New Rasmussen poll in NC shows Obama’s same-sex marriage bounce

posted at 10:01 am on May 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Eight days ago, North Carolina voters added the previously existing statutory language defining marriage as between one man and one woman to their state constitution.  The very next day, Barack Obama — who won North Carolina by 0.3% in 2008 — endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage.  A new Rasmussen poll shows the predictable consequences, which will likely end North Carolina’s status as a battleground state this cycle:

Mitt Romney has moved out to an eight-point lead over President Obama in North Carolina after the two men were virtually tied a month ago.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Tar Heel State shows the putative Republican nominee earning 51% of the vote to Obama’s 43%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

That’s a big change from last month when Romney posted a narrow 46% to 44% lead over the president in Rasmussen Reports’ first survey of the race in North Carolina.  Democrats have signaled North Carolina’s importance as a key swing state by deciding to hold their national convention in Charlotte this summer.

Yes, that decision is certainly turning out well for Democrats in and out of the state, isn’t it?

Let’s take a look at the numbers inside the poll.  The D/R/I is pretty even at 36/35/30, probably a good electoral model; in 2008 it was 42/31/27, but obviously the turnout model is going to look different this time around.  Independents break narrowly for Romney, 49/45, but Romney also gets 18% of Democrats while losing only 6% of Republicans.  That 18% of Democrats looks awfully close to the 20.3% that voted “no preference” in last week’s primary rather than cast a vote for Obama, too, for a little independent corroboration of that number.

Romney leads among men 50/44, but does even better among women, 53/41.  That will send a shiver up spines at Team Obama.  Rasmussen uses three age demos, and Obama wins the youngest, but only 50/39, another red flag.  Romney wins wide majorities in the other two, including a whopping 68/30 split among seniors.

Rasmussen didn’t have a favorability question for Obama, but they did test for job approval.  Obama’s underwater at 46/54, slightly better at 49/51 among independents.  Romney’s favorability looks much better at 54/43.  In both cases, there is very little room for change, with almost no one undecided on these questions.  On the economy, 89% rate it fair or poor, with only 10% rating it good; 31% think it’s improving, but 41% think it’s getting worse, while 24% think it’s staying the same.  These are bad numbers for an incumbent President, especially one who just alienated more than 60% of voters the day after they went to the polls.

One more interesting note from the poll: voter-ID laws are remarkably popular, at 80/15.  Two-thirds of black voters support ID checks at the ballot box in North Carolina, a very surprising result given the usual claims that such laws are discriminatory.  Only 26% of likely voters believe that to be true, according to this poll, although black voters split almost equally on that question, 46/44.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

You’re…not very self-aware, are you?

DrAllecon on May 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM

How many Leftists do you know who are? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on May 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM

So is HotAir suggesting you should deny minorities rights if it is politically expedient?

GOP: “Lets bring back slavery if it ensures the South stays red for the next election cycle!!!”

inthemiddle on May 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

This is a fair critique.
And seeing some of the juvenile name calling this issue brings out in the HA community, maybe Ed and Allahpundit are ‘nuanced’ on this issue for a reason.
So instead of going with what they believe…they go with what works.
But one must remember Repubs/Cons didn’t seem to care much about sexual harassment until the Clinton /Paul Jones brouhaha.
Maybe they’re just awaiting a similarly convenient time to step out of the shadows on this issue.
In the meantime, they can just force-smile through through the nasty homophobic bits the run through these threads every time.

verbaluce on May 16, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Can you mooks keep this up to November? All the bile and vitriol. The distorting and flipping. I think the answer may be yes.

But even you echo chamber nutjobs know that unless you can put together two threads in a row that are about how great Romney is (not including ones that say he’s great because he mocked Barry) come the big dance you will be sadder sacks of shinola than you are now.

tommyhawk on May 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Brilliant satire of the unhappy, rigidly groupthinking Left’s psychology!

Remember how many of the ever-sneering Dems felt good about their chances in 2010? 2012 will be a glorious repeat, if not worse.

Surely, you cannot be “Radical Activist” over at the DU, who wrote the following words of wisdom in 2010?

