And This is Supposed to Dispel the Notion that Marriage is a Rich Gays’ Issue…How?

February 28, 2011 ·

And so we now have…

A $363,000 Tax Bill to Widow Led to Obama Shift in Defense of Marriage Act

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer had a 40-year engagement and a two-year marriage, starting with a wedding in Canada recognized under the laws of New York, where they lived, and ending when Spyer died two years ago.

Her death triggered a $363,053 federal tax bill from which her widow would have been exempt had she been married to a man, because the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.

Both women in the New York case were professionals, with homes in Manhattan and Long Island. The Amsterdam-born Spyer was a clinical psychologist. Windsor, born in Philadelphia, earned a master’s degree in mathematics from New York University and built a career as a manager for International Business Machines Corp., according to a complaint filed in her case.

Now, contrary to the impression that Laurel “Lurleen Blogovitch” Ramseyer’s scriverner at the Seattle Santorum wants the that paper’s readers (and the blogosphere at large) to come away with, neither I nor just about any trans activist is against same-sex marriage (those who claim that we are should pay daily tribute to New York Times v. Sullivan but should also keep in mind that eventually someone is going to convince a version of the U.S. Supreme Court that bullshit per se should be actionable.)  We are, however, simply against the obscene over-prioritization of it as an issue in general and the disingenuous rhetorical corollary which holds that, somehow, same-sex marriage helps trans people more than anti-discrimination protections do.

Does anyone – trans, LGB or merely in the land of functioning brains – who is against the obscene over-prioritization of gay marriage as an issue in general and the  disingenuous rhetorical corollary which holds that, somehow, same-sex marriage helps trans people more than anti-discrimination protections do not think that what is happening to Edith Windsor is at least unjust and, in all likelihood, unconstitutional?

Yet, plenty of those who actively engage in the obscene over-prioritization of gay marriage as an issue in general and who disseminate the disingenuous rhetorical corollary which holds that, somehow, same-sex marriage helps trans people more than anti-discrimination protections do either don’t get – or don’t care – that no DOMA repeal bill and no anti-DOMA decision from the U.S. Supreme Court would benefit 2011 counterparts to Windsor and Spyer if their employers decided that they didn’t want to employ lesbians.

And I won’t even mention how neither would be of any use whatsoever to the career aspirations of any trans person.

So, my question – a question that gay organizations refuse to even make an attempt to offer a stright (pun intended) answer to and which, while not forbidden, if shunted off to oblivion on InsidersOut blogs – is this: How did it become more of an ‘LGB(T) community’ priority to protect the estates of LGB people who managed to earn a living with and/or without anti-discrimination protections than to enable LGBs and, of course, Ts to actually compete in the marketplace for the opportunity to earn money  and create an estate in the first place?

If the answer is not ‘pure, unadulterated greed (with or without a transphobia chaser), then please enlighten me as to what it is.’

Straight answers from gays, only.

[Cross-posted at ENDABlog]

In categories:Katrina Rose Politics
Next Post

Shit-Shovelling Shills and Their Same Old Shams, Scams and Swill: New Faces, No Changes

Take a look at this guy: Based on the teeth-gritting, is he: Unable to shake off a badger that's gnawing his foot off? Unable to shake off a badger that's gnawing his testicles off? Unable to take a piss? Unable to…
Read
Previous Post

Too Exposed to Expose?

So... Why did I re-run that 12 1/2-year-old piece about Judge Frye and her dogs over at ENDABlog?  Because of this: Ramseyer wasn't using internet anonymity in order to be mean. Its connection to my 1998 Frye piece will become a bit…
Read
Random Post

Indiana's Historic Moment

A recent post over at the Indiana Equality blog was enough of a kick in the pants to remind me to post about some recent events. If you know me, you know how jazzed I am about Barack Obama. The…
Read
Random Post

The Many Shades of Stealth

Editor's Note: This is part of a series on "stealth." The goal of this series to examine the nuanced ways trans opinion leaders conceptualize stealth and how they feel about it. Suzan Cooke kicked off the series with her article,…
Read
Random Post

Clear Channel Eats Crow

Here’s the text of the Clear Channel apology letter: We would like to apologize for remarks made on KTBZ that has caused distress to people in the Houston Transgender Community. We addressed the insensitivity of both content presented on air…
Read
Random Post

“Pat, The Whole LGBTQI Spectrum of People Are Important In Society!”

Transgender people ain't necessarily homosexual people By Autumn Sandeen Today I read an article in the Argus (A California bay area newspaper) entitled "Homosexuals Important In Society," by PFLAG's Pat Skillen. As a transgender person, I was frustrated a bit…
Read