Forced to address whether gay federal employees and spouses are eligible for, among other things, health insurance coverage, President Obama is now in the unenviable position of navigating a political and social minefield: Balancing his commitment to the LGBT community and progressive liberals with his willingness, and need, to appease the conservative Evangelical community.
As it stands now, health benefits are readily available to spouses of federal employees, though as an official for the Office of Personnel Management explains, “spouses,” as stipulated by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, are persons “of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
In accordance with DOMA’s strict interpretation of spouses, gay federal employees are currently denied the opportunity to extend health care benefits to their partners – even if their states recognize them as legally married. This strict definition, they argue, denies gay men and women equal compensation.
The federally institutionalized ‘discriminatory practice’ of denying health coverage to the committed partners ostensibly violates Obama’s socially liberal sensibilities, but President Obama is first a politician looking to get reelected, and second an ally to the LGBT community. Obama understands when it’s politically advantageous to engage in ethnic-, religious-, social-, and regional-based politics, and, perhaps more importantly, when it’s not. The latter being anytime one is actually governing.
In an open letter to the gay community in February of last year, then-Senator Obama promised that he would “never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans,” adding that he was seeking the office of the presidency “to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all - a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters.”
In June of 2007, the Human Rights Campaign submitted their candidate questionnaire to Senators Obama and Hillary Clinton, in which they asked if the two candidates supported an extension of “federal rights, benefits, privileges and responsibility to same-sex couples,” so long as these partnerships met federal standards for commitment and mutuality of interests. Mr. Obama, like Senator Clinton, responded in the affirmative and without additional commentary.
Obama and gay rights groups have not always seen eye-to-eye, however. He previously earned the scorn of gay rights advocates in January with his selection of Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural ceremony. Chastising Obama for his (negligible) olive branch to Evangelicals after a hyper-partisan campaign, HRC President Joe Solmonese characterized Warren’s pick as a “genuine blow to LGBT Americans.”
Can we expect the same anger from gay rights advocacy organizations when President Obama undoubtedly rolls over on them? That remains to be seen as many have earned a reputation as inefectual and too willing to compromise.
If Obama had the political capital his administration claims, social conservatives might have reason to fret (and LGBT Americans a reason to rejoice). They don’t, of course, but even if that were the case, Obama has proved himself to be nothing more than a craven political opportunist who has exhibited no misgivings in betraying his “principles” and “allies.”
An HRC spokesman did not respond to an immediate request for comment on this story.
So now it is a "strict interpretation" to think that words mean exactly what the, well...mean?? NT
USNJIMRET Friday, March 13th at 1:11PM EDT (link)In today's current political climate
James Richardson Friday, March 13th at 1:15PM EDT (link)I think yes, that definition of spouse is pretty strict. Especially with the visibility gays and lesbian couples have achieved in California, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
But like I said, Obama will not move forward with offering health care to their spouses. He only wanted their votes, not their input in governance.
http://www.skepticians.com
So now it is a "strict interpretation" to think that words mean exactly what the, well...mean?? NT
USNJIMRET Friday, March 13th at 1:11PM EDT (link)Good Battle For Our Side
DavidSage Friday, March 13th at 3:07PM EDT (link)There’s a large part of the electorate that tacitly supports gay marriage simply on the grounds of, “Who cares, it doesn’t effect me”
If this radical new institution is portrayed as actually costing taxpayers billions of dollars through Social Security benefits, public pensions, health care, and other benefits, that will suddenly swing a large group of voters to oppose gay marriage, not just religious/social conservatives.
Opponents of gay marriage should use this as an effective line of attack to argue against same-sex marriage.
dissapointing
omar Friday, March 13th at 3:16PM EDT (link)marriage is under god, employment and healthcare benefits are not. god is not our government and to deny people the same rights because of who they are is an insult to the tenets of this country. don’t worry, you’ll never see a gay person in your church, that’s absurd. If it’ll make you happy, call it a civil union, call it whatever you want just award them the same rights and benefits we all enjoy.
and btw, because this is what it usually comes down to. it’s not a choice.
omar: what if it were two siblings who wanted to get married? [nt]
Martin Knight Friday, March 13th at 3:24PM EDT (link)To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”
Not An Argument They Want
DavidSage Friday, March 13th at 3:36PM EDT (link)Recognizing gay marriage really does open a Pandora’s box.
