Same Sex Divorce has to be just as Equal as Marrige

A same-sex couple who fought for the right to marry in Austin, Texas, now are split on the right to legally end their relationship, lawyers say.

Before we get further into this story, this is the same stuff I've been bringing to you and discussing for an entire year now. EQUALITY IS NOT A DAGGER WE CAN USE TO GET WHAT WE WANT AT ALL COST...ONLY THEN TO TURN OUR BACKS ON IT ALL TO GET OUT OF WHAT WE ONCE THOUGHT WE WANTED. It is a shame and it tharts the entire "equality" argument.

It says the GLBT Community will say and do just about anything to get what they want, i.e. Same Sex Marriage, Adoption Rights, Employer Benefits, Universal HealthCare and etc. It says the GLBT Community further confirms its opponents stance as unstable.

Five years after marrying in Massachusetts, Angelique Naylor's spouse is contesting the split, arguing that since Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, the dissolution shouldn't be recognized either, KXAN-TV, Austin, reported. So now, it is apparently easier to use the states lack of equality for her benefit. Amazing!

"It's not about special rights," Naylor said of her desire to end the union. "It's about equal rights. I want my divorce like the 15 divorce cases that I witnessed today between men and women."

Anne Wynne, a family law expert and equal rights activist, said the decision Texas judges make in Naylor's case and others will have major repercussions for the state, the television station reported Thursday.

"It has huge implications," Wynne said. "It means they get treated like every other citizen in this state."

In a statement on Naylor's case, state Attorney General Greg Abbott said his office would be monitoring the proceedings and "if necessary, take appropriate steps to defend the Texas Constitution."

Since Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriage or same-sex divorce, Abbott said the proper legal mechanism is "voidance," or voiding their out-of-state. How "equal" or fair is that to those who are not gay? Why don't we just permit everyone in the union to "void" out their responsibilities? This pushes the rights for gay adoption further into an abyss and therefore provides a shot in the arm for all GLBT adversaries. Amazing.

So now, will we finally have a real discussion on Equality? Can we now come to terms on how we need to grasp this message and use it for all americans, not just the gay citizens. Only then with this fight yield positive results both here and abroad.

Should Gay Couples Pay the Same Taxes as Straights?

by Howard Gleckman

Interesting discussion today at a TPC forum on the tax and benefits consequences of being gay. The benefit issues are probably larger, but this is TaxVox, so let’s look at taxes.

As my TPC colleague Bob Williams noted, when it comes to federal taxes the question is not whether you are gay or straight, but whether or not you are married. Depending on the relative income of each spouse, married couples either enjoy a marriage bonus or suffer a marriage penalty. Of course, heterosexuals can choose to marry or not and live with the tax consequences. Gays and lesbians have no such option. Even though a handful of states now recognize gay marriage, for federal tax purposes their marital status is irrelevant. As a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, gays cannot be married for federal law purposes.

This creates a number of problems for these couples, some very serious, others merely annoying. For instance, Massachusetts recognizes gay marriage. But it requires all married couples to file jointly and it piggybacks its returns on the federal 1040. Trouble is, gay couples are not allowed to file a joint federal return. So they must fill out two single IRS returns, then a joint federal return that they are not allowed to file, and finally a state return based on their illegal Form 1040. More seriously, while many businesses now provide spousal benefits to gay couples, the value of the non-employee’s benefits is taxable for unmarried couples, but tax free for those who are married.

While many politicians are perfectly happy with this state of affairs, there is growing interest in treating gay couples equally with heterosexual couples under the Tax Code. So how to do it? One option would be to eliminate joint filing entirely and have everyone file as an individual. That would run into some old Supreme Court cases that draw a sharp distinction between income earned in community property states and in those states where each earner’s income is presumed to be theirs and not divided equally between the spouses.

