Comments on My Open Wallet: The Cost of Being Gay

I think we need to have a similar law for everyone...

2009-10-10T16:01:31.931-04:00

I think we need to have a similar law for everyone. Discrimination should not be done based on relationship or sexuality. We need one single law for everyone.

I was on NY Times and when I saw the article I imm...

2009-10-08T19:47:55.604-04:00

I was on NY Times and when I saw the article I immediately said to myself "thank god, someone finally did a comprehensive article on the cost of discrimination!"

Most times people don't understand heterosexual privilege until they see the real economic consequences of discrimination on the lives of gay individuals. I am glad someone finally did a comprehensive analysis of the topic to show how much it can hurt the wallet. Of course, as the article mentioned the emotional cost would outweight the monetary losses.

"A nondependent partner’s coverage is taxable inco...

2009-10-05T11:59:35.058-04:00

"A nondependent partner’s coverage is taxable income, and she can’t use pretax dollars to pay the premiums, according to Todd A. Solomon, a partner in the employee benefits department of McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago."

To me, this is unconstitutional. I know this was a relatively recent IRS ruling, but I would think it could (and should) be challenged in the courts.

What about the savings enjoyed by not having to pa...

2009-10-05T09:36:13.463-04:00

What about the savings enjoyed by not having to pay for divorces? Maybe that offsets the costs. ;-)

I never thought of the costs of not being able to ...

2009-10-04T21:25:53.388-04:00

I never thought of the costs of not being able to get married. Why do our equal rights not apply to everyone? I do not see how a married gay couple is going to effect me in some awful way. I would freak out if someone said I couldn't get married. It boggles my mind that tons of people are forced to put up with that every day...

I'd like to be sympathetic, but I'm not. I'm sing...

2009-10-02T22:25:55.314-04:00

I'd like to be sympathetic, but I'm not.

I'm single and what this article says to me is that the economic benefits of being married are heavily weighted against the single person, to say the least.

I was particularly galled by the calculation about lost benefits when one member of the couple takes 5 years off to take care of children. This to me, is a luxury that is certainly not universal. Or more poignantly, this represents a failure in policy where child care - no matter what the work-situation of the parents, is not particularly affordable and/or accepted. The economic consequences seem calculated for relatively well-off people living "ideal" i.e. conventional lifestyles ... not the reality for most of us.

I am admittedly, a little skeptical because every place I've ever worked for offered health benefits to domestic partners (I work in the non-profit sector in NYC so it may not be a fair comparison.) Also, isn't this EXACTLY the type of thing that health care reform is supposed to fix. The problem is not marriage, it's health care ...

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but it certainly is not because married people are entitled to enjoy economic benefits that single people are not.