If you’re going to change the definition of marriage to include two people of the same sex, why stop there.? What about more than two people. Why doesn’t the state recognize polygamy. Don’t people who choose that lifestyle also have the right to be recognized? People may scoff at that line of reasoning, but I really don’t know how you can say yes to one, and no to the other if you’re arguing under the banner of “civil rights.”
Gay marriage also opens up the government and corporations to rampant fraud in our system. You will see all sorts of people say they’re a gay married couple in order to collect benefits. That in of itself should be brought up more often. Marriage will become meaningless in this country.
Proponents of gay marriage want to keep this on the battlefield of, “The church doesn’t get to choose my lifestyle,” If the argument is instead, “This new institution will radically change the fabric of society” it becomes much harder for to convince people to support gay marriage.
fraud?
omar Friday, March 13th at 3:41PM EDT (link)see… and this comes down to a fundamental difference, you still think it’s a choice.
so… a man and a women couldn’t possibly be committing fraud but two men… absolutely. please.
*sigh*
omar Friday, March 13th at 3:38PM EDT (link)wow… you made a terrible argument.
What if it was a brother/sister? I bet I could find a church to authorize it and every anti-gay marriage law would be a-ok with it. and they’d probably get their benefits. This is so far off I can’t believe I’m responding to it.
In 1990, "gay marriage" was considered unthinkable as well.
Martin Knight Friday, March 13th at 4:59PM EDT (link)Now it’s the cause celebre of Hollywood and the bulk of the majority Party of the United States. What was once considered outlandish is now increasingly becoming the view of the elites, a sign of “sophistication”.
The simple fact of the matter is that once any two people of any sex can be issued a marriage license, then there is really no viable argument against allowing people who want a polyamorous arrangement to be similarly issued a license, or two siblings who wish the same.
And since you Lefties call marriage to whomever one wants a “right”, you’ve divorced it from numbers. So even if only *one* sibling pair or group of people come forward, they’d have just as much of a “right”.
Anyway, to quote you people on the Left; how does allowing Mark, Mindy, Michael, Moira and Morris all to get married affect *your* marriage? How about brothers John and James?
Gay marriage proponents do not believe children have anything to do with marriage so opposing Greg and Gretchen (brother and sister) on that basis wouldn’t scan.
Greg and Gary (brothers) or Gretel and Gretchen (sisters) wouldn’t have that problem so denying them a license on that basis doesn’t make sense - and once two same-sex siblings are allowed a license, two opposite-sex siblings must also be granted one.
Which brings us to the benefits issue. If Morris worked for the State Department, would it not be discriminatory if he is only allowed to designate one of his “partners” as a beneficiary or should he be allowed to extend his benefits to all four of them?
To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”
omar, provide the genetic marker for homosexuality......nt
Attack Mode Friday, March 13th at 3:26PM EDT (link)“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
do you have any gay friends?
omar Friday, March 13th at 3:33PM EDT (link)Have you ever had any sort of extended interaction with gay/lesbian people?
yes I do Omar...
Attack Mode Friday, March 13th at 3:40PM EDT (link)in fact I have 2 lesbian friends who are committed to each other in a relationship and have a boy together.
Now that I have provided my bona fides on homosexuality can you provide the genetic marker for homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter?
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
ok, this is good
omar Friday, March 13th at 3:43PM EDT (link)Have you ever talked to them about what would happen to their child if something happened to one of them?
And, I’m sorry I’m not a geneticist and can’t provide a marker for you but I’d have to ask if you really think those two could be anything other than who they are without lieing to themselves and others.
yes and yes omar...
Attack Mode Friday, March 13th at 3:56PM EDT (link)I have talked to them, they are smart individuals, they have covered their bases, the non-blood mother has adopted the boy. They have taken every precaution available to them and they are happy.
