You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
The IRS has charged millionaire Charles Merrill with tax evasion. His trial has been delayed until next year, 2009, at the U.S. Tax Court in San Diego.
Merrill, who recently suffered a stroke, said from his wheelchair, "I have buried $2 million worth of gold coins in the desert as a hedge against the economy collapsing. My partner doesn't even know where it is at."
He continued, "If the IRS allows me to file a joint federal income tax form like any other married couple, the money is there to pay. All they have to do is dig it up. I want to pay taxes, but not treated as a second-class citizen. Gay marriage is not a state issue, as the political candidates McCain and Obama claim, any more than heterosexual marriage is. They need to rescind DOMA and make us equal citizens under federal law. As it stands now, gay married couples are taxed without full representation."
The 74-year-old artist has been in a relationship with Kevin Boyle for 16 years. Merrill is a cousin of the co-founder of Merrill Lynch. Prior to coming out as bisexual he was married for 23 years to Evangeline Johnson, the only daughter of Johnson & Johnson founder Robert Wood Johnson.
"Marriage between 'gender neutral' couples is legal in California, but our union is not recognized by the federal government, and we don't get the over 1,000 federal benefits automatically extended to heterosexual couples," Merrill said Wednesday.
23 Comments:
Way to go Merrill! Are those 2 guys in the background of the photo kissing? ;)
posted by Anonymous, at
7/22/2008 9:10 AM
Good for Charles Merrill, neither the state or federal government should be involved in the marriage business nor should they decide who we can and cannot marry or who we love either.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/22/2008 3:15 PM
Robert wrote: "[N]either the state or federal government should be involved in the marriage business..."
I agree! But if they do decide to get involved Robert, wrongly in our view, who then should decide what the definition of a "marriage" is? Who should decide what constitutes a government-recognized marriage?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/22/2008 3:31 PM
I hope he fully recovers from the stroke. I am grateful for his outspokenness and strength.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/23/2008 1:59 AM
Theo, its a good question for sure. Perhaps by paying taxes should be construed as one way to allow people to marry regardless of gender. The problem is, whenever you have legislation it always involves government at whatever level. There has to be another way to get it out of the marriage business. I wish I knew how. Somehow there must be a way.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/23/2008 6:37 AM
Robert, isn't our constitutional model to let the people of the individual states vote upon the matter?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/23/2008 7:08 AM
That's right Theo. We good Christian white men should be allowed to VOTE on who gets thar so called rights and who dont. Not some damn libral over edgicated lawyas, judjes and such. Put them gals back in the kitchin where theys belong, takin care o the youngins. And wa caint we vote dem niggrahs back to when they knew they rightful place under us white folk--afta all its in da Holy Babel. Ah think we should put dem faggot sadomites on reservasions or camps like we done to da injuns and why we at it, caint we vote dem dam christ killin jew bastards away to?! Send em all to izreal and outta our good white chrischen hetroseckshals only country. Vote Mickane in 08!
posted by Anonymous, at
7/23/2008 9:31 AM
Theo, civil rights and human rights should never be determined by popular vote. If we left everything to the people, African Americans would never have received their full rights and citizenship, anti-miscegenation laws would never have been passed and a woman's right to choose wouldn't have been possible either. We're supposed to be the world leader on equality and rights, sadly....other nations have surpassed us and will continue to do so. We are regressing not progressing.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/23/2008 11:56 AM
Theo:
Why is interracial marriage legal then?
It was opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans when it was legalized.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee individual liberty. Read it again, or more likely, for the first time.
What you are advocating for is a mob mentality. Our founding fathers weren't that stupid.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/23/2008 5:36 PM
Eshto, that is exactly what I was getting at. Civil and human rights should NEVER be decided by the electorate. We'd still have segregation if we left it to them to determine who gets what and who doesn't. Holland, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Canada, Norway and to a lesser extent, the UK have proved that. Their respective governments enacted equality laws for their gay citizens and didn't leave it for the electorate to decide because they knew that legislation would never have passed based on bigotry, ignorance and hypocrisy. Sweden will probably follow suit and possibly Denmark. The tide is turning in our favor,slowly but surely, inevitable.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/24/2008 8:11 AM
The entire bill of rights was put in place to protect the rights of minorities. To insist that majorities get to determine what the rights of minorities are is, therefore, plainly unAmerican and not at all the constitutional model.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/24/2008 9:24 AM
Robert writes: "[C]ivil rights and human rights should never be determined by popular vote."
Well, that assumes that government-recognized marriages fall into that category. Furthermore, your answer still doesn't answer the question.
If the government at the state level decides to get involved in the marriage process through the issuing of marriage licenses, again wrongly in our view, then who should decide what the definition of a "marriage" is, and based on what standard? Who should decide what constitutes a government-recognized marriage?
Robert writes: "If we left everything to the people, African Americans would never have received their full rights and citizenship, anti-miscegenation laws would never have been passed and a woman's right to choose wouldn't have been possible either."
This is obviously ludicrous when one studies any history outside of the United States, and even ignores a great deal of U.S. history for that matter. Status quo for Robert.
Concerning "a woman's right to choose [to have unlimited access to an abortion on demand]" you're again assuming that this is a "right" and that the federal government should even be involved in the issue. Have you read Roe v. Wade lately? Are you seriously willing to defend that decision? No, here again, the people of the states should decide unless and until a federal constitutional amendment is passed.
Eshto asks: "Why is interracial marriage legal then?"
It depends on what level and in what context you're asking. In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Virginia anti-miscegenation statute, overturning the 1883 decision Pace v. Alabama. This Supreme Court decision ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
This decision isn't without its difficulties and weaknesses, but for homosexual activists to use this to support their crusade to receive government recognition of their sexually deviate lifestyle is problematic.
The legal problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed that state marriage laws that recognize marriage as between a man and a woman do not violate the Constitution of the United States (see Baker v. Nelson, decided a few years after Loving).
Eshto states: "Our Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee individual liberty."
So the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't allow for any definition of marriage by states? They allow for no standards for marriage laws? They won't allow for any restrictions on marriage?
Robert writes: "Their respective governments enacted equality laws for their gay citizens and didn't leave it for the electorate to decide because they knew that legislation would never have passed based on bigotry, ignorance and hypocrisy."
Where to begin with such nonsense? Well, I first want to make sure I understand your philosophy of law and government here. Are you saying that you have no problem when a government enacts laws that the people don't want? Yes, your answer will be tested for consistency.
John writes: "The entire bill of rights was put in place to protect the rights of minorities."
What?!?! John's no history major or law student I take it? The loony left just wants it both ways it seems. When it suits them, the Constitution is an elitist document drafted to protect the interests of propertied white men.
But when it suits them, the ENTIRE Bill of Rights (according to John) was adopted to protect the rights of minorities. And they can insist on these at the same time with a straight face. Quite of feat!
posted by Anonymous, at
7/24/2008 12:51 PM
Heterosexual America - Pay Your Taxes for Your Rights! We will not pay until we have the SAME rights.