I think Senate losses will likely be balanced by taking Republican seats in MO, OH and KY. Very few house seats will be lost. People make a big mistake by thinking that polls taken 6 months before an election have anything to do with the eventual outcome. That’s why the media kept telling us Hillary was sure to win the Democratic nomination.

Incumbents rarely lose House districts. I predict that less than a dozen House seats will change hands one way or the other. The real change in House seats will come in the 2012 election after redistricting. Then we’ll see big changes.

For mocking that kind of jaw-droppingly clueless moron so perfectly, you, sir, madam, or dearest intersexual person, are an insightful comic GENIUS!!! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on May 16, 2012 at 3:14 PM

As an aside to this, I’ve always wondered why people even SEEK the government’s “blessing” on their marriages?

Marriage is a commitment made before God. As for dealing with the state, why do anything other than draw up some legal contracts such as a power of attorney and a will? Why should one need to agree to be married by the state? File your taxes as INDIVIDUALS.

When DID the state take over marriage in our history? Was this another part of the “progressive” revolution of the early 20th Century?

wildcat72 on May 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM

The rulers-government-state has been involved since before recorded time. Most marriages did involve additional blessings of the diety, but mainly it had to do with making sure that the seed of the man was preserved to the next generation. In European countries, marriage was a business transaction if one were part of the aristocracy, and the religious vows of faithfulness applied to the woman. Men of that class were seldom held accountable by society for their indiscretions. The idea of faithfulness and religious blessing was a product of the middle class (the business class, the minor gentry).

This system protected inheritance and the legitimate children. A bastard was an awful thing to be, notwithstanding William the Conqueror. Also, up until quite late in the 20th Century, tradition kept women at home. There really was no way for most women to support themselves; thus the natural goal to marry, which afforded them their own home and a degree of independence. Most single women would have to live with her parents. My own mother had few choices. She could essentially be a teacher and like a nun, never marry (it was forbidden for women teachers to marry in most school systems—my grandmother had to quit her job as a teacher when she married). And certainly she could have no children and be an acceptable member of good society without a husband.

Also, the idea of romantic marriage is rather new. Even in the late 19th Century, it was a practical arrangement.

Marriage was also a protection for women. In ancient societies, if a man divorced his wife, the wife would be thrust into the world with no means of support since her family would also reject her. And a woman had NO legal right to her own children.

During the settling of the West, it was a rather casual agreement because neither the state nor the church were there. Some people wouldn’t see a preacher for years on end, so marriage was sanctified by the couple themselves.

Bottom line about gay marriage? It simply makes no sense. Marriage has to do with procreation and the security of children. Insofar as “legal” rights are concerned, it’s hard to find the advantage. Before we had children, we paid a marriage penalty in taxes. All other advantages are very simple and easy contracts…and if the relationship didn’t work out, disolving it wouldn’t be the trauma it is now.

Finally, gay marriage is an attack on freedom of conscience. We’ve already seen what happened in Mass with Catholic adoption services. They were forced to close. If a church rents its recreation hall out for wedding receptions, they’d have to rent to gays. If a pastor refused to marry a gay couple, could he be sued?

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Bottom line about gay marriage? It simply makes no sense.
Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 3:35 PM

To you.

“If a pastor refused to marry a gay couple, could he be sued?”

Well that just shows how little you know.

verbaluce on May 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM

So the moral of this thread is as follows: Democrats have nothing to offer America.

That’s what I’m getting from the Dems posting on this thread.

Spliff Menendez on May 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM

When DID the state take over marriage in our history? Was this another part of the “progressive” revolution of the early 20th Century?

wildcat72 on May 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM

.
The State never did “take over” marriage.

It was the Founding Fathers who wanted the State to reflect Christianity, and all of the institutions that the God of the Bible began.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

The rulers-government-state has been involved since before recorded time. Most marriages did involve additional blessings of the diety, but mainly it had to do with making sure that the seed of the man was preserved to the next generation. In European countries, marriage was a business transaction if one were part of the aristocracy, and the religious vows of faithfulness applied to the woman. Men of that class were seldom held accountable by society for their indiscretions. The idea of faithfulness and religious blessing was a product of the middle class (the business class, the minor gentry).

