How Much Is That Gay Marriage in the Window?
Death and taxes
In fact, it’s such a horror trying to get “divorced” that Todd and Bruce reconcile; they live together until one day Todd keels over in the health club. Sudden cardiac death, nothing they could do.
Now what? Okay, Todd had a will and they have a lot of property. If Todd and Bruce were legally married, there are some exclusions that they could take advantage of; otherwise, Bruce’s estate taxes are much greater than they would have been. If Todd got rich enough, his first cousin, who is now Todd’s next of kin, challenges the will, saying it’s invalid, claiming undue influence, saying the relationship is “against public policy.” Bruce probably wins. Eventually. Lawyers get rich.
So what?
So let’s just go back through the list. Instead of buying a $20 marriage license and an overnight to Vegas, we have:
| Contract | Cost for both | Real estate contract for Todd’s house | $3,000 – $5,000 |
|---|---|
| Wills | $6,000 – $10,000 |
| Changes in the wills (each time) | $500 – $1,000 |
| New wills | $6,000 – $10,000 |
| Durable power of attorney | $1,000 – $2,000 |
| TOTALS | $13,500 – $28,000 |
Of course, that doesn’t include all the lawyer fees in case of unfortunate events (see above, every time I said “lawyers get rich.”) The point is that for an opposite-sex couple, they can get all the legal protections of all these contracts and more, for $20. For the gay couple, it’s going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars, and they lose legal protections and legal precedents; for Todd and Bruce, it might cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars more.
As we’ve seen in other situations, it often turns out that “separate but equal” isn’t as equal is you might think.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to the folks at Bookworm’s Room, whose discussion shaped a lot of these thoughts, and to Stephanie Nelson, who helped me think about the legal issues and costs. Needless to say, I’m not a lawyer, and Stephanie isn’t responsible for any errors I’ve made in the legal discussion.
Golly, how many of those “things in law” can
be established, by reasonably educated folk for the price of a first class postage stamp, without a lawyer at the rate of $500 per pre-printed boilerplate page, or forced submission by those they hate?
Tell me again who’s hindering the “progressive”
arguments of health and tax evasion, and special protections that the gay agenda clings to, in order to infect the free association realm of organized religion and “other” discriminating critics of such disorderly persons.
CaptDMO:
Surely you jest. The entire point of the article was to “reveal” how nearly impossible it is for gay men to obtain a legal contract parallel to heterosexual marriage.
If the goal were to actually create such unions with the least amount of time and money, the entire analysis would have been completely different.
And after all, everyone today knows that;
1. Sexes are interchangeable
2. Marriage is for feelings, not procreation
3. Gay men are victims of an oppressive culture, not radically free to pursue personal paraphiliae wihtout legal consequence in the richest, safest, and most open period in human history.
Gee, Capt, how many? In a legally binding way? That won’t be easily challenged?
As a Californian, looking at those legals fees, all I can say is – boy, it’s cheap to live in Colorado!
Careful, Terbreugghen: Irony is not easily detected by some…
In fact, *I’m* not 100% sure I’m certain of your POV there…
In California we have something called, Domestic Parnership. Same sex couples can share a name, estate, adopt… pretty much everything a married couple can do legally.
“In California we have something called, Domestic Parnership. Same sex couples can share a name, estate, adopt… pretty much everything a married couple can do legally.”
You also have a nut for a governor.
Bullfrog is right. I actually read the CA same-sex marriage decision and the justices’ argument was mainly based on whether denying gays the term “marriage” violated the constitution. It wasn’t about them getting less rights but whether the terms itself denies them “dignity.” I am actually for gay marriage…makes no difference to me. But I am not for judicial activism and the CA court did exactly that.
In Colorado a quit claim deed is used to change the ownership of a property. My new wife and I did this for the filing fee ($10?) at the county court house. This is a standard Bradford form. Talk about your straw horses. Sheesh…
And marriage (please let’s not start qualifying the term with ‘heterosexual’)is cheap? And what are the divorce rates again? My position is that words are important, and words are defined by history. If gay folk want to get married, first make a brand new word for it. But that’s the issue isn’t it, not for gay marriages to take place but for the word ‘marriage’ to be redefined.
Sorry about the confusion.
Personally, I would vote against the state supporting gay marriage, though I would also not support laws making such arrangements illegal. Cohabit if you want, but don’t expect the state to approve.
Contrary to the rhetoric, the goal of the promoters of gay marriage has not been mere tolerance, which is provisional disagreement lacking the will to do something about it, but rather enforced acceptance and moral equivalence comlete with penalties for anyone who disagrees.
