Tammy Bruce: Suze Orman Knows Money, But Not Men

Suze Orman Knows Money, But Not Men

And just when you thought the celebrity news couldn't get any more personal or surprising. Boy, were we wrong. For some reason, Suze Orman, the world famous money guru, not only announced herself a lesbian to a New York Times Magazine reporter (that I can understand if one is asked and does not want to lie), but then went even further. She noted she's never, ever been with a man, and then labeled herself a 55-year-old virgin. I've been hesitant to blog about this only because I'm probably the last person who should comment on an adult's sexual admissions. But I do know some of you may want to chime in, so here goes.

First, I have a brief Suze Orman encounter story. I had always heard rumors about her, and my gaydar was always off the chart with her, but I never really thought about. Then, in 2003 when my book, "The Death of Right and Wrong," was published, I was booked (for the first and apparently last time) on "The View." There's an entire story with that, as you can imagine, but it will wait for another time. This was way before the Rosie O'Donnell train wreck.

Suze Orman was booked for the same episode and as I was waiting in the green room she walked into the room with her hand outstretched, introduced herself, and had very nice things to say to me. She then outed herself, by introducing her "partner" to me and my publisher's publicist. When she left the room, the publicist, still in some shock, said, "Well, you learn something every day." Yes, indeed we do.

During all of Orman's public life, she has clearly been discreet about her personal life. She's in a business where talking about sexual preference isn't necessary. My work is a different story. Gay politics intrudes in our lives virtually every day. If my being gay wasn't relevant to my perspective on some issues, I would prefer to lead as discreet a life as Orman has. And while I could argue that the focal point of her work transcends gay politics, one indication of why she may have come out now is revealed in the subject matter she addresses next--the financial cost to her and her partner because they are unable to marry.

In the preview article linked to this story, Orman makes a point about estate taxes:

Orman says they'd like to get married, and both "have millions of dollars in our name. It's killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa."

Now, I'm not sure if it was arranged ahead of time for her to come out to the NYT, or if the NYT decided it was going to out her, but it will be interesting to see how people react to her admission. Since you're reading this blog, you're probably a group that will have the same opinion of her you did before this. It will be interesting to see how Americans in general respond, and what tack the discussion takes.

Posted by Tammy · February 24, 2007 12:06 AM · Permalink
Celebrity | Money/Capitalism | Relationships | Social Commentary

Comments

I suppose this revelation about Suze will be regarded as news, but my reaction to it is the same as it's always been: so what?

I think I must be the only person who has never considered sexual preference as defining a person's character. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is.

What I don't understand is her statement about having a million dollars in the stock market because if she loses everything she doesn't really care. Hey, I sure the hell would care!

Posted by: ballistic at February 24, 2007 03:02 AM

Two comments:
This is another good argument for some sort of legal civil union arrangement that would, I think, be fine with most folks.
and -
The flip side of homophobia is that any woman who outs herself immediately becomes a thousand times more attractive to men. Is it the perceived challenge? The fantasies we conjure?

Posted by: brutepcm at February 24, 2007 04:39 AM

"It's killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa."

Er, isn't this just an argument for getting rid of estate taxes altogether? They're probably the worst form of "progressive" taxation: they double-tax income that's already been taxed, they're pure class warfare, and as far as I know they actually cost more to collect than they generate in revenue.

Posted by: Dave J at February 24, 2007 08:20 AM

I'm with BRUTE. I think most Americans are agreeable to civil unions already. I don't know that Suze making this revelation and talking about the issue now will change many minds. But she may carry some clout with the legislators and I guess that's where the rubber meets the road.

Posted by: Kimj7157 at February 24, 2007 08:21 AM

I don't think most people will have any different opinion of Suze than before. I've seen her show many times and learned a lot about personal finances from her. She has some very good advice and knows her subject better than most. Even though she has a large following I don't think she will change many minds about the marriage thing. Where ever there is a vote on marriage the traditionalists win easily. The only way that will change is some leftie Judge taking it upon himself to re-write the law. I can see that happening.

Posted by: SteveOk at February 24, 2007 09:42 AM

I think that the toleration of gays has grown in our society. There are still people out there who cannot get passed it, but for the most part I don't think people really care.
When Ellen came out years ago, many in my circle had the feeling that it was about time. It did not come as a shock.
When Rosie came out, I don't think most people had the reaction of, "so what?"
My feeling is that just because someone comes out of the closet, doesn't mean that people are going to run in the opposite direction. Look at Ellen and her talk show. It is on during the day, attracts a fair amount of viewers, and she's even won a couple Emmys for that show.
Alternatively, I don't think that when someone who is in the public eye comes out, that it means that those of us in the gay community have to open our arms and start thinking more positively about that person. (Frankly, I can't stand Rosie)
The idea of civil unions or gay marriage at some point might happen in all of the states. However, it is a state issue. So, unless this woman has a ton of followers in every state house, I don't see a change in the length of time that will take to be accomplished by Suze outing herself.