A second option might be to redefine eligibility for joint filing (as well as for tax treatment of benefits) to those who have entered into civil unions under state law. This would avoid the community property problem and bring federal tax law more in line with what appears to be a growing legal trend. Currently, about a dozen states grant some domestic partnership rights to gays and public opinion polls suggest there is broad support for these rights. By contrast, most Americans still oppose gay marriage.

There are downsides to this solution as well. A person’s tax liability in one state would be different than the liability of someone in exactly the same economic situation who lives in another state. And eliminating joint filing would still be hugely controversial, in no small part because it would raise the tax bills of millions of couples. But it would treat taxpayers equally, and, by using the civil union definition, would avoid most of the political baggage that goes with that word “marriage.”

Adultery still Illegal in New Hampshire After 200 years!

The original punishments — including standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck — have been softened to a $1,200 fine, yet some lawmakers think it’s time for the 200-year-old crime of adultery to come off New Hampshire’s books.

Seven months after the state approved gay marriage, lawmakers will consider easing government further from the bedroom with a bill to repeal the adultery law.
“We shouldn’t be regulating people’s sex lives and their love lives,” state Rep. Timothy Horrigan said. “This is one area the state government should stay out of people’s bedrooms.”

In June, lawmakers voted to legalize gay marriage — a law that takes effect Jan. 1.
“We shouldn’t be in the business of regulating what consenting adults do with each other,” Horrigan said.

Convicted adulterers years ago faced standing on the gallows, up to 39 lashes, a year in jail or a fine of 100 pounds. The punishment has been relaxed to a misdemeanor and a fine of up to $1,200 — with no jail time.

The high court found that the state had no legitimate interest justifying its intrusion into the personal and private lives of two gay men arrested in their bedroom during a police investigation in a weapons case. The men had been charged with sodomy.

Some recently questioned whether South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s admitted extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina made him subject to his state’s 1880 criminal law against adultery. The penalty is a fine of up to $500 and a year in jail. The state said it couldn’t waste limited money trying to prosecute Sanford on such a charge. The law’s constitutionality also has been questioned.

In the past, conservatives argued decriminalizing adultery would weaken marriage.
Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, opposes this repeal effort for the same reason.

“Even though this criminal law probably is not enforced right now and probably has not been enforced for some time, I think it’s important to have a public policy statement that says generally or in all situations adultery is not a good thing. And I think, by repealing that statute, you’re essentially diminishing the harmful effects of adultery,” Smith said.

Horrigan doesn’t think a small fine will stop anyone from cheating on a spouse. He also wouldn’t oppose taking adultery out of the civil divorce statute as a cause for the breakdown.

“Who we love and how we love is not something, an area the state has much business meddling in,” he said. The original punishments — including standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck — have been softened to a $1,200 fine, yet some lawmakers think it’s time for the 200-year-old crime of adultery to come off New Hampshire’s books.

In June, lawmakers voted to legalize gay marriage — a law that takes effect Jan. 1.
“We shouldn’t be in the business of regulating what consenting adults do with each other,” Horrigan said.

The last attempts to repeal New Hampshire’s law came after a Merrimack husband filed a complaint against his wife and her boss in 1987. When police refused to pursue adultery charges, Robert Stackelback brought the complaint himself against the pair. He later dropped the charges.

Nation's First Gay Mayor Elected in Major U.S City!

The landmark election Saturday of America's first big-city lesbian mayor in Houston represents more than just a milestone in identity politics.

It also signals an unmistakable evolutionary step in national politics, one that provides further evidence of a trend that helped make Barack Obama president: growth-oriented communities like the Texas metropolis, rather than aging big cities or nostalgia-inducing small towns, are setting the course of the country's political direction.

Houston is one of a set of fast-growing cities and expanding suburbs whose changing face and increasingly post-racial politics played a pivotal role in sending Obama to the White House. Their politics are defined by some of the same trends—notably, growing Hispanic and Asian populations and the rise of the service sector—that are shaping the nation as a whole.