Incorrect. Marriages in ancient Greece were private matters, with no instance of any form of government involvement, as an example of western history. Also, early Christians practiced marriage in private ceremonies, devoid of government interferance (especially since Christianity was outlawed in many areas).

This system protected inheritance and the legitimate children. A bastard was an awful thing to be, notwithstanding William the Conqueror. Also, up until quite late in the 20th Century, tradition kept women at home. There really was no way for most women to support themselves; thus the natural goal to marry, which afforded them their own home and a degree of independence. Most single women would have to live with her parents. My own mother had few choices. She could essentially be a teacher and like a nun, never marry (it was forbidden for women teachers to marry in most school systems—my grandmother had to quit her job as a teacher when she married). And certainly she could have no children and be an acceptable member of good society without a husband.

And this form of tryannic society is acceptable?

Also, the idea of romantic marriage is rather new. Even in the late 19th Century, it was a practical arrangement.

There are plenty of examples of romanic marriage/union across history and culture.

Marriage was also a protection for women. In ancient societies, if a man divorced his wife, the wife would be thrust into the world with no means of support since her family would also reject her. And a woman had NO legal right to her own children.

Not in all ancient societies. For instance, in ancient Rome, the woman would be transferred back to her father.

Bottom line about gay marriage? It simply makes no sense. Marriage has to do with procreation and the security of children. Insofar as “legal” rights are concerned, it’s hard to find the advantage. Before we had children, we paid a marriage penalty in taxes. All other advantages are very simple and easy contracts…and if the relationship didn’t work out, disolving it wouldn’t be the trauma it is now.

So, per the emphasised statement, this means any hetero couple that does not produce children (either through choice or natural events) should be barred from marriage as well?

Finally, gay marriage is an attack on freedom of conscience. We’ve already seen what happened in Mass with Catholic adoption services. They were forced to close. If a church rents its recreation hall out for wedding receptions, they’d have to rent to gays. If a pastor refused to marry a gay couple, could he be sued?

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I agree that those who have consciencious objections should not be punished. At the same time, I don’t agree that those objections should be legislated.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The State never did “take over” marriage.

It was the Founding Fathers who wanted the State to reflect Christianity, and all of the institutions that the God of the Bible began.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I’m sorry, I must’ve missed that part of the US Consitution that said “The United States of America is a Christian nation”.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 4:28 PM

I still can’t get over that these North Carolina voters (and the ones in other states) really didn’t think that he was an incompetent libtard with zilch leadership experience, no real job/life experience, not even at least some military service, and would obviously suck as president, and actually voted for him.

Now, several percentage points worth of voters are turned off by the Gay President thing? They couldn’t figure out before that since he’s a Lib he was obviously lying and all for it?

Incredible.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Well, this is good news, I just hope it is accurate.

Dollayo on May 16, 2012 at 4:45 PM

It was founded under a judeo-christian outlook – and it is a majority christian nation. But it isn’t a theocracy.

Was there some other point you were trying to make?

Zomcon JEM on May 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Grindstone – your takedown of Portia is somewhat silly because you merely present some known exceptions without showing anything really wrong with the post. I especially liked the what if heteros don’t have kids line – very nice!

The fact is that marriage is defined by the union of a woman and man – and yes it was that way primarily because that is the historical way in which human societies have raised their replacements. Now lest you want to look through history and find the few socities managed differently and ignore the overwhelmingly number of those who fit my explanation I will offer my apologies in advance.

The reason the older generations are against gay marriage is because it is not a marriage. It has nothing with being homophobic or whatever name those in its favor want to call us. They see it and say, nope. I really don’t care if it is ever “legalized” or not. I won’t feel you are married if you are “married” gay couple. You are merely a gay couple who have decided to create a official contractual arrangement to deal with their financial matters. Fine. I’ve no problem. Most stats would suggest the gays are doing pretty well financially anyway – I guess they are just greedy wanting more tax cuts! ;-)

Just don’t confuse my antipathy towards that union, nor my refusal to have you or anyone else define what I KNOW a marriage is just because you feel like it.

The demand for acceptance of a practice for which I was willing to be tolerent smacks of a rather intolerent attitude, don’t you think?