There was a recent case in Alberta about a religious group’s editorial writer being been fined $5,000 and required to cease making “disparaging remarks” about gays. That’s the real goal in Canada and the US, first amendment freedoms in the US be damned.
Some might say the Canadians and other European nations are “out there” on this issue, and that such things would never happen in the US. There are, however, many other cases that demonstrate that increasing inroads are being made into traditional culture. Another example: the Canadian rinter who objected to printing announcements for gay club events on personal religious grounds being forced by the state to compensate the group and print their materials or lose his business license.
The truth is that this is coming to hometown America slowly but surely. Its easy enough to see with the pervasive and ongoing efforts by mainstream American media to “sanitize” the gay lifestyle through a deliberate cover of its emotional, physical, and statistical realities.
A victory for gays, a tragic loss for coming generations for whom the term “marriage” will represent first and foremost an expression of personal sexuality rather than a long-term commitment to the physical, emotional, and psychological health and safety of children.
I don’t disagree that marriage will fall, just that when it does, it will be a net loss, not a net gain. Ah, “progress.”
This is another of those issues that I refer to as “style points”. Whenever I read someone get hyperventilated over the issue of gay marriage (which I’m in favor of, by the way) I find myself wondering if gas prices fell to $.50 per gallon, Ahmedinijad keeled over and died in the night, Osama’s been found, and the Chinese Olympics went off without a hitch…and I slept through all of it! Who cares if they get married, even though it’s two guys? I have several pairs of gay friends, many (most) of whom have been living together, in sin, for decades. Does *anyone* think that their having a piece of paper formalizing their relationship legally is going to have *any* effect on anyone other than those individuals, and perhaps their relatives? The idea is beyond preposterous, and you have to wonder about those who get so overwrought and the thought of two people they don’t know having a piece of paper that says they’re together in some sort of matrimony, and it’s *legal*. Remember, you can usually find a clergyman somewhere to perform the ceremony: it’s been done for years. The only thing we’re discussing is whether it will have any *secular* meaning. I don’t think churches want the government telling them how to do business; they should abide by that rule themselves, in the other direction.
David: Negative sociological effects of redefining the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples is documented on this site and elsewhere. I suggest you do some reading.
Your personal relationships aside, this decision is not one that can be made on emotion. We are talking about changing the law.
Scott, sadly, in a situation like this a quit-claim isn’t sufficient; you are going to need a binding contract and it’s not a vanilla one.
Bullfrog, if you follow the link to Bookworm’s place, there’s a longer discussion. I’m not aware of any sociological discussions of same-sex marriage that are well controlled, and since it’s only been avialable in Europe since 1989, the baseline isn’t exactly a strong one.
Roger, this was all in terms of a fairly simple thing. It could get lots more complicated.
I don’t believe the attorney fees. Generic forms can be written.
Bruce can buy part of the house and add himself onto the mortgage. The second or third home can be titled anyway they want at the time of closing. When my wife’s cousin wanted to buy a share of our house, I did that with my mortgage company for free and the attorney cost for the contract was $250.
Wills are easy except when there is lots of money. Then as long as there are family fights, there are lawsuits. Lawsuits are gender neutral. If you think a marriage certificate is proof against probate fights, you are living on another planet.
A durable power of attorney is easy. A medical power of attorney is easy. They are available for free.
Contracts written before the business ventures should not cost much and a generic “this will cover all of our business dealing” contract can be written easily. Again, if there is a lot of money involved, it doesn’t matter what the law is or what the contract says. Someone will sue.
If they feel they need a contract defining their legal relationship, they do not have to announce their sexual habits in the contract. The idea that there would be no “consideration” making the contract unenforceable is nonsense. Just exchange rings. The public gift of the ring used to be her “consideration”. They can have a joint ring ceremony in front of a notary public. It’s not holy matrimony, but who cares?
One more comment. It may have been legally true that gays couldn’t be served in bars in New York 40 years ago because they were “disorderly,” but I know that it wasn’t enforced when I ate out with my uncle who was gay. Of course, he was a quiet gentleman who avoided fights.
David: Negative sociological effects of redefining the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples is documented on this site and elsewhere. I suggest you do some reading.
Your personal relationships aside, this decision is not one that can be made on emotion. We are talking about changing the law.