But the election of Annise Parker in Houston makes clear that the Charlottes and Houstons are now at the forefront of American political change, while the shrinking and declining big cities of the Northeast and Rust Belt are bringing up the rear.

Other well known residents of Houston; not to mention, former Presidnet George H.W. Bush, and Barbara Bush participated in this weeks pivital election. Houston has already shown signs of a recognizable political shift. While the political math of deep-red Texas denied Houston a presidential visit, Obama’s campaign focused on similarly situated cities—places like Las Vegas, a hub of his Western campaign, with late-in-campaign stops added for Orlando, Fla., the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., Indianapolis and the Research Triangle of North Carolina.

"As people become more comfortable with ethnic diversity they also become more comfortable with sexual diversity," said Stephen Klineberg, a professor of Sociology at Rice University.

That tolerance, he noted, isn’t equivalent to across-the-board social liberalism. His research has found a dramatic increase in tolerance of homosexuality over the last decade in Houston even as the view that abortion is “immoral” grew slightly more widespread.

Yet the election of an out lesbian who made her name initially as a gay-rights activist, one who embraced her partner on stage on election night, nevertheless reveals a breakthrough in the country's march toward what could be called either tolerance or just plain apathy toward homosexuality.

Indeed, save for an 11th-hour flurry of mailers paid for by allies of Parker's opponent, Gene Locke, her sexual orientation mattered little in a race dominated by conventional municipal issues such as crime, jobs and education. What was remarkable about the contest was just how unremarkable the voters found it that Parker was a lesbian. And that's the equality we're always talking about. Nothing extra, just equal.

The Hearts and Minds brought their Vote

Washington State voters approved the new "everything but marriage" law, and made history by expanding rights for domestic partners and marking the first time any state’s voters have approved a gay equality measure at the ballot box.

The new law adds benefits, such as the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.

During the campaign, opponents argued the law is a stepping-stone to gay marriage. Gay rights activists countered that while the marriage debate was for another day, same-sex couples need additional legal protections and rights in the meantime.

The measure asked voters to approve or reject the latest expansion of the state’s domestic partnership law, granting registered domestic partners additional state rights previously given only to married couples. Full-fledged gay marriage is still not allowed under Washington law. This is something that I have been saying for months to our fellow blended families;..."fight for the issues that concern you instead of the titles you wish to be known by..".

Gay equality laws in other states, ranging from civil rights to gay marriage, have either been implemented by the courts or legislative process (See Nov 4 blog post "Hearts and Minds"). Voters have rejected gay marriage 31 states, most recently in Maine, where voters repealed a gay marriage law on Tuesday.

The underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Last year, lawmakers expanded the law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

"Our state made history today," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, and she's right. Just yesterday we were tweeting about how these laws for equality have long been implemented by legislatures, but here in Washington state, the people brought their own votes to the ballot boxes because in their hearts and in their minds, they knew it was the right thing to do.

Washington state, along with California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. What's important to note here also is that the voters in Washington had a reason to support this initiative that has not been on any other ballot in the nation; these domestic partnerships are also for heterosexuals as well as long as one partner is at least 62 years old. This helps those who are afraid of losing pensions and benefits if they legally remarry.

They brought in another demographic. Equality is not about leveling the playing field for gays, its simply about leveling the playing field for us all. You legislation has to include other demographics or the people of that state will never get behind it. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

Big Wins for Gays in Detroit, FL and N.C-Not much Media!

Maine voters may have chosen to take marriage rights away from their neighbors, but not all was gloomy for LGBTs: three wins around the country brought victory to gay and lesbian politicians and their constituents.

In Chapel Hill, N.C., GLBT equality advocate Mark Kleinschmidt won as mayor against Matt Czajkowski and two others contenders, taking 49% of the overall vote, reported the Chapel Hill News on Nov. 4. Kleinschmidt’s victory marks the third time an openly gay candidate has won Chapel Hill’s mayoral office.