And in fact, this seems to be the same thing bubbling up all over the place in different forms and places as the elite try to figure out what they will do when the masses turn on them – the EU, the tax and spend power politician class in DC of both parties, public sector unions, the green zealots, the crony capitalist living off govt rent, the banks who finance the whole thing expecting a payoff in the end.

Same sex marriage has nothing to do with the presidential race. Let the states do what they will and reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of their decisions.

Zomcon JEM on May 16, 2012 at 5:09 PM

But look at the upside…he got a few wealthy gay people to cut some checks for him. That’s what its all about, No?

Tomolena1 on May 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Like one of the posters above, I’m in favor of getting the government out of marriage entirely. We should abolish marriage as a legal concept.

The legal concept of marriage became outdated the day women were entitled to all of the same protections and responsibilities under the law as men.

We already have a custody system in place for dealing with children. Illegitimacy is no longer a legal concern. The only hurdle from a legal standpoint revolves around spousal add-ons such as those found in employer-sponsored health care, but we can work around that.

I didn’t declare my lifelong faithfulness to my wife in front of a magistrate, I did it in church in front of God and my friends and family. I didn’t get married to ensure that a contractual obligation was met, I did it because morally it was the right thing to do. I don’t stay with my wife now even through difficult times because I’m afraid of the legal repercussions, I do it because I love her and I honor my commitments to God and my faith.

Let churches decide if they want to endorse a marriage. Tons of “Christian” churches already reject major parts of the doctrine they supposedly base themselves on, or condone exceptions all over the place.

Personally, I believe homosexual activity is a sin and gay marriage is not marriage at all. But the practitioners of this sin are no more deserving of scorn and no less deserving of love than any other sinner… i.e everyone.

As long as the government doesn’t try to tell me I have to change my beliefs, I don’t give a flying f*k about whether or not someone wants to say they’re married. I think this whole topic needs to get the heck out of electoral politics, and the only way that’s going to happen is if its flushed out of the legal system.

Quantus on May 16, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Incorrect. Marriages in ancient Greece were private matters, with no instance of any form of government involvement, as an example of western history. Also, early Christians practiced marriage in private ceremonies, devoid of government interferance (especially since Christianity was outlawed in many areas).

In ancient Greece marriage was sacrosanct. In some city states, one could hold public office if one were single. The fact that private parties contracted the marriage doesn’t mean the state didn’t enforce that contract. I did not mean to imply that the state licensed marriage, only that it has always had an interest in the marriage. Your example of secret Christian marriages is correct. I did not mean to in any way imply that all circumstances and societies were identical, just that the government has mostly always been involved.

And this form of tryannic society is acceptable?

I don’t think I made a value judgment one way or the other. It’s not acceptable to me in 2012, no; it’s history. Are you judging cultures and ideas and people based on 2012 views and standards? That’s not exactly fair and in fact, it’s a logical fallacy.

There are plenty of examples of romanic marriage/union across history and culture.

Well, of course there are. Paris and Helen (Oh, that’s right. They didn’t get married). I was merely addressing the societal “norm”…did you really think I was saying there were NO instances of romance before 1940 or something? Seriously?

Not in all ancient societies. For instance, in ancient Rome, the woman would be transferred back to her father.

I should have clarified the statement with the qualifier “some”. I was in fact thinking of the gleaners in the Bible.

So, per the emphasised statement, this means any hetero couple that does not produce children (either through choice or natural events) should be barred from marriage as well?

Not at all. Mother and father are biological terms. It takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Traditionally those three entities make up the building block of a society. I know men and women who live together without children or marriage. I know couples who because of tradition go through formal ceremonies at church who have no intention of having children. That’s between them and their God, as are gay relationships. Turning tradition and biology on their heads for no purpose simply makes no sense. The fact is that without one of each sex, there would be no next generation. I’d think a society would have an interest in preserving the unit that produces and nurtures children.

I agree that those who have consciencious objections should not be punished. At the same time, I don’t agree that those objections should be legislated.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 4:27 PM

But there’s no way to protect them, as we’ve seen in Mass. And making “marriage” a “right” means that polygamy should be upheld as a civil right also. Goodness only knows what else must also be held up as a right.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Grindstone – your takedown of Portia is somewhat silly because you merely present some known exceptions without showing anything really wrong with the post.