Precisely, we’re talking about changing the *law*. It’s supposed to be color-blind, treat everyone the same, etc. I’m sure someone, somewhere, can come up with statistics predicting, or even tracking purported “Negative sociological effects of redefining the institution of marriage”. Unfortunately (for you) the same thing could be said about as persuasively for the Civil Rights movement (If we let those black people out of the ghetto, and they think they’re equal with us, crime rates will *skyrocket*!). Not only that, but no one has ever defined for me the institution of marriage and how precisely it works, in terms that weren’t religious in context in some fashion. Catholics have been enjoined from divorce for decades, having to resort to annulments. Until about 30 years ago, even those were hard to get in the U.S. unless your name was Kennedy. So, as a for instance, my father in law spent 20+ years legally married to my mother-in-law, but as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, he was married to his first wife (with whom he only stayed for about a year…she forgot to mention her real age and a child from a previous relationship). Regardless of what I read on here or anywhere else, no one is going to convince me that a pair of gay men being allowed to formally marry is going to have any effect on anyone else. How would it? The idea is simply ludicrous…what do you expect to happen? Sometimes people sound like Dan Ackroyd predicting the Apocalypse in Ghostbusters: “Dogs and cats living *together*”. Come on, get real…
Charlie: So the statistics coming out of Denmark since 1989 regarding the rate of marriage vs. simple legal cohabitation isn’t compelling to you at all? What about the children of heterosexuals in Denmark and other parts of the Netherlands living together who are choosing not to marry at a higher rate since 1989? Still nothing?
David: For centuries, the institution of marriage, whether the law recognized it or not, has been between one man and one woman for the primary purpose of bearing children. Why is this good? Because if people weren’t getting hitched and having kids, we wouldn’t be here. It’s a matter of survival. Children grow up healthier and more balanced if they are raised by their biological mother and father, in a committed relationship (marriage). I am describing the ideal situation for the main benefactor of marriage: children, who represent the next generation. If we screw them up, our culture is also screwed.
Since the 60′s (the “me” era, sexual revolution…) we have ushered in a whole new concept of relationships that are very sexualized, and sex is more about personal gratification than procreating. When people get counseled in preparation for marriage, they are invariably told to “plan” their families; don’t have kids right away, take a vacation, see the world before you get “weighted down” with offspring. The parenting philosophy of today is centered on the parents; making sure they get lots of “me” time and rest, because after all, mommies and daddies are better mommies and daddies when the are in a good mood and aren’t all worn out from parenting?
The point is, marriage is ultimately about children, and children have become an after-thought, something to do when the “real fun” is over. This also applies to same sex marriage and what I described as the ideal environment in which to raise children. 2 committed, in love, homosexual men decide they want to get married and make a family. It’s the American dream, right? So it sounds fair just let them do it. To accomplish this, loosen up the definition of marriage a little, what’s the harm. Ted and Steve buy a house together, make out their wills and share a common name as a sign of their love and commitment.
Next logical step is to have children… but here we have an obvious problem here, don’t we? The newlyweds have to adopt, so they do. Or maybe they find a woman big-hearted enough to be artificially inseminated with either of their sperm and carry the baby to term. Voila! Ted and Steve are a white picket fence and a dog away from the complete American dream! And why shouldn’t they have all this?
1. Marriage isn’t recognized and supported by the state so you and I can “pronounce our undying love”. This is drivel we inherited from the generation of “me”, who are focused less on serving our fellow man than fulfilling our own personal desires. The real reason marriage is so good for society is that it creates and fosters the next generation so in 20 years there IS an America.
2. The children that will result from either being adopted and raised by Ted and Steve, or the surrogate situation I described will not be raised in the “ideal”, so why do it? Because Ted and Steve have selfish reasons for wanting children. The are compelled by their desire to paint the perfect family picture and prove that “family” can mean more than it has traditionally. They want to make a powerful political statement about their community. The problem with these motives, regardless of how noble they may sound is, parenthood should be child-centered, not parent-centered. If you want kids for any other reason than to serve them, then you are starting off on the wrong foot and shouldn’t bother.
This same thing applies to single people wanting children, unmarried heterosexuals who don’t want to marry, or any other situation you can dream up that ISN’T 2 biological, opposite sex people.
Although this article and others like it discuss rights for pairs of homosexuals, the same arguments can be used to legalize polygamy, polyamory, marriages of convenience (“Marry” your friend for the tax deductions), etc.
The argument equating gay rights with the civil rights movement is specious. Homosexuality is about behavior, and laws discriminate on behavior all the time – in fact, that’s what they are for! The civil rights movement was about unalterable identity of people indistinguishable except for unimportant critera (skin color).
