easily be reversed by the Supreme Court should it get there.

Sean

[MrShow52]

yes it's in the news sometimes that a gay man was kicked from the military for like, making a gay porn. But honestly, you think the two or three news stories they write are the only gays in the military? I'm not saying it never happens but there are plenty of openly gay people serving in our military.

Please give me an example of government sponsored oppression, other than don't ask don't tell, that applies directly to you. Military or otherwise.

[MrShow52]

In response to your post wannabe, I believe it should be up to the states. If you want to have a gay marriage move to a more liberal state, if you don't want to live in a more conservative state.

Also on taxes, take my sister. She has a very difficult, demanding job which few people would be capable of performing. She makes roughly 85k a year. As it stands now she takes home about 45k after all the taxes (NY state income tax is BS). Under Obama she would be taxed even further, to the point that she might as well just get an easier job and make 50k on paper and bring home roughly the same. I'm all for taxing the upper 5% more, however I believe anyone making under say, 200k shouldn't have their taxes raised, which obama plans to do. Only the lowest class will benefit under Obama.

[SarahG]

Please give me an example of government sponsored oppression, other than don't ask don't tell, that applies directly to you. Military or otherwise.

Other than don't ask:

1) I have to worry about when the SSA will start doing gender no match letters again. I'm not an escort, so I am more likely to have to deal with the SSA in my day to day live.

2) Trans medical care is no longer tax deductible (and see#1, not an escort)

3) I could meet a guy who would be perfect for me in a LTR and not have the benefits from that relationship (as far as government benefits are concerned- not just tax law), whereas a GG being in a LTR with the exact SAME guy would.

4) Since there are no protections against discrimination- in theory or practice, if #1 occurs I can lose all of my earning potential from being outted in my field (by the feds) without any recourse whatsoever. This includes in addition to earning potential, even simple logistics like consumer discrimination (buying products) housing (renting, buying, whatever). My life could even be put in danger from such an outting.

Those sound pretty damning to me, and that's just what comes immediately to mind.

[underdog6]

NObama08! And I'm not a republican. Obama Will make Jimmy Carter look like a great president. Both choices this year BLOW. But I have to go with the lesser of two IDIOTS.

[SarahG]

In response to your post wannabe, I believe it should be up to the states. If you want to have a gay marriage move to a more liberal state, if you don't want to live in a more conservative state.

Leaving it up to the states would never work because;

-There are religious radicals in all of the states

-We are such a minority we can constitute no majority in ANY state (unless they make a state for us, but that sounds a bit like 'forced relocation')

-These religious radicals think it is morally wrong, like abortion, and as a result will try to end the practice anywhere it occurs even if it is in another state.

-What happens in red states gets into the case law and is then used in deciding cases in other states after the fact. The Littleton case in TEXAS has been cited in trans cases in every state in the Union at this point.

-Trans people, regardless if they are trans from biological predetermination, or developmental problems, have problems from such an early age that they must deal with the consequences even if they are born BY NO CHOICE OF THEIR OWN in a red state. Take Ohio. if you're born there, even if you don't like the religious radicals and leave the state- you'll NEVER have a correct birth certificate, even after SRS- because that state thinks your IDs should out you for life. For gays it can be as simple as moving to another state, but trans people have to worry about the consequences of where they are born if states get the power to abuse peoples rights however they want.

[MrShow52]

1) I have to worry about when the SSA will start doing gender no match letters again. I'm not an escort, so I am more likely to have to deal with the SSA in my day to day live.

well that sucks but it's more of a technicality than oppression/disenfranchisement. If an employer wants to fire you for this it's a definite lawsuit.

2) Trans medical care is no longer tax deductible (and see#1, not an escort)

Ok, well I don't think plastic surgery should be covered. Possibly not even the meds as they aren't essential to your survival. It is a choice you made. Maybe you didn't choose to be transgendered but you did choose to transition. I know, it sounds awful, but that's the logical argument. And on that note, hardly oppressive, it's just a tax break. There's plenty of shit I think the government should let me deduct from my taxes that I can't.