I am glad you can admit you are not a geneticist, with that in mind how can you claim fact either way on whether or not it is a choice?
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
you think that's fair/ok?
omar Friday, March 13th at 4:08PM EDT (link)They have to jump through crazy hoops to get somewhere close to the benefits of everyone else.
And I’m sorry I don’t have proof that it’s not a choice, but I could compare this to many mental health conditions. You wouldn’t deny those people have a condition that wasn’t their choice but we hardly have genetic markers.
I can say that I’ve read an unrelated study on sexual stimulation that found that gay men simply weren’t physically aroused by women. Sorry, I don’t have a link so since this is an “away game” for me you can just ignore it.
Although I am honestly stunned to hear you say you think they’d be just as happy in a heterosexual relationship. Every single gay person I have ever met could not possibly be mistaken for anything else and they knew they were gay from the get go.
Omar, homosexuals are not a monolithic group...
Attack Mode Friday, March 13th at 4:54PM EDT (link)So are you saying that every gay person you have met were flamboyantly gay, and they knew it from there first memories.
If that is the case you should expand you group a bit. And quit looking at groups, they are individuals.
As far as my friends, I think they are normal…they could be with guys or girls, and I think they would still be normal happy people.
Look, I don’t agree with the behavior and I don’t think the federal govt should encourage it through marriage, that being said I also don’t think the govt should be involved in heterosexual marriage either.
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
yah know... unfortunately
omar Friday, March 13th at 5:31PM EDT (link)this comes down to the last sentence I said in my first post. And it’s why I said it there because I’m no fool, I know how these things just blow up out of proportion. Fundamentally it’s a question of whether or not it’s a choice. This is almost something that can’t be debated. This is a fundamental belief difference that can’t be reconciled.
But! never fear, I love a debate. For the choice thing, it happens constantly across many species in nature (outside of captivity as well). Very well documented. So, I guess, what’s going on with those animals? I don’t think we’re going to attribute them sufficient mental capacity to be making that kind of choice consciously.
It does not come down to whether "its" a choice
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, March 13th at 5:38PM EDT (link)It matters what it is.
Humans are born with many and varied “orientations”. The substance of the orientation matters. That someone has any old orientation doesn’t entitle them to have society make satisfaction of same a “right.”
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
orientation?
omar Friday, March 13th at 5:57PM EDT (link)I’m kinda lost on what you’re trying to say. And I think you agreed with me, without agreeing. Perhaps you can clarify. It does matter what “it” is. Is it an “orientation” or who they fundamentally are as a person? Because last I checked, this isn’t a matter of what your preference is in your mate’s hair color. There are two options, and the question is whether these options are a choice or the fundamental nature of the person.
pure semantics - many laws now prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, March 13th at 6:52PM EDT (link)Yet, faced with my refutation of “orientation” as a sine qua non demanding conferance of rights based upon same, you re-define the issue as “who they are fundamentally as a person.”
I don’t see a useful, readily available dichotomy between the two supposed opposites that would support your position, but would say that the equipment one finds between their legs is pretty damn fundamental and it is that fact and a few more that make life and civilization possible.
One of the most fundamental tests of IQ and to rule out mental retardation begins with whether one tries to to fit round pegs into square holes. Get it?
Yes, one chooses whether to act on one’s orientations, whether it be to engage in heterosexual promiscuity; adultery; consumption of alcohol; good works; theft; pedophilia; bestiality or eating twinkies.
But one is first and foremost, fundamentally a man or a woman regardless of what they are oriented to do, and when an orientation is fundamentally anathema to the survival of the species, it has a huge hurdle to clear to claim equivalence in the demand for rights with the orientations that make life possible.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
A+ job
omar Saturday, March 14th at 1:31AM EDT (link)At painting all homosexuals as either retarded, or in some way significantly immoral or wrong and apparently a detriment to the survival of our species.