Some will argue that gayness is part of an unalterable identity. So is sociopathy and pedophelia, but we don’t legalize the associated behavior just because people with those characteristics cannot change.
Society has rightly decided to remove prohibitions on homosexuality. It has no obligation to confer equality under law on homosexual behavior.
Bullfrog, in a word, no. Divorce rates were increasing in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands before same-sex partnerships (they’re not even called marriage as I understand it) became legal; they continued to increase among opposite-sex partners afterwards. The total number of divorces increased — to which the technical response in stats is “well, duh!”. More marriages total means moe divorces.
The studies I’ve seen cited, which seem always to have been done by opponents, don’t seem to do a good job of distinguishing from the null hypothesis, ie, that gay marriage has no additional impact that can be observed. You might consider the same statistics over the time since Loving v Virginia, when it became legal in all 50 states to marry across “racial” boundaries.
The most compelling point for same-sex marriage is the equal-protection one, at least to me, and that’s not a statistical argument at all. We wouldn’t permit, for example, all blacks to be restricted to house arrest in DC because there are a lot of blacks who commit crimes in DC, no matter how compelling the statistics. We don’t let states restrict blacks and whites from marrying, and won’t re-introduce the miscegenation laws even in the face of rising divorce rates. (You’d probably find that interracial marriages have high divorce rates too, and even more so in the first 20 years after Loving.
I can understand why an interracial marriage is more difficult to maintain than a marriage between 2 people of the same race, because I was in an interracial relationship for 8 years. People from our respective communities and families did not approve, so a level of stress was automatic. I would chalk this up to basic cultural differences and plain old bigotry.
I will not argue that some have compelling reasons for wanting same-sex marriage, for me the real question is, is it worth the negative effects on marriage and children so that others can be included? I think it is flippant to assume nothing will happen if the definition of marriage is changed, which seems to be where some are going.
Bullfrog said: “Because Ted and Steve have selfish reasons for wanting children. The are compelled by their desire to paint the perfect family picture and prove that “family” can mean more than it has traditionally. They want to make a powerful political statement about their community. The problem with these motives, regardless of how noble they may sound is, parenthood should be child-centered, not parent-centered. If you want kids for any other reason than to serve them, then you are starting off on the wrong foot and shouldn’t bother.
There are 2 problems with this
1) It ignores the fact that many people have gay people have/adopt children because they WANT children (no different than straight people) and not because they want to make a political statement
2) it ignores the fact that soooooooo many “straight” couples have children because it’s “what’s expected”. How many politicians have a family? How many couples from other cultures will have children because it’s what you do, it’s what’s always done, you get married and have kids?
Bullfrog, you forget that many same sex couples (and even some homosexual singles) already have/have adopted children and are raising them in a loving and nurturing environment not because they are concerned about their image rather because like so many others in the world they have that basic instinct; wanting to raise children
My premise doesn’t ignore the myriad of reasons people choose to make a family, I just didn’t have time or the space to touch on all of them. What I am saying in a nutshell is, if we know the emotionally and psychologically “less ideal” circumstances for raising children and we are putting the needs of children first, we should avoid those circumstances whenever possible.
Instead, we are embracing the dysfunctional environment and hoping for the best. It strikes me as haphazard and not the way to prepare our next generation for the world.
OK, so what have we learned from our friend Bullfrog? First, the chief motivation behind marriage is to procreate, and you can’t (obviously) do that if you’re gay. I never knew why, but my Aunt Faye and Uncle Glenn were unable to have children (she was very frail, had MS and a host of physical problems from a car accident). They adopted two children, and I’m sure Bullfrog would argue that they shouldn’t be included in his definition of a couple who married for love alone, but that’s essentially what they were. Even worse, I married when I was 39; my wife was at the time 47. We got married not planning to have children, and haven’t. Should we have not gotten married? Sometimes you have to wonder about people.
Another thing we found out is that gay couples are selfish, and dysfunctional. It turns out that by contrast hetero couples are only there for the child. The problem with this thesis is that you only have to turn on the TV to listen to case after case of dysfunctional straight couples, married, etc., who do the most horrible things to each other and their children, or the children to their parents. I’m sure that if Bullfrog chooses to illuminate us further with his opinions, he’ll have more prescriptions for solving these problems too; however, it’s hard for me to sort those arguments out from those of the left, who try to turn us into a nanny state constantly. What should we call it when a conservative does it? Perhaps the Sunday-School-all-week-long State?