In St. Petersburg, Fla., the city council gained a new, and openly gay, member in the person of Steve Kornell, who won over Angela Rouson for the council’s District 5 seat with nearly 60% of the vote, making him the city’s first openly gay elected official. The seat became available when Jamie Bennett resigned to pursue a spot in the mayoral race, which was won by Bill Foster, reported a Nov. 4 St. Petersburg Times article posted at TampaBay.com, which noted that the town’s leaders have historically been opposed to Pride events there.

The article quoted Kornell as saying, "The thing about making history is fine. But this campaign was really about the future of St. Petersburg and that’s what I plan to focus on for the next four years."

Said Rouson, "I have no regrets.... I am very proud and pleased and we worked very hard. I’m proud of the folks who worked for me. We fought a good fight. District 5 couldn’t have lost no matter what the results were."

Outgoing mayor Rick Baker praised both candidates, saying that Rouson "ran a great race. But the guy she ran against is a good guy and ran a great race, too. Nothing to be ashamed about."

And Detroit elected openly gay former Fox News reporter Charles Pugh as city council president, reported a Nov. 3 article at the Detroit Free Press.

Said Pugh, "This is unbelievable... It means Detroit has really wanted change for a very long time."

In other elections, Washington voters seemed poised to uphold state provisions for same-sex families granting most of the same state-level rights and protections enjoyed by married heterosexuals, but not calling such unions marriage.

Census set to count Gays!

After working on a temporary basis for the Census Bureau back in early 2000,I understand the importance of being counted. Don't want to give you a "lesson" in government, ok, yes I do; the Census counts citizens in each district in the U.S. and reports those numbers to Congress. Why?

The numbers are reported so that Congress can "fairly" allocate appropriations (money) to the important things in thoee districts for those peopel WHO WERE COUNTED. So its important to fill that Census report out...its your money! Which is why it is extremely great news that the Census Bureau will now count same sex couples.

The U.S. Census Bureau is making an unprecedented effort to include same-sex couples in next year’s national population count, but legally married gay couples won’t show up as such in the official once-a-decade tally, bureau representatives said Thursday.

Statistical problems related to the development of the 2010 census form and the evolving legal state of same-sex relationships led Census officials to conclude that trying to include married gay couples in the overall snapshot of household marital status could yield an inaccurate number, said Gary Gates, a University of California, Los Angeles demographer who has been advising the bureau on gay issues.

Instead, same-sex married couples will be added into the category for unmarried partners, just as they were for the 2000 census. But in a marked policy departure, the agency plans to make the data on same-sex couples who described themselves as married available on a state-by-state basis.

Gates stressed that it was important for gay couples to participate in the census, noting that information drawn from the last one had been used in lawsuits dealing with same-sex marriage and to lobby congressional representatives who may wrongly assume they do not have many gay constituents.

Because same-sex marriages were not legal in any U.S. state a decade ago, the 2010 census is the first for which the bureau has wrestled with how to count married same-sex couples. In June, census officials announced that they would make the attempt, reversing an earlier decision made under the Bush administration.

Since then, however, it’s become clearer that a wildly inflated number could be produced if the number of heads of household who said they lived with another adult of the same sex, and described that person as a husband or wife, were only counted.

The annual American Community Survey the bureau produced for 2008, for example, had 150,000 married same-sex couples spread across every U.S. state, even though only two states - Massachusetts and for a 5-month period, California - allowed same-sex marriages. Gates estimates there are probably no more than 35,000 legally married gay couples in the country now.

Undercounting same-sex couples also remains a significant concern, Gates said, since some couples may not be living openly and fear discrimination.

Tim Olsen, assistant chief of the bureau’s field division, told gay community leaders "We have a big opportunity to create a picture of America that includes us. We are not invisible anymore," Olsen said.