Posted by: ltlme at February 24, 2007 12:11 PM

You must forgive me for not caring that Suzy's gay. She's a great teacher of finance.

I'm with Dave J. Drop the estate taxes all together. Civil unions--fine.

The story I want to hear about now is Tammy on "The View".

Posted by: kate at February 24, 2007 03:14 PM

While it won’t be a big deal to most tolerant Americans, I think Orman's coming out is a positive step towards increasing acceptance for gay people. Tammy alluded to the fact in The New Thought Police (pp. 82-85 in the paperback version) that when celebrities who are loved by both coasts and Middle America come out, it humanizes homosexuality. As a professional woman who has given advice to millions of people, Suze Orman presents a much more attractive picture of a lesbian than does a woman with a shaved head and face piercings at the gay pride parade (or Rosie O’Donnel for that matter).

Although the gay establishment criticizes Tammy Bruce and despises Mary Cheney, I contend that these two women have done more to warm the hearts of Middle America towards people they may not understand than any officer of GLAAD or the HRC has. They engage with conservatives (because they are themselves conservatives) personally and professionally every day, forcing anyone they encounter to observe their great intelligence, worth, decency, and morality. Perhaps now Suze Orman (though she encounters conservatives and traditionalists in the business and consumer world rather than the political one) can be a part of that growing acceptance.

As for her being a 55-year-old virgin, if she has always identified as a lesbian, then why would she have ever been with a man? There are lots of lesbians who’ve never been with men, just like there are lots of gay men who’ve never been with women, and, therefore, are technically “virgins”. I guess she was comfortable enough to joke about it with the interviewer. [BTW: Isn’t there a term for that in the gay community? “Gold Star” or something ;) ]

Posted by: ashleymatt at February 24, 2007 03:51 PM

So, as described here, Orman isn't a gay activist, she's just a tax protestor. Her private life is her own business, but she doesn't want to surrender her hard-earned money, on which she's already paid plenty of taxes, to the government. This circumstantially squishes over into the realm of marriage and marriage-equivalent. Her problem is a reasonable one and deserving of a political solution, and it's the same problem any unmarried person with assets faces. But let's keep in mind that the institution of marriage was not created for tax benefits.

Posted by: Talkin Horse at February 24, 2007 04:41 PM

OK, for discussion sake...

Why is it important for one to identify their sexuality regardless of the "marriage" question posed by the interview? Afterall, I don't go into details of my heterosexuality when I'm asked of my marriage status. I don't understand the necessity. Its not the lifestyle but I would really much rather not know the details of what goes on in a person's bedroom.

I understand Tammy's reason for discussing orientation because of her politics. I agree with Tammy's perspective on that.

Posted by: kate at February 24, 2007 04:54 PM

I didn't know Suze was gay until you mentioned it on your show yesterday. It's always a bit of a shocker to me to hear that someone is gay. I adjust eventually, but at first I'm a bit taken aback.

I had no such clue that Suze was a lesbian. I suppose the "fabulous" clothing she's worn during her TV shows should've been a sign. I took her for an eccentric. I thought I remembered her saying that she tried marriage once and it didn't work out. Indeed, she's discreet about her personal life. I was under the impression that she was just living single.

Posted by: piboulder at February 24, 2007 11:04 PM

Durable Power of Attorney should take care of the estate problem. I'm surprised that Suze doesn't know that.

Posted by: robert108 at February 25, 2007 09:18 AM

I would like Tammy to say more on the "View" too.

Posted by: BLew at February 25, 2007 12:48 PM

Robert108, are you a CPA or a tax lawyer? Because I was pretty sure the degree to which a durable power of attorney is actually binding on third parties (like, e.g., tax collectors) varied considerably from one state to another.

Posted by: Dave J at February 25, 2007 03:42 PM

Burn the Witch! Burn her I say!!!

*ahem* um... sorry... nervous tic, that.

I'm with the commenters above: it's more of an argument for eliminating the estate tax altogether. Why should somebody who has never married not be able to pass his property to anyone he likes without half of it going to the government?

Posted by: Stephen R. at February 26, 2007 07:27 AM

Hi Tammy! I've been reading your blog for a while and really enjoy it. This is my first comment here, though, and it's only because . . . well . . . I'm a sailor, and sailors notice things like this, I guess.