“First, the chief motivation behind marriage is to procreate,”
Technically, this has been the case for centuries, I didn’t invent it. It does make logical sense too though, doesn’t it?
As for your aunt and uncle, God bless them for rescuing 2 children from an orphanage and saving them from a fate much worse and enduring what must have been painful, as I understand not being able to bear children is hard.
You married your wife without children in mind so I can only assume you did it to express love, a commitment, tax breaks, or all of the above? I am not condemning you for not desiring to have children, I am just saying it is not the norm. If it were, there is a good chance some of us wouldn’t be here.
“Another thing we found out is that gay couples are selfish, and dysfunctional.”
Definitely didn’t say that, and in fact, I went out of my way to include anyone, gay or straight, single or otherwise, that bring children into a situation that they know is less than ideal for that child’s personal development. Gay couples haven’t cornered the market on dysfunction, theirs is just alot more public.
That fact that you point to cases where heterosexuals who don’t parent well only reinforces my overall point that people should consider carefully, while putting the best interests of children first, the environment they will subject their children to and if that will result in healthy balanced people.
Your Nanny State argument is groundless. I am advocating personal responsibility of each individual in their affairs, which includes how you parent, while extreme liberals believe the state is better equipped to raise children than 2 biological heterosexual parents. Horrible thought.
I am glad that you have deduced 2 things about me without me spelling it out:
1. I am a Conservative.
2. I am a Christian.
That means I am doing my job.
I think that one point, perhaps not discussed much in comments, is that every state is different. In Texas, the right of survivorship is not granted to legal marriage, so it can be easier to sort out. Cost me $100 to get a contract written by a lawyer to sort out right of refusal and right of survivorship on a house. I think that many of the fees are perhaps high, but they all point out vast hassles. I think that the biggest issue that seems unfair to me is that every state is different.
Personally, I think the point of the article was about property rights. That affects the kids by ensuring that they’re taken care of should anything happen between mom and dad, and is, therefore, corollary. [I'm 20 years past my "Critical Thinking" course in university, but isn't this a case of the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this therefore because of this) or something like that? ie: the kids benefit from the resolution of the property rights issues therefore it is all about the kids? whereas, in reality, the whole issue is property rights in the first place.]
And marriage has always been about property: the nobility has always married their sons and daughters, often lovelessly, to enhance their estates. And that is to say nothing compared to what Royalty has done, marrying to ensure political alliances. No, marriage has always been about property; children have been a corollary.
Don’t kill me, folks, that’s just mho.
Chris in Toronto.
Chris in Toronoto is right. The reason the state is involved in marriage is property rights.After all entire countries went to legal children of a marriage.
There is a baseline assumption to all of the same-sex marriage argument that I am not sure I agree with. In particular, everyone talks of the “Right” to marry, when in fact people are asking for the “Benefits” of marriage. These benefits, as Chris and RAH, point out tend to focus on property and the use of such to provide for the children of the resulting marriage.
To play Devil’s Advocate, I am not positive that it is not within society’s power to deny the property benefits given that no children can possibly be conceived. As a general principle I do not believe that people have a general right to marry… in fact, we are rife with laws that prevent marriage based on age, mental state (the ability to consent), relationship of the two people (marriage between cousins and even siblings is allowed, albeit frowned upon, in many European countries). So clearly marriage is not an absolute Right. And given that it is not an absolute Right, why wouldn’t a society convey a benefit when it cannot possibly receive a benefit in return… in this case, new citizens to continue the society?
I know this is a hot political topic, so while people might find the idea unpalatable… is the logic incorrect?
Bullfrog:
For the record, I know several gay couples – two male, one female, all of whom have children… and without exception, every one of these kids turned out superbly; the kind of offspring any parent would be proud to call their own. Sorry, but I don’t buy the argument that the children of gay couples are disadvantaged right at the starting gate for a second. Are you really so certain that your own antipathy toward gay marriage and gay parents don’t spring from personal distaste? Because that’s how it reads from where I’m sitting. You are, of course, entitled to said distaste… but let’s not pretend that it’s a legal justification for perpetuating inequality.
Baron: It is not merely an argument, it is a fact. Psychologically and emotionally children are more balanced when they are raised by their biological parents. Naturally, this would include one man and one woman and exclude any same-sex couples, since same-sex couples cannot produce children.
I’m not surprised that you know kids raised by non-traditional parents who you feel turned out “superbly; but define “superbly” for me. Are the children missing important developmental “building blocks” because of their environment? Science says yes.