This census marks the first time that gays and lesbians have been targeted for minority outreach efforts that also include reaching out to groups deemed "hard to reach" because of their disaffection with the government.

The gay community campaign will include a Web site, scheduled to go up in about two weeks, called Our Families Count, as well as advertising campaigns in cities with large gay populations. Among the video vignettes meant to demonstrate the nation’s diversity on the main census site is one featuring a transgender person, Olsen said.

You have to remember that every step towards this equality race counts. Don't just focus on Prop 8; This is not a one hit wonder.

Republicans Challenge Fed to be Example to LGBT

Republican support for the domestic partnership benefits and obligations act will ensure that America’s workforce is competitive at home and abroad

Following a Friday, October 16 hearing led by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on the Domestic Partnership Benefits And Obligations Act (S. 1102), Log Cabin Republicans National Chairman, Terry Hamilton, made the following statement:

“As the largest civilian employer in the nation, the United States government should be leading the way to ensure conditions are in place to attract and retain the best and brightest who pursue public service. Right now, it lags behind 22 other states, the District of Columbia and a majority of Fortune 500 companies. It is high time that this legislation moves forward with bipartisan support. Log Cabin Republicans is especially thankful to Senator Collins for standing with us in support of this issue.”

Log Cabin Republicans national spokesperson Charles T. Moran comments: “This legislation should be a no-brainer – employment benefits should be extended equally. There is no place for discrimination in the federal workforce, and conservatives should support legislation that will ensure that the federal government, like the private sector, is able to attract and retain top talent. This legislation will strengthen the federal workforce and ensure that the federal government is a competitive employer.”

The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 (S. 1102, H.R. 2517) would provide the same family benefits to lesbian and gay federal civilian employees as are already provided to employees with different-sex spouses.

Coming in 'Second, under the radar!

As you know, I like to bring new information to you from around the world as well as from all over the nation to keep you aware and informed of all the LGBT happenings and news. You really have to be excited about what seems like a slew of late breaking advancements in the realms of equality.

Since we have been focusing so much lately on adoptions and surrogacies, I wanted to share this latest update about "Second Parent Adoptions". A second parent adoption is a legal procedure that allows a same-sex parent to adopt a partner’s biological or adoptive child without terminating the legal rights of the first parent. Most importantly, unlike the same sex marriage issues, States must honor second-parent adoptions from other states.

Second-parent adoption is authorized in California by statute - and where appellate courts have ruled that the state adoption law permits second-parent adoption.

A statute is a law passed by a legislature. An appellate court is about appeals. It has the power to review the judgment of another lower court or tribunal. Second-parent adoption is authorized by statute in Colorado, Connecticut, and Vermont.

Appellate courts have ruled that the state adoption law permits second-parent adoption in the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Trial courts have granted second-parent adoptions in Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington.

Appellate courts have ruled that state adoption law does NOT permit second-parent adoption in Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

It is unclear in the following 22 states whether the state adoption law permits second- parent adoptions: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

But what is important is, you have to know whats going on around you in order to ensure you clearly understand what it is you support and lobby for. Familyblendz is happy to bring this information to you. Stay informed.

Gay Immigration Equality...or Unfairness? Let's stay focused!

The New York City Council passed a resolution Wednesday supporting a congressional bill to allow American citizens to sponsor their foreign-born, same-sex partners in the naturalization process.

The idea behind this goes kinda like this; Anyone who is not from the United States may be permitted to begin the Naturalization, or path to citizenship through their sponsorship or "partnering" up of their same sex significant other. Clearly, their are problems with this. You have to almost begin by wondering, "where do you start first with this one"?

First, this path has left a bitter taste with hetero couples. How many people or stories have you heard with someone from another country paying someone to marry them and live with them for 2yrs, federal law, so they could apply for citizenship? Those problems won't go away, they will only increase.