To bring it to talking points, it seems to me that your glazing over “It’s adam and eve not adam and steve.” Which is the exact debate I DON’T want to get into. These are personal beliefs, I’m not here to debate things like that and why, when I made my very first post I said it would come down to this issue and have re-iterated this over and over.
still waiting on the sibling marriage defense - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine Saturday, March 14th at 10:01AM EDT (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
There's no such thing as a "gay animal" though ...
Martin Knight Friday, March 13th at 5:46PM EDT (link)I mean, headlines celebrating such supposed discoveries have been seen now and again but upon closer inspection (when you read past the headlines), the so-called “gay” X (whatever the animal is) responds to a female X in heat the same as every other male X. A true naturally “gay animal” would be completely unaffected, I would think.
There was something I read a while back that documented one gay scientist’s desperation to demonstrate that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality (by finding it in animals) that he pumped tons of female hormones into male test subjects and recorded their subsequent behavior as evidence.
Last I checked, gay men have not been discovered to have more of a female body chemistry than straight men.
To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”
well...
omar Saturday, March 14th at 1:10AM EDT (link)last i checked you might be wrong on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
or at least wikipedia would whole hardily disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
and national geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
and that’s just a lazy mans cursory googling.
Now, since I’ve brought this line of debate up, I’ll help end it. Connecting animal behavior to humans is somewhat flawed as they are animals and we aren’t. And, like you said there is a question of whether it’s a permanent choice for that animal or just a fleeting impulse. but, that is also a little troubled argument as most animals don’t mate for life like we do. What can be said of the occurrences is that there is a tremendous number of them across hundreds if not thousands of species and that’s only the documented cases. So, what’s going on then? Something is there and to disregard it as nothing is as disingenuous as claiming complete correlation.
The idea of civilization is to resist acting like animals, who react
Mike gamecock DeVine Saturday, March 14th at 1:19AM EDT (link)to instinct.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
You're a fan of the SEC
AKSteveB Saturday, March 14th at 1:29AM EDT (link)and you still this?
Hell is other people - Sartre
I'm a Gamecock fan and in other games, a fan of whoever
Mike gamecock DeVine Saturday, March 14th at 9:31AM EDT (link)is closest to Spartanburg!
Weakness of SEC could keep a 20-win (10 in conference) out for first time since expanded to 64 teams. See USC
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Go Gamecocks and whoever is playing Clemson... nt
olsmithie Saturday, March 14th at 10:51AM EDT (link)omar: We're talking about definitions here ...
Martin Knight Saturday, March 14th at 6:29AM EDT (link)I didn’t say no animals display “homosexual behavior.” Heck, we already know what goes on in prisons between supposedly straight humans.
To me, a homosexual animal would be one that has no interest whatsoever in mating with the opposite sex, even with the presence of “inducements”. i.e. if a so-called “gay dog” reacts to a female in heat the same as other “straight” dogs, then he is not “gay.”
Just read your own links.
To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”
"Born With It"
DavidSage Friday, March 13th at 4:07PM EDT (link)I have a friend that worked in a correctional facility ie “prison”, and he said “straight” men there would have consensual gay relationships with other male inmates, and once they got out of prison, they would go back to their families and never again have homosexual relations again once leaving prison.
Now you can either argue that these inmates were coincidentally born homosexuals, and prison brought out that genetic trait to fruition, or you can say that these men were instead choosing to engage in these types of relationships, even though they never had any inclinations towards homosexuality before.
Another example is pedophilia. Relax, I’m not saying the two have moral equivalence in any way. What I am saying is, some adults have a predilection for having sexual relationships with children. I don’t believe for a second this trait is within an individuals genetic code, but if it were determined to be genetic, that certainly doesn’t mean our laws have to bestow these individuals with new rights.
prison
omar Friday, March 13th at 4:10PM EDT (link)I would say they’re straight and had gay sex. You can have all the gay sex you want, it won’t make you gay and a gay man can have all the straight sex he wants and it won’t make him straight.
Oh, and for the pedophilia, the difference is that the rights gay people ask for are rights already awarded to everyone else. They aren’t asking for exceptions, they’re asking for equality. They aren’t NEW rights, they’re the same old ones everyone else has.