I have intentionally focused my argument on psychology and sociology and left my personal feelings out of it. I believe you can make an air tight case against re-defining marriage based purely on psychology and sociology. I have tried to do that here.
Your statement about “perpetuating inequality” assumes gay parents are entitled to raise children, and you haven’t proven that point.
My assertion is simple:
2 non-biological (including same-sex) parents is not equal to 2 biological (by default includes 1 man and 1 woman) in terms of raising a healthy, well-balanced child.
I also assume said parents are functioning contributors to society in that they have jobs, aren’t physically abusive, are not addicted to drugs, etc. I specify this because I want to avoid the, “What about really dysfunctional biological parents vs. a gay couple?” argument, which I believe is weak. If any child is orphaned because their parents are deceased or choosing not to be in the picture, that child starts out with a major disadvantage, so it seems logical to me to do our best to give them the closest thing possible to their natural parents. Again, that implies 1 man and 1 woman.
The real problem with this article is that it assumes that everything it discusses would be covered in the case of a heterosexual couple for 20 bucks. As anyone who has actually been through a pre-nup, marriage, divorce or property litigation can tell you, it doesn’t cost $20.
The author’s mistaken assumption is that $20 buys you “binding” terms that can’t “be challenged”. Marriage buys you no such thing.
Indeed, the fundamental assumption of the gay marriage crowd is that marriage is some kind of right or benefit. But it is not at all clear that it is. Marriage is actually obligations and responsibilities. Once you marry, you are responsible for your spouse’s debts, for instance. Depending on the state, you are responsible for your spouse’s children, even if they are not biologically yours. Even if you are no longer married, you can still be responsible for your ex-spouse (“alimony”).
Marriage is not legal protection. It is the opposite: legal complication and legal vulnerability. In a sense, you are actually renouncing certain rights when you get married, not gaining them.
this is what my friend wrote to me in response to my question on how AIDS/homo situation was developing in the 80s in Cali, you might be interested.
But let it settle in your mind, don’t jump to conclusions, i am not that sure myself, may be because of “consensus pressure” still felt an obligation to share with you:
——————–
There is no doubt, despite propaganda to the contrary, that in the USA AIDS is mainly a homosexual problem. There was a legal controversy many years ago involving a friend of mine, named Bryan Ellison.
He co-authored a book on AIDS by one of the discoverers of retro-viruses. The book alleged that the connection between AIDS and HIV was correlative rather than causal.
That is to say, HIV is a marker for the risk behaviors that causes AIDS; so that AIDS is caused by behaviors that wreck the body’s immune system. Strong aphrodisiacs used by gays, repeated anti-biotic use, repeated infection by Hepatitus and venereal diseases, all break down the immune system over time.
This argument was met with a massive legal offensive in which Ellison was forced to leave the country and the book was confiscated during its first printing. I have two copies of the book with me. This is an unusual example of a book successfully suppressed in the United States.
Bryan was crushed by the Lavender Mafia, which is surprisingly powerful in the U.S. One ought to note that Hitler was a homosexual and put into power by a homosexual network that advanced him. This is not fully understood and has been documented by at least one historian. A very brave historian, by the way.
——————–
and this was my answer then:
——————–
Very interesting and disturbing it is. But so true.
I was reading about some deceases recently and not so recently and noticed that there are SO MANY diseases that gays have on a much wider scale then normal people. Including complications from papiloma virus, herpes, etc, etc, etc.
For instance human papiloma virus causes no problem in normal men but homos are known to have anal or penile cancer from it. And so on..
Also mainstream view is that homosexuality can not be cured. But the opposite happens – in a lots of cases people become homos later in life. I know some stories and they are also reported frequently.
SO this propaganda of homosexuality is totally a lie and dangerous manipulation and must be stopped at any price.
I will look up the book online. Almost everything can be found online))
——————-
The book is listed on Amazon. But can not be ordered.
That book was probably a unique occasion in US when court in NY baned its publication and ordered destruction of the printed copies. I think official reason was some publishing technicality or copyrights, – u can find out.
Also it is interesting to read wiki entry on this.
—————————–
another friend said:
Another good read to is Liberal Fascism by Jonan Goldberg. You well be suprised how much liberalism and nazism have in common including the homosexual agenda.
—————————
it is interesting how meaning of words change and it looks like someone is working on it like it is described by Orwell
Liberalism used to mean something very good: free markets, liberties, peoples rights
same way word GAY used to mean happiness and delight