Gay Immigration sounds like a great idea, but I can't help but think "are we ready for this legal fight"? We very well may, but what a slippery slope that will be. I am one of those "americans" who are strong supporters of an even stronger immigration policy-to prevent illegals and undocumented workers from entering the country. Or even worse, to ensure terrorists are not allowed in through relaxed policies. So how can I be strong on immigration reform, but willing to relax those same policies for the GLBT community?

It almost goes against the 'Equality we are all fighting for. Well, that's my soap box. The resolution on the Uniting American Families Act of 2009 was passed within two weeks of being introduced. Eight people, including Immigration Equality executive director Rachel Tiven, testified to the Immigration Committee on September 29 in favor of the resolution.

Jerrold Nadler, a congressman representing parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan, is the leading sponsor of the House's version of the bill. Vermont's Patrick Leahy is the sponsor of the Senate's version.

Let's make sure, we don't allow politicians a free ride on their campaign pledges. What I mean is, they propose legislation that they know won't get passed, but they win a feather in their hats, simply because they proposed it. That shouldn't be enough. Mr. Leahy, I truly feel like this is one of those times. The Senate is no where close to relaxing immigration laws for hetero americans, they're definitely not considering relaxing these rules for the GLBT community.

Keep in mind, John McCain stayed closed in the run upto 'election '08 simply because he was able to rally the GOP around Immigration Reform. Let's keep our eye's on the ball folks...this dog won't hunt.

My 14 year old Champion!

Looking to plan a birthday party for our oldest daughter next month. It will be her first birthday party in so many years. I think each year, we've wanted to plan one for her, but it just never seemed to pan out as we would have wished.

So this year, as she turns 14, wow, just to think of that, 14 years old, I think we've settled on a theme.....lol, I think. She wants a skating party at a rink with some friends from school. Elle and I are more inclined to just go along with that...I mean, she's got her own ideas of what she wants and how she wants to celebrate it so...I dunno.

Through it all, she's handled a lifetime of transition like a champion would. She's still 14 and very much still a child, but in so many ways her support for my happiness has been unconditional and full. We're still a month away from her birthday, but wanted to get a head start with some of the details to ensure we get it right!

3 States Look To Reverse Equality

Voters in three states will decide this fall on whether to reverse gay rights initiatives ranging from anti-discrimination measures to marriage benefits.

Maine - Voters will decide whether or not to uphold the state's legalization of same-sex marriage.

Washington state - A so-called "everything but marriage" law that expands the state's current domestic partnership law will be on the ballot.

Kalamazoo, Michigan - Voters will decide on an ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals.

Washington state, along with California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage. While Maine and Washington state will get most of the focus in November's election, a gay rights ordinance in the southwestern Michigan city of Kalamazoo is getting national attention from groups on both sides as well.

The city's ordinance, which outlaws employment, housing and public-accommodation discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification, took effect July 9 but was suspended once opponents turned in enough signed petitions to force a public vote.

Equality is truly under attack folks. As soon as you think progress is being made across the country...and it truly is, we begin to somehow back-tread over the steps we've just taken. Keep your eyes on these states as I will. But don't just stop there by looking, act on it. Just as Arizona recently reversed on its provision of state benefits to familyblendz (gay families), these 3 states are attempting to back-tread as well.

No one said this would be easy, but lets get this party started!

Arizona gives benefits & then TAKES THEM AWAY

In just weeks, hundreds of adult disabled children and domestic partners of Arizona state employees will lose health insurance coverage and other benefits as part of a budget bill passed over the summer. The new provision overrides a referendum that was voted down by Arizonians in the 2006 general election. Dude, this shit is wrong!

In August the state's legislature, which is dominated by social conservatives, passed a provision containing a more narrow definition of dependents for the purposes of determining benefit eligibility for state employees. The provision, which passed the legislature over the summer as part of a budget bill, specifies that benefits will be granted only to "a spouse, a child under the age of 19, or a child under the age of 23 who is a full-time student."