I was showing these “known exceptions” contradict the “tradition” argument of heterosexual marriage.

I especially liked the what if heteros don’t have kids line – very nice!

Again, a reply to the “marriage is for raising children” argument. Yet to see a response to this, by the way.

The fact is that marriage is defined by the union of a woman and man – and yes it was that way primarily because that is the historical way in which human societies have raised their replacements. Now lest you want to look through history and find the few socities managed differently and ignore the overwhelmingly number of those who fit my explanation I will offer my apologies in advance.

Sure, we can go through history and easily find those “few” societies. I think it will be a very educating experience. For starters, Ming dynasty, China, Fujian province (as well as many other regions of China) pracitced same-sex personal unions (they didn’t use the English word “marriage”, so I suppose you could say this isn’t marriage). Rome had some notable same-sex marriages including emperors. Really, the data is there if you look for it.
Also, I think if you look a bit deeper, historically marriages are more about personal unions than procreation. Raising of children is entirely subjective to the specific culture. Many African tribes and Asian cultures raise children collectively. Ancient Germanic tribes would send their boys to be raised by others until they came of age. History is rife with examples that conflict the “nuclear family”.

The reason the older generations are against gay marriage is because it is not a marriage. It has nothing with being homophobic or whatever name those in its favor want to call us. They see it and say, nope. I really don’t care if it is ever “legalized” or not. I won’t feel you are married if you are “married” gay couple. You are merely a gay couple who have decided to create a official contractual arrangement to deal with their financial matters. Fine. I’ve no problem. Most stats would suggest the gays are doing pretty well financially anyway – I guess they are just greedy wanting more tax cuts! ;-)

That’s fine. People don’t have to accept interracial marriage or non-religious marriage, but that doesn’t make it go away.
I don’t know what stats, but most of the homosexuals I know arn’t much better off than myself, not including those I knew in the military (we were all equally underpaid).

Just don’t confuse my antipathy towards that union, nor my refusal to have you or anyone else define what I KNOW a marriage is just because you feel like it.

I don’t care if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend homosexuals don’t exist at all. Just don’t legistlate it.

The demand for acceptance of a practice for which I was willing to be tolerent smacks of a rather intolerent attitude, don’t you think?

Again, I don’t care if you don’t accept homosexuality or anything related. But it doesn’t make it go away or give you the right to legislate discrimination.

And in fact, this seems to be the same thing bubbling up all over the place in different forms and places as the elite try to figure out what they will do when the masses turn on them – the EU, the tax and spend power politician class in DC of both parties, public sector unions, the green zealots, the crony capitalist living off govt rent, the banks who finance the whole thing expecting a payoff in the end.

Sorry, I have a really hard time going with mass conspiracy theories. Almost fell for the “Loose-change” bit, but then I did my own research and wisened up.

Same sex marriage has nothing to do with the presidential race. Let the states do what they will and reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of their decisions.

Zomcon JEM on May 16, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I agree, it’s about basic rights and equality. I don’t agree that states should decide for themselves to discriminate against a person, though. Miscegenation was a state issue until the SC struck it down.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

This is a fair critique.
And seeing some of the juvenile name calling this issue brings out in the HA community, maybe Ed and Allahpundit are ‘nuanced’ on this issue for a reason.
So instead of going with what they believe…they go with what works.
But one must remember Repubs/Cons didn’t seem to care much about sexual harassment until the Clinton /Paul Jones brouhaha.
Maybe they’re just awaiting a similarly convenient time to step out of the shadows on this issue.
In the meantime, they can just force-smile through through the nasty homophobic bits the run through these threads every time.

verbaluce on May 16, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Actually, I worked on the bill which became section six of the Civil Rights Act. I am most assuredly a conservative. The Clinton/Jones affair? Clinton broke the law as governor, then he lied about it and his machine tried to destroy the woman he attacked. IF Clinton were anyone but a Democrat President, he would have been fired for what he did to Lewensky (sp). The law applies to everyone but him?

