Many More Lesbians than Gays

[Karl-G]

The Times had an interesting article trying to analyze what has happened in Massachusetts since the same-sex marriage law was passed.

 

One of the very interesting facts to emerge is that many more lesbian women (in absolute numbers) have taken advantage of the law than gay men. This is also true in San Francisco and other places which have, even temporarily, allowed same-sex unions. And since the percentage of lesbian women in the general population is significantly smaller than that of gay men, according to all surveys, this means that a high percentage of lesbian women is taking advantage of the law, whereas a much lesser, significantly smaller, number and percentage of gay men has entered into such unions.

 

The reasons for this can only be speculated on right now, and the article looks at various theories, but I'm not sure I would have guessed this relationship if you had simply asked me about it a week ago. Have others realized this or been surprised?

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Difference is attributed to nesting instinct?

[Guest msclonly]

The difference can be explained simply, that men are more fickle and do not hold to a relationship as long. Men are like tomcats out on the prowl everynight, whereas women are more content to stay at home and avoid men hitting on them. Duh!

 

:+

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Ummm.... seems like a lot of words to say nesting instinct. :7

[marc anthony]

You know I think there is something to this "nesting instinct" difference you speak of. I read somewhere that more lesbians have taken advantage of the right to marry in Massachusetts than gay men. Interesting.

 

:+

[JamesK840]

You've never heard the old joke?

 

I've heard this joke a couple times, and I think it illustrates these stats perfectly. Goes something like this:

 

What does a lesbian bring to a second date? A U-Haul.

What does a gay man bring to a second date? What's a "second" date?

 

It makes perfect sense from a biological perspective as well, women want/need to settle down a raise a familly, men want/need to spread their seed, so when you take out the link between them of course you end up with this kind of overall statistic, though there are of course exceptions.

 

I think I heard another statistic that said lesbian couples usually stop having sex alltogether a couple years into the relationship.

[+ Charlie]

Lesbian couples are more likely than gay male couples to have children, so the legal protections of marriage for their family structure are more important to them. On the other hand, the fear of the financial entanglements of legal marriage may actually discourage men from marrying. In fact, many male couples have officially opted out of domestic partnership under the new California legislation, because it provides little that they can't accomplish with other legal contracts (such as power of attorney), but mandates financial responsibilities that they don't want. Of course, many gay men have emotional reasons for wanting their relationships officially recognized, but they don't have the same practical needs that lesbians have.

[dannyrossmoore]

There was a story in US News & World Report 2 or 3 issues ago that says the same thing as Charlie above. Despite all the shouting about

marriage rights, most gay men have no interest or intention to marry.

In almost all states the legal; system allows single people all the important rights as married individuals. However for single people

it usually requires legal documents and steps that come automatically to married individuals.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>In almost all states the legal; system allows single people

>all the important rights as married individuals. However

>for single people

>it usually requires legal documents and steps that come

>automatically to married individuals.

 

How about guaranteed access to spouse's company paid medical benefits? Spousal Social Security benefits? Next of kin status for hospital access and emergency/critical health care decisions and funeral decisions?

 

Whatever legal documents might be drafted won't guarantee any lack of challenge by the family.

[OneFinger]

>How about guaranteed access to spouse's company paid medical benefits?...

 

It's more than just access to the paid medical benefits. Under the current law, domestic partner benefits are considered taxable income so you end up paying twice - once for the actual benefit and again to the IRS. x(

 

On an interesting aside note, domestic partner benefits (when offered) are usually NOT exercised. I actually researched domestic partner benefits for a previous employer. As of the year 2000, domestic partner benefits were only exercised by about 1% of the total employee population in the USA.

 

And, when exercised, there was no difference in the benefit payout between married and domestic partner couples. (Many employers were afraid that domestic partner benefits would result in higher payout costs for self-funded programs due to AIDS-related issues. This was NOT the case.)

[+ Charlie]

You can arrange a medical power of attorney that supersedes next-of-kin status for hospital visits and critical care decisions. I currently hold those powers for not only my partner but for two gay friends who don't want to leave those decisions solely in family hands.

[Guest bighugbearphx]

Clarify domestic partner taxation

 

>>How about guaranteed access to spouse's company paid

>medical benefits?...

>

>It's more than just access to the paid medical benefits. Under

>the current law, domestic partner benefits are considered

>taxable income so you end up paying twice - once for

>the actual benefit and again to the IRS. x(

 

Just to clarify the above, I believe he's talking about a situation where the employer subsidizes PART of the cost of the domestic partner coverage, with the rest taken out of the employee's pay. In most circumstances, that can't be done on a pre-tax basis, so you are paying it with taxable dollars. On top of that, the difference between what you paid and the actual VALUE of the benefits (usually the part the employer pays) is added to the employee's W-2 as taxable wages. So you don't pay twice on the *same* money. (But, as has been said, it can be very high in total, often more than it would cost to get individual coverage. That's why many partners decline the coverage.)

 

However, this assumes that the domestic partner is not the employee's dependent (which is the usual scenario). An employer can provide tax free benefits to a legal spouse OR dependent. And if your partner qualifies as your MEDICAL DEPENDENT* for tax purposes, the employee portion CAN be paid with pre-tax dollars and the difference in value does NOT have to be added to the employee's wages (which saves both the employee and employer on payroll taxes as well!) Many employers are unaware of the legalities on that.

 

* To claim an unrelated person as a dependent on a US tax return, generally they must be a US citizen or resident who lived with you ALL year, not be married to anyone else, you must provide MORE THAN HALF of their total support for the year, and they cannot have income subject to tax that is more than the personal exemption amount (just over $3,000 in recent years). However, when dealing with MEDICAL issues ONLY, your partner can be considered your dependent even if the last condition isn't satisfied (the income test). So, if John and Paul lived together all year, make $20,000 and $40,000 respectively, pay all of their combined expenses out of a joint account that they contribute to in the percentage of their incomes, it's obvious that Paul is providing 66% of John's income. Since that is more than half, if Paul gets domestic partner medical insurance benefits for John (and Paul's employer agrees), they can be provided as a TAX FREE benefit. Or, if they are not provided tax free, Paul can deduct them on his tax return, as medical expenses paid for a medical dependent (even though he cannot actual claim John as a dependent on his return, since he fails the income test required for that.)

 

Caveats: This won't work if the employer's medical plan is self-insured, or if state law considers your relationship illegal (Note: criminalizing gay sex is NOT the same thing. It would have to be an anticohabitation law that can be interpreted to forbid same-sex couples.) If unsure, consult with a local tax professional or attorney who is attuned to gay and lesbian issues.