http://www.quora.com/Are-gay-men-paid-less-than-straight-men-for-the-same-work
Yes, gay men earn 10% to 32% less than otherwise similar heterosexual men. (See referenced studies at the bottom of this answer)
The full truth, however, is even more insidious.
In many U.S. states (not to mention many places outside the U.S.) a person may be fired for being gay.
While the law states that an employer cannot fire a person for their sex, race, etc. - in 20+ states, it is 100% legal for an employer to fire an employee solely because he is gay.
There are many documented cases of this (including teachers, hotel workers, and others).. and we can presume there are many undocumented cases of this.
Obviously an unemployed person is paid less than an employed person -- however, being terminated often has a long-lasting affect on your future salary. An average man who is steadily employed across five years will have a better resume and more experience than a man who has a significant gap in his employment history. The steadily employed man is more likely to work his way up the ladder and receive more responsibilities/a promotion/a salary increase. In a poor economy with high unemployment rates, this effect is magnified.
Even if the salary is the same, a gay man will receive less "total compensation."
In cases where a gay man and a straight man receive the same base salary, often times the straight man will qualify for additional benefits that the gay man does not.
Family Health Insurance is a huge example of this: in most states an employer who pays for some/all of a spouse/child's health insurance premium will not be required to provide equal payments for the health insurance of a same-sex partner or the partner's children who have not been legally adopted.
If the employer does choose to extend equal health benefits, the gay man will be required to pay income taxes on the amount paid toward his partner's premiums.
Sometimes, the employer may want to include a same-sex partner on the company's group health coverage, but this may be disallowed by the insurance company's policy.
While health benefits are the most obvious and costly example, at many companies there may be a variety of benefits which are extended to "married couples" that are not extended to same-sex partners.
why do you spout right wing talking points about our community?
i think i know why.
The Myth of Gay Affluence
http://www.outsmartmag.com/issue/i04-01/myth.html
Case number one: On a July night in 1994, high school football star DeMarco McCullum and three friends left their Aldine subdivision and drove south to Montrose. They were out to have some fun and maybe rob some gays. Gays were targeted, according to McCullum, because "they always carry a lot of cash." Before the night was out, Michael J. Burzinski would be dead from a gunshot wound to the back of the head and DeMarco would take his first tentative steps toward Texas’ Death Row.
Case number two: Law professor Joseph Broadus, in testimony before Congress that helped defeat the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, identified homosexual households as "elite" and "not...in need of special civil rights legislation." The average gay household, according to Professor Broadus, earns twice as much as the national average.
Case number three: In 1992, the State of Colorado amended their constitution to prevent state and local governments from extending civil rights protections specifically to gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Four years later, the state’s ban was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. Clemson University professor James Woodard, appearing for the State of Colorado, testified median annual household income for gays and lesbians exceeded $50,000, 40 percent higher than heterosexual households. Therefore, he argued, gays and lesbians need no special protection because their wealth protects them. The Colorado Amendment was overturned by the Supreme Court. The vote, however, was not unanimous. In an ominous dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, Anton Scalia cited Woodard’s testimony as evidence that gays’ "disproportionate political power," achieved as a result of their higher incomes, entitled the nongay voters of Colorado to rein in that power through legislation.
Case Number Four: The testimony Professor Broadus gave before Congress about the affluent gay community helped defeat the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and contributed to a climate that allowed the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA prevents Houstonian Janet Langham from enjoying the generous benefit package of her partner, a successful U.S. attorney. As a "domestic partner," Janet is ineligible. Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she was too sick to drive the few miles to attend classes at a local university–classes she took solely to qualify for the meager insurance plan she qualified for as a student. AssistHers, the Houston lesbian support organization, provided transportation to and from campus for Janet. Janet is now president of AssistHers and speaks passionately on the subject of the domestic partner benefits denied to her, benefits denied her, in part, because of the "disproportionate political power" she enjoys as a wealthy member of the GLBT community.
Study finds US gay men earn 23% less than straight men
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2007/10/25/study-finds-us-gay-men-earn-23-less-than-straight-men/
Male co-habiting same-sex couples earn 23% less than married men and 9% less than men who co-habit with a woman, new research released today reveals.
Lesbians are not discriminated against when compared with heterosexual women, the US study found.
The report’s authors conclude that while negative attitudes toward lesbians could affect them, lesbians may benefit from the perception that they are more career-focused and less likely to leave the labour market to raise children than heterosexual women.
According to the study, 18.1 percent of lesbians have children, compared with 49.4 percent of straight women.
“Employers could reasonably infer that a lesbian applicant or current employee will have a stronger attachment to the labour force than will a heterosexual woman,” the authors said.
Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community
http://www.povertylaw.org/news-and-events/woman-view/Poverty%20in%20the%20Lesbian,%20Gay,%20and%20Bisexual%20Community.html
A groundbreaking analysis of the economic realities faced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people reveals the need for data collection that takes sexual orientation into account. The analysis in the recent report released by the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute recommends that policymakers and advocates reexamine policies and procedures which assume that poverty is a problem only among heterosexuals.
The Williams Institute’s analysis shows that poverty is a serious concern for LGB individuals and families:
• A range of characteristics that predict poverty having been accounted for, same-sex couples are significantly more likely to be poor than heterosexual couples.
• In general, lesbian couples have much higher poverty rates than either different-sex couples or gay male couples. Lesbian couples who are 65 or older are twice as likely to be poor as heterosexual married couples.
• Among people 18 to 44, gay/bisexual men and heterosexual men are equally likely to be poor (15 percent versus 13 percent), and lesbian/bisexual women are more likely to be poor than heterosexual women (24 percent versus 19 percent).
• African Americans in same-sex couples and same-sex couples living in rural areas have particularly high poverty rates.
• Children of gay and lesbian partners are twice as likely to be poor as children of heterosexual couples.
• Many more LGB people live in families with very low incomes, defined as 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
• Both gay and lesbian individuals and couples are more likely than married people to receive government cash supports.
Gay and Lesbian Demographics
http://www.urban.org/toolkit/issues/gayresearchfocus.cfm
Lack of a marriage license may cost tens of thousands of dollars—and the loss of a home—when a partner dies.
In more than one in 10 same-sex couples, one partner is 65 years old or older. Census 2000 shows us that 97 percent of U.S. counties have a senior in a same-sex partnership. The greatest numbers of same-sex senior couples live in California, New York, and Florida. Illinois and Arizona also have significant numbers. Prevalence aside, the aging of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community is not particularly golden for many. These couples cannot be recognized as legally married, so a surviving partner loses financial ground. Survivors are denied the Social Security benefits that married couples get, face heavy taxes on any retirement plan, and get charged an estate tax if they inherit a home, even if it was jointly owned.
Same-sex senior couples are more likely to still be making mortgage payments when one dies. Combined with other financial losses, this higher debt burden puts surviving partners at greater risk of losing their home. Even before a partner's death, these seniors risk losing their home when an elderly partner enters a nursing home. Federal Medicaid law permits a married spouse to remain in the couple's home, but not an unmarried partner.
the lgbtiq community is not all white
TWO CULTURES
Ethnic and Cultural Concerns for LGBT Persons
http://www.aglbical.org/2A%20ETHNIC.htm
list of states with anti gay laws
http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/state
= new reply since forum marked as read