I was absolutely furious that the women’s groups who are now on the leading edge of fascism, defended the creep. What was the name of that Republican Senator from Oregon (not a conservative, BTW) who had to resign because he was a sexual creep also? Right in the middle of Clinton’s sexgate. Clinton, BTW, didn’t just “harrass”; he actually raped.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Quantus on May 16, 2012 at 5:34 PM

In ancient Greece marriage was sacrosanct. In some city states, one could hold public office if one were single. The fact that private parties contracted the marriage doesn’t mean the state didn’t enforce that contract. I did not mean to imply that the state licensed marriage, only that it has always had an interest in the marriage. Your example of secret Christian marriages is correct. I did not mean to in any way imply that all circumstances and societies were identical, just that the government has mostly always been involved.

The government was involved only to enforce the contract of transferring the woman from her father’s ownership to the husband’s, not to set the standards. Even the priests weren’t involved.

I don’t think I made a value judgment one way or the other. It’s not acceptable to me in 2012, no; it’s history. Are you judging cultures and ideas and people based on 2012 views and standards? That’s not exactly fair and in fact, it’s a logical fallacy.

Just because it’s history (or tradition) doesn’t make it right. Traditionally, slavery has been practiced for all of recorded history. That doesn’t make it acceptable in our liberty-based Republic.

Well, of course there are. Paris and Helen (Oh, that’s right. They didn’t get married). I was merely addressing the societal “norm”…did you really think I was saying there were NO instances of romance before 1940 or something? Seriously?

Your words:

Also, the idea of romantic marriage is rather new. Even in the late 19th Century, it was a practical arrangement.

Considering the amount of ancient mythology involving romance and unions of all sorts throughout history, romantic marriage doesn’t seem to be “rather new”.

I should have clarified the statement with the qualifier “some”. I was in fact thinking of the gleaners in the Bible.

So, again, differences in the concept of marriage by culture.

Not at all. Mother and father are biological terms. It takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Traditionally those three entities make up the building block of a society. I know men and women who live together without children or marriage. I know couples who because of tradition go through formal ceremonies at church who have no intention of having children. That’s between them and their God, as are gay relationships. Turning tradition and biology on their heads for no purpose simply makes no sense. The fact is that without one of each sex, there would be no next generation. I’d think a society would have an interest in preserving the unit that produces and nurtures children.

And how, exactly, is procreation threatened by same-sex marriage? I’ve seen many people throw around supposed percentages of society that is “gay”, none of which reach double digits. Even if every single homosexual were to marry, how would this spell doom for our society?

But there’s no way to protect them, as we’ve seen in Mass. And making “marriage” a “right” means that polygamy should be upheld as a civil right also. Goodness only knows what else must also be held up as a right.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

And I believe that punishing those who don’t agree is wrong, just as I believe punishing those who arn’t heterosexual or religious is wrong.
As for polygamy, I couldn’t care less. In fact, if we were to stick with the “tradition” of marriage, polygamy was very proliferous in ancient Israel.

Let me clarify my stance: government shouldn’t legislate morality or the nature of relationships between consenting adults. Leave “traditional marriage” to the churches and give the rest of us legal status for beneficiaries and so forth. Marital/domestic status should not have any thing to do with taxes. Get government out of my personal life.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Quantus on May 16, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I originally meant to include in my last post that I agree with much of your post. Nail on the head.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 6:17 PM

It was founded under a judeo-christian outlook – and it is a majority christian nation. But it isn’t a theocracy.

Was there some other point you were trying to make?

Zomcon JEM on May 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM

The US was founded under Greco-Roman ideas of the Republic. Most tenants of the Judeo-Christian “outlook” conflict with the idea of a nation founded upon the concept of liberty and equality for all.
Also, as we are a Republic, the majority does not have the right to subject the minority to their will. The nation is also a majority white nation, but that doesn’t justify anti-black laws.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Enjoy it, folks. It won’t last long. Public opinion continues to shift in favor of gay marriage, and Republicans will have to change their tune within five to ten years, or lose every election. Except in Utah, where they might hold out against gay marriage for a couple more decades before the tectonic plates of Mormon opinion finally shift.

There is a break in tolerance of gay people at around age 40. Over 40s tend to hate the idea of gay marriage, under 40s just don’t care. Those over-40s will simply die out, the now-under-40s will take their place, and the ball game will be over.

Prepare for it. It’s on the way.