I think, in the following sentence, the word you wanted was tack, not tact:

"It will be interesting to see how Americans in general respond, and what tact the discussion takes."

Sailboats can sail directly into the wind, so they have to tack, taking a zig-zig course upwind. Each tack turns the bow of the boat through the eye of the wind, allowing the wind to fill the sails as they angle into the wind on the opposite tack. Sailors choose where and when to tack to gain the most advantage allowed by the conditions and their sails. So, when people say, "he took a different tack", they mean he chose a different course, or angle.

"Tact" just doesn't cut it to my ear, unless you meant that the discussion might or might not be polite . . .

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Tact is a careful consideration of the feelings and values of another so as to create harmonious relationships with a reduced potential for conflict or offense.

Bet you didn't expect this tack!

Thanks for allowing me to get this off my sea chest.

[Hi there and welcome to the blog. I think this is one of those times when the word process software fills in the word thinking it knows where you're going, and spell-check, of course, doesn't know your intent. That said, I'll be making that change :) Thanks again--ed.]

Posted by: WebDiva at February 26, 2007 08:45 PM

I have been a fan of Suze Orman for many, many years. In fact, I credit her with helping me achieve financial freedom. I never gave her sexual preferences a second thought. She always flirted with the male callers and created a sexual tension between she and her email co-host Jeff, on her CNBC shows. I did however, used to find it odd that whenever a woman called in to discuss her male partner's flagrant credit stories, Suze ALWAYS recommended dumping the guy, divorcing the guy or just plain getting rid of him. Suze never once suggested the two work it out and solve the financial problem together.
I also used to find it odd that she would advice women to think of themselves first and forget their children.

For example: forget the college tuition and worry about socking money away for your own retirement.
Now, since Suze outed herself, it all makes perfect sense. If I had known this information beforehand, I would have handled her advice a bit differently. I had my own children endure painful and costly student loans all in the sake of my own retirement. Suze doesn't have children so how could she understand a mother's enduring love? Suze has different problems in her partnership than a husband and wife does.
I wish her much luck in the future. I just wish she could have been more honest 10 years ago when I started following her advice. I may not have cast off a relationship so easily.

Posted by: cindee at February 28, 2007 02:10 PM

To Cindee:

Suze Orman is not consistent with all of her advice. She applies some rules of thumb, but she's willing to take some situations on a case-by-case basis. For example, she tells everyone to not borrow money from their 401K plans, or cash them out. Yet, I have seen with a few rare callers that she'll recommend borrowing from their 401K when in her judgement it's the best option they have, bad as it is. I think she does a cost-benefit analysis of people's situations. If all other decisions would be worse, she'll recommend something she usually recommends against, because it's the least bad option.

As far as her view on relationships, she is a big believer in financial honesty. If she sees that a couple is trying to work things out, she's not going to say "break up with him/her". However, if the effort has been made by one, and the other doesn't want to cooperate, then she recommends getting out of the relationship. She sees financial honesty as fundamental to a committed relationship. If a partner is being financially dishonest, they're being dishonest about the whole relationship, and that can only lead to trouble.

You have to understand she has given financial advice to thousands of people. So she's heard all of the stories, and I'm sure she's seen plenty of people get themselves into financial and legal trouble. Often she can detect a problem coming from a mile away. The person on the phone doesn't even have to explain the whole thing. She can figure it out long before then. So she doesn't have to hear much before coming to a conclusion, in most situations.

When she tells parents to take care of themselves, rather than giving a lot of money to their children, she sees that parents are sacrificing too much of themselves for their children, and she doesn't think that's right. She sees the children as young, with a lot more energy than you have. They have their whole life in front of them. They can afford to struggle or make mistakes, because they have time on their side. Parents in their 50s don't have such luxuries. If they spend all their savings on their kids, they're going to be in deep trouble going into retirement. So on those occasions she tells parents to think more of themselves, and let their children take care of themselves. I think if she saw a situation where the children were in dire straights, due to something misfortunate, then she'd say "support them", but if she hears that they're capable, then she goes the other way. I think what she doesn't want to see is the children not thinking enough of themselves to support themselves, and meanwhile the parents are spending themselves into homelessness. That doesn't help anybody.

I've seen her go the other way when the shoe is on the other foot. She's taken callers where the children are financially supporting irresponsible parents. She advocates for the children to tell their parents they love them, but that it's not right that they're constantly demanding that they support them. They (the children) need to support themselves and save for their own retirement.

Posted by: piboulder at March 2, 2007 11:49 PM

By Category

By Month

Suze Orman Knows Money, But Not Men

Comments

Post a comment