They Are "New Rights"
DavidSage Friday, March 13th at 4:18PM EDT (link)Gay people aren’t barred from getting married. They can legally get married just like everyone else, but they have to “marry” someone of the opposite sex in order for it to be recognized as a valid marriage by our laws. In the same way, a polygamist is also allowed to “marry” but only to one person of the opposite sex at a time.
Gay marriage is about changing the current definition of marriage, it is a “new right.” Gay marriage has never been recognized in the history of civilization., nothing was ever taken away from this group of people.
This doesn't make sense.
Martin Knight Friday, March 13th at 5:14PM EDT (link)So let’s say a man tells you he’s gay, but he only has sex with women - doesn’t that defeat the definition of “homo{same}sexual”?
And up the thread, you referenced a study that supposedly discovered that gay men are by and large simply unaroused by women, and yet here you are saying that “a gay man can have all the straight sex he wants and it won’t make him straight.”
So how did he get aroused enough to do it in the first place? Shouldn’t the mere touch of the woman have turned him off?
To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”
the difference here is Aaron and omar see friends differently.
pilgrim Friday, March 13th at 4:21PM EDT (link)Let’s say there is a roomful of friends. Aaron sees Mary and Molly, Levi, Pedro, Willie, and Nguyen. omar sees two lesbians, a jew, a latino, a black, and an oriental.
It seems like a pointless question if any of his friends are gay. Aaron sees each friend as an individual, and does not ascribe any victimhood by way of assigning them to a particular group.
It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man.Calvin Coolidge
seriously?
omar Friday, March 13th at 4:29PM EDT (link)You’re implying I’m some sort of a racist. I don’t see my friends in groups, I see a group of people I think are being victimized and see that my friends are suffering as a result. I don’t even know what you’re getting at, I’m certain that if Aaron had a black friend in the days of segregation he’d be defending him as well. And then what? Common, I’m sorry this got personal but seriously?
Still avoiding the sibling question, I see. Can't quite deal with it
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, March 13th at 5:18PM EDT (link)and your stated “deny people the same rights because of who they are” criteria, can you?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
i'm not avoiding anything
omar Saturday, March 14th at 1:21AM EDT (link)I don’t have all day to be the lone contrary voice I can’t respond to everything. And i did respond to it a little bit. but since you seem to think it’s a valid argument I’ll expand.
The sibling question, unfortunately is an absurd extension and you know it. It doesn’t even relate like I said many times, it’s about whether you consider sexual orientation a choice or not, a brother/sister desiring to get married is a choice to engage in incest.
I've seen too many absurdities become reality in recent years.
Martin Knight Saturday, March 14th at 7:00AM EDT (link)I’m asking a very good question; given Goodridge, if a brother and sister move to Massachusetts and apply for a marriage license, and it gets to the MA Supreme Court, the ruling that will uphold the denial would be the very definition of illogic.
And, by the way, it really doesn’t matter if sexual orientation is a choice or not in the grand scheme of things. “Biology is not destiny” after all, eh?
To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”
Nope ...
Martin Knight Friday, March 13th at 5:18PM EDT (link)He’s implying that you are a liberal, and suffer from the unfortunate malady of not being able to see people as individuals but as part of groups of different levels of victimhood.
To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”
thank you MAK for understanding my post. nt
pilgrim Friday, March 13th at 5:42PM EDT (link).
It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man.Calvin Coolidge
Are white males a victim of anything for which the government should intervene
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, March 13th at 5:24PM EDT (link)at relieve their suffering?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Are white males a victim of anything for which the government should intervene
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, March 13th at 5:24PM EDT (link)at relieve their suffering?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
clock still ticking on sibling issue - are they fundamentally
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, March 13th at 6:54PM EDT (link)as a person defined by their desire for sex with their sisters and brothers?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
The strongest argument I see in any of O's posts
olsmithie Saturday, March 14th at 11:13AM EDT (link)is “because I think so.”