This new definition overturns an administrative order by former Governor Janet Napolitano (D) that allowed state employees who could prove at least a year-long "financial interdependence" to add dependent beneficiaries regardless of gender or age. For the record, former Governor Janet, is now in the Obama Administration. Anyone who falls outside of the new, more narrow definition, including adult-disabled children, full-time students between the ages of 23 and 25, opposite-sex domestic partners, and same-sex domestic partners, will become ineligible for dependent benefits. Don't want anyone to just run over that statement.

The new definition was hotly debated by the House Appropriations Committee in June and in August when it was redrafted and passed. There was even procedural wrangling over grandfathering benefits for those already on the rolls, but minority Democrats were outmaneuvered by majority Republicans. So they weren't even willing to let those who had benefits to keep them. Wrong as hell!

During a House Appropriations Committee hearing, Rep. John Kavanaugh (R) said if someone is still in school at the age of 23, he or she should get their own health insurance. Kavanagh told me Monday morning that adult disabled children should also not be on their parents' health insurance, saying, "Once they are adults, they need to buy their own policy. If they can't afford it, they can get Medicaid." When asked what they should do if they don't qualify for Medicaid and have pre-existing conditions that private insurance will not cover, Kavanagh responded, "I agree that needs to be reformed."

In 2006, Arizona voters became the first in the nation to vote against a ban on gay marriage. The referendum also would have blocked the state government from providing benefits for domestic partners of state employees. Donna Taylor, who stands to lose the benefits she receives through her partner of 26 years, says, "This went to the voters. They are overriding what the voters said."

"I think it's fair to say that there are many of my Republican colleagues at the Capitol who believe that domestic partner benefits support 'gay lifestyles' even though the facts are very clear that the majority of domestic partners who receive benefits around the state are straight and not gay," said state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D). You see, in Arizona, the domestic partner law included both straight and gay couples.

Christina Vassett, who says she and her boyfriend choose an unmarried lifestyle because it is meaningful to them, asks "What would happen if the state said to married couples, we're not going to give your spouses health insurance? Are we just going to pick one sin?" adding, "It's even worse for same-sex couples because they can't get benefits unless they are married, but they don't have the choice to get married."

Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed the bill on September 4. Just days later, Brewer said in a speech that she often prays with her staffers about difficult issues like these, "And we stop, and we take that time, and we pray about it," explaining, "I firmly believe that God has placed me in this powerful position of Arizona's governor to help guide our state through the difficulty that we are currently facing."

Senate President Bob Burns (R) says the change in definition of "dependent" is important because the state is running a significant deficit. So, lets get this right, you're only taking the benefits away because you don't have any more money? These children will go back to Medicaid...and what form of currency are you using to pay for that?

According to the Department of Administration, the cost of providing health insurance to domestic partners ($3 million) is less than one half of one percent of the total cost ($625 million) of providing health insurance. Equality Arizona spokesperson Barbara says, "They have publicly couched this as part of the budget-saving measures. Of course it's not about the economics. It is absolutely targeting same-sex couples and cohabitating heterosexual couples."

When Napolitano gave domestic partners benefits, her Director of Administration Bill Bell said the state, especially universities, would save money because they would attract and retain better employees. But Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman (R) disputes that claim, "I haven't heard from any of those people saying they only work for Arizona for that reason."

Donna Taylor has been with her partner for more than a quarter of a century but will lose her insurance because she will no longer fit the definition. She has degenerative Rheumatoid arthritis and other related health problems. She takes 7 prescription medications; one costs $350. She says she will be able to get health insurance through one of her two jobs, but there will be a gap between policies for a couple of months, and she will not be able to afford her medications during that period.

"It is purposeful discrimination. It is unequal pay for equal work," says Sharon Keeler whose partner of 17 years will also lose benefits, "They purposely chose to take benefits away from people who work the same jobs as others because they are making a moral judgment."