3) I could meet a guy who would be perfect for me in a LTR and not have the benefits from that relationship (as far as government benefits are concerned- not just tax law), whereas a GG being in a LTR with the exact SAME guy would.

I thought they allowed women who have transitioned to marry. Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe it's the state that you live in? Still hardly oppression.

4) Since there are no protections against discrimination- in theory or practice, if #1 occurs I can lose all of my earning potential from being outted in my field (by the feds) without any recourse whatsoever. This includes in addition to earning potential, even simple logistics like consumer discrimination (buying products) housing (renting, buying, whatever). My life could even be put in danger from such an outting.

I'm pretty sure that's untrue, if an employer fired you for being outted you'd have a lawsuit on your hands. As far as your life, well unfortunantely that's human nature and I doubt the government could do anything to stop ignorant people from hating you for who you are.

[trish]

Gee, Sarah's list failed to number even one example of an oppresive government policy against gays, lesbians, transgendered persons and bisexuals. With such a high bar on the standard of oppression I think its safe to say that it wouldn't be oppressive at all to raise taxes on the wealthy to help with the health-care of those who can't afford it.

[SarahG]

1) I have to worry about when the SSA will start doing gender no match letters again. I'm not an escort, so I am more likely to have to deal with the SSA in my day to day live.

well that sucks but it's more of a technicality than oppression/disenfranchisement. If an employer wants to fire you for this it's a definite lawsuit..

WRONG, since there is no discrimination protections an employer CAN FLAT OUT FIRE SOMEONE FOR BEING TRANS LEGALLY.

There would be NO GROUND FOR A WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT.

The only way someone who is trans can argue in court and win for being fired is if they live where the discrimination laws specifically say employers cannot discriminate based on "gender expression"

The courts see trans citizens as being separate from homosexuals- an employer can fire us for being trans, in states where they cannot fire us for being into guys or girls or, well you get the idea.

Ok, well I don't think plastic surgery should be covered. Possibly not even the meds as they aren't essential to your survival. It is a choice you made. Maybe you didn't choose to be transgendered but you did choose to transition. I know, it sounds awful, but that's the logical argument. And on that note, hardly oppressive, it's just a tax break. There's plenty of shit I think the government should let me deduct from my taxes that I can't..

It absolutely is discriminatory oppression if the EXACT SAME PROCEDURES AND MEDICINES are tax deductible for nontrans citizens.

Medical expenses are tax deductible for everyone else, EVEN IF IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR LIFE. Viagra is tax deductible, hysterectomies for GGs are, estrogen for GGs in menopause is. I could go on and on and on there. The IRS has no provisions defining medical expenses as "necessary for life" and so to be fair they need to either get that specific, or allow EQUAL TREATMENT under the law.

I thought they allowed women who have transitioned to marry. Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe it's the state that you live in? Still hardly oppression.

It depends on the state, in all states with gay marriage bans sex is defined in the law by your blood and as a result postops are not legally female in these states AND cannot marry guys.

This is discriminatory because marriages influence all kinds of the law in addition to tax law. For instance:

-Married couples in ALL states are entitled to healthcare beneifits from their husband's employer. People who can't marry can't get benefits in that way.

-Married couples impact what happens if one of the two gets seriously hurt in an accident. If my BF got in a car wreck today I would not be able to even visit him in the hospital because I am not married! I won't be able to talk to the doctor about if he is ok, NOTHING. There are some LIMITED ways around SOME of this through power of attorney waviers and other legal documents, but no straight couple has to go threw with that crap and married couples have far greater power in emergencies like that.

-some states have cohabitation laws meaning IT IS A SEX CRIME to live with someone you are not married to or related to by blood. These are rarely enforced but they DO exist and they HAVE been known to have been used against sexually taboo groups in recent years.

.

I'm pretty sure that's untrue, if an employer fired you for being outted you'd have a lawsuit on your hands.
.

WRONG, you can probably count on one hand how many states define in their discrimination law that "gender identity or gender expression"

Even when orientation is protected, TRANS PEOPLE ARE NOT unless that specific "gender expression" phrase is in there.