Perhaps a two weeker will have to establish a bit more credibility for his/her unsubstantiated opinion to be accepted as a basis for making a case.
Regards
You lost the argument right here (nt)
Neil Stevens Monday, March 30th at 9:37PM EDT (link)Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
Where can the line be drawn?
Common_Cents Friday, March 13th at 4:39PM EDT (link)Once you have same sex marriage on equal basis w/ hetero where do you draw the line?
How could you deny any two people whether they are siblings, friends, coworkers or two strangers sharing benefits.
Will the line be whether or not the two are having sexual relations? LOL. Talk about a big monkey wrench in the works.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.” Napoleon - Well, unless he is ruining your country! Common Cents
A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.[1] Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.
Tired Arguments
Christopher Underwood Friday, March 13th at 5:46PM EDT (link)Do any of you know how many companies/institutions offer benefits to the same-sex partners handle their programs? There are pretty strict requirements. In many cases you must be able to prove that you have lived in the same residence for at least 1 year, your finances must be combined, etc etc. See here (http://www.indiana.edu/~uhrs/dp/dp.html), here (http://www.drury.edu/hr/pdf/DomesticPartnerBenefitsPolicy.pdf), or here (http://www.usnh.edu/hr/pdf/2006/DPpacket2007-3.pdf) for examples. Since this thread is NOT about gay marriage/union/legal partnerships I’m just going to skip that issue.
One compelling fact is that many top rated companies offer these benefits, (examples: Microsoft, Yahoo, AT&T, Boeing, Coke, Dell, Southwest Airlines, and many many more). Since government employees typically make much less than their private counterparts we shouldn’t be chasing away good people from public positions. Since salaries are lower the government shouldn’t discourage good candidates from applying because of unequal benefit situations.
I would also like to point out that the legal spouses of government employees do not have a right to their spouse’s insurance and other benefits provided at taxpayer expense. So when you say the added costs should work to provide cover for denying the benefits I find it illogical. You could save TONS of money if the families of government employees weren’t allowed to utilize their spouse’s insurance plan. (Just for the record, that argument is also quite illogical).
Good points, Christopher
modgopgal Saturday, March 14th at 1:57AM EDT (link)You said it much better than I.
Heard all this before too ...
Martin Knight Saturday, March 14th at 6:10AM EDT (link)What makes your argument any less tired and worn out …?
To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”
Federal employees should be treated equally
modgopgal Saturday, March 14th at 1:31AM EDT (link)Regardless how one feels about gays and lesbians, it seems that conservatives would either support federal government health benefits for ALL federal employees and their spouses or take a position that says “no benefits to ANY federal employees’ spouses.” It seems illogical and unequal to provide benefits for some but not other federal employees based simply on their sexual orientation. And, of course, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. Should benefits be denied to federal employees’ spouses who are in a legally-recognized gay marriage in Massachusetts?
As I have stated in previous posts, I am a moderate Republican who is fine with gay marriage. Perhaps it is a generational thing. I’m 23 and I don’t know any young people, including other young Republicans, who spend any time worrying about gay and lesbian marriage. It is a non-issue to us. We are OK with it. I even attended a lovely wedding in Massachusetts of two of my gay friends who seem to be much more committed to each other than many heterosexual couples I know. It seems younger Republicans, at least from my experience, are much more concerned about economic issues and foreign policy than the gay marriage issue.
Again, another failure in thinking things through.
Martin Knight Saturday, March 14th at 6:07AM EDT (link)Since you seem to know absolutely nothing but Leftist cant about conservatism, why don’t you try figuring it out first before lecturing us on what conservatives should support?
Federal law and Massachusetts law are two different things - much like Utah law and New York law. A “spouse” per current Federal law can only be a person of opposite sex.
PS: Considering the fact that liberal Democrats (like you) have made supporting gay marriage a badge of identity, you guys contribute to their campaigns, attend rallies, take kids to their parades, etc. who actually worries more about gay marriage?
And second, we live in the same society; we have every right to protest when one of its most important pillars is being attacked by a bunch of people who can’t see beyond their own navels.
To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
- Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”