So, the Journal of Financial Planning is now out of the closet? Since it's safe now to speak out in the open about people who choose an unhealthy & repulsive lifestyle, I wonder if authors Joseph Kapp & Nicholas Burkholder have some experience working with relationships involving men & animals, or how about special considerations of incest involving a man who wants to marry his two daughters? Since when did editor Lance Ritchlin determine on behalf of the entire membership that it's important to discuss issues about a group of people who define themselves based on their choice of sexual practices in their bedroom? I am so embarrassed to be a part of a profession that now openly talks about treating such repugnant lifestyles as somewhat NORMAL & ACCEPTABLE and how to help them advance their lives. Yuck is a four letter word that best describes the current issue of the FPA journal. There is nothing wrong with working with such people, but to discuss it openly is to help to normalize and make such behavior acceptable. The concept/behavior of same sex relationships needs to be kept in the closet and behind closed doors.

David Ondo, La Mirada, California

Wow, what year is this?  Oh, wait a minute, I'm using the Internet, it can't be 1952.  The closed mindedness is shocking.  Let me reframe the issue for you, David.  The issue is how can two consenting adults who love one another and have committed to spending their lives together manage their financial affairs in a world with laws created for opposite sex relationships.  They are not defined by their sexual behavior, but by the fact that their life partner is of the same gender.  I don't care what they do sexually.  I'm sure many of the sexual practices of heterosexuals would be considered "yuck" by many.  But it doesn't define them or their relationship any more than the sexual practices of homosexuals defines them.

Here is the reality.  We are no longer a society where financial planning only applies to married couples with kids.  The family structure has become more complicated.  This includes 2nd, 3rd and later marraiges (which, by the way, some may find immoral), lifelong bachelors/bachelorettes, and yes, same gender relationships.  If, as an industry, we ignored any of those groups, we are doing a disservice to our profession and our communities.

By the way, I'm not gay.  I just call out bigotry when I see it.

As FPA director of publications and editor of the Journal, I oversee a process by which content decisions are made with broad input.  Staff members examine each submission with numerous criteria in mind, including likely relevance to the profession. The best submissions then advance to a panel composed of members of our review board.  These individuals are working professionals in the financial planning community.  The process is designed to ensure that Journal content provides the techniques, tools and trends that will help practitioners strengthen their delivery of financial planning services. 

Through this process, members of the financial planning community decided that this article provided important information to help planners serve a growing niche market, a market in which a growing number of practices specialize.  Because personal beliefs and tastes vary, occasional controversy is inevitable.  We do not strive for controversy, nor do we apologize for it.  Our mission is not to referee social issues.  Our focus remains providing the information that the entire financial planning profession needs to serve the entire public.

I must say that I'm a little embarrassed to be part of a profession that contains such bigotry! Regardless of how some may feel, there are planners that serve same-sex couples, and discussing these planning issues are helpful to those planners. Personally, I think those pricey variable annuity contracts with all the added guaranteed minimum extra fee riders are *yuck*, but I don't fault the JFP for discussing them.