Bartrams Garden on May 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I agree, it’s about basic rights and equality. I don’t agree that states should decide for themselves to discriminate against a person, though. Miscegenation was a state issue until the SC struck it down.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

So, perhaps, it would be helpful if you could spell out exactly what right you’re missing out on. Putting your partner on your work’s health insurance? I think that’s already OK—at least it is at my company. I’m not at all sure what equality means in this case. Domestic partnerships are allowed now, even in states that don’t redefine marriage. If you want to call yourself married, so be it. Do you want to appear on a geneology chart as married—even though that branch would be the end of it.

Would you be happier if all men and women who are now married get divorced? What benefit would homosexual couples receive? Would you like for me to retake my maiden name? And drop the Mr and Mrs? As a practical matter, how would you address a married gay couple? Mr and Mr? Mrs and Mrs?

I do not care at all about your sexual preference or living arrangement. I’m very sorry that my choice to get married and have children is somehow punishing you. I had no idea.

As regards the legal protection of women and mothers. I do think there’s absolute value in the contributions of a mother who stays home and raises children. But you’re saying that it’s unfair that these women have access to her husbands retirement benefits or something? Perhaps if we made it so women without children couldn’t have access to their husband’s benefits it would make it more fair.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

There is a break in tolerance of gay people at around age 40. Over 40s tend to hate the idea of gay marriage, under 40s just don’t care. Those over-40s will simply die out, the now-under-40s will take their place, and the ball game will be over.

Prepare for it. It’s on the way.

Bartrams Garden on May 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

What the heck are you talking about? What game? You’re talking about marriage as a legal term I assume. What has that to do with “tolerance”. I am not at all intolerant of gay folks, although you seem very intolerant of mothers and fathers and children as a family unit, and you haven’t much truck with older people either.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

So, perhaps, it would be helpful if you could spell out exactly what right you’re missing out on. Putting your partner on your work’s health insurance? I think that’s already OK—at least it is at my company.

Consider all legal benefits offered to married couples as is. Since my hinting towards the entire spectrum of benefits seems to be missed, I’ll give you a short list:
Tax Benefits
Estate Planning
Social Security
Employment Benefits
Medical Benefits
Death Benefits
Family Benefits
Housing Benefits
Consumer Benefits

Even heterosexual couples are left out of many of these benefits if they are not joined by a domestic union contract of some sort.

I’m not at all sure what equality means in this case. Domestic partnerships are allowed now, even in states that don’t redefine marriage. If you want to call yourself married, so be it. Do you want to appear on a geneology chart as married—even though that branch would be the end of it.

Domestic partnerships are now outlawed by amendment in North Carolina. Same is true in many other states.
I don’t see what the branches of my family tree have anything to do with not discriminating against areligous domestic unions AKA marriage.

Would you be happier if all men and women who are now married get divorced? What benefit would homosexual couples receive? Would you like for me to retake my maiden name? And drop the Mr and Mrs? As a practical matter, how would you address a married gay couple? Mr and Mr? Mrs and Mrs?

I don’t have any personal investment in other people’s relationships. That’s why I don’t watch shows like The Bachelor/Bachelorette.
And again, a laundry list of legal benefits currently not afforded or even blocked to them.
I would address them however they ask to be addressed.

I do not care at all about your sexual preference or living arrangement. I’m very sorry that my choice to get married and have children is somehow punishing you. I had no idea.

I do care that other people care so much about other people’s sexual preference or living arrangment they seek to legislate them into irrelevance. Your marriage does not affect me one iota, just as any homosexual couple marrying will not affect you one iota.

As regards the legal protection of women and mothers. I do think there’s absolute value in the contributions of a mother who stays home and raises children. But you’re saying that it’s unfair that these women have access to her husbands retirement benefits or something? Perhaps if we made it so women without children couldn’t have access to their husband’s benefits it would make it more fair.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Stay at home mothers are fine by me, just as working women are fine by me. It is unfair to afford certain benefits to certain couples solely due to their sexual attraction and withold those benefits from those who don’t share that same orientation.
How did you get that I actually want to enact more rescritions upon citizens? Methinks you are building a strawman.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM

As for polygamy, I couldn’t care less… Let me clarify my stance: government shouldn’t legislate morality…

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Exhibit A: Why Libertarianism Never Works. Portia wins this debate hands down.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Grindstone–marriage is not a civil right. It is an institution that the society has an interest in promoting. Perverting the meaning of it, or relativizing it so that any relationship of partners receives the same stamp of approval, is absurd. Incestuous marriage to whom? We love each other, my son and I! I demand state endorsement.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Ah yes – so Grindstone instead finally comes to the truth – he wants the purse strings opened wider. And for someone who loves to look up stats and then falls back on they all seemed the same to me in income is pretty weak. AS a demographic everything shows them on the plus side as a group (probably because they don’t have kids emptying their wallet!!).

Marriage is a social construct that developed on its own and predates govt. It has taken many forms – and while homosexuality has had its up and downs – Rome is a wonderful study in all of its angles – the fact is at the center has been a male and a female. Govt merely recognized what was there. But a civil rights issue? Outside of the real civil rights fight, race, I don’t see it. I’m not discriminating against anyone – you want a new definition. Eventually you may get your wish. My disagreement isn’t a violation of anyone rights.

Oh and I wasn’t speaking about a conspiracy issue so I am sorry I wasn’t clear. What I meant was the beautiful people who try and re-write the rules of humankind have built a very large house of cards. The re-emergence of the radical left of communists and nazis in Europe is getting a little frightening as our belief we can re-order basic facts comes under threat. That is all I meant. Gay marriage is just a little sliver of that, the rape and pillaging by leftist/statist politicians of the people they supposedly represent is in place even in the US as our electorate becomes more polarized between those who know actions create consequences and those who think you can put your head in the sand and all the bad guys will just run away. Oh and they think money doesn’t run out either.

We can afford a debate on gay marriage now because we have the wealth to deal with it – it won’t probably encompass enough people to create a problem for society regardless. If the whole economic order of western civ is destroyed by politicians bankrupting their states, gay marriage discussion will end overnight – and the practice will quickly disappear.

Zomcon JEM on May 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Exhibit A: Why Libertarianism Never Works. Portia wins this debate hands down.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Mind explainging how government intrusion into the personal relationships of consenting adults is a good thing?
Also, I didn’t realize this was a competition and you were the judge.

Grindstone–marriage is not a civil right. It is an institution that the society has an interest in promoting. Perverting the meaning of it, or relativizing it so that any relationship of partners receives the same stamp of approval, is absurd. Incestuous marriage to whom? We love each other, my son and I! I demand state endorsement.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 7:23 PM

I understand that society has an interest in promoting procreation for the furtherment of the population. I understand society has an interest that those offspring are educted and raised to become productive members of that society. However, having and raising kids is not solely relegated to a marraige, nor is it necessarily better. Also, marriage is not solely relegated to having and raising kids, but a bond between two people.
If marriage were solely for procreation and rearing, would you agree that infertile heterosexual couples have no right to marry?

Also, recogniztion and granting equality of benefits does not constitute outright endorsement. Unless granting churches tax-free status equals endorsement of that church?

Pervert what meaning? Marriage has many, many forms across history and culture. Which meaning are we picking from? Biblical Israel, with polygamy? Ancient Rome, where marriage was the transferance of ownership of the woman? Habsburgs, where marriage between relatives was to keep the bloodline “pure”? Early Christian, where marriage was not part of government?

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 7:49 PM

You ask many questions, Grasshopper. Pull it down to one or two. For example, may a society recognize and endorse an institution that is beneficial to it and universal throughout history? And, can a society have a predominant moral outlook that tolerates deviance without celebrating it?

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 7:57 PM

If your answer to these questions is Yes, you have learned something here.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Ah yes – so Grindstone instead finally comes to the truth – he wants the purse strings opened wider. And for someone who loves to look up stats and then falls back on they all seemed the same to me in income is pretty weak. AS a demographic everything shows them on the plus side as a group (probably because they don’t have kids emptying their wallet!!).

I’d like to see those stats. Because I’m sure you don’t disregard any other stats anyone puts forth, right?
I don’t care about purse strings, I just want to see equal treatment under law, not discrimiation under law.

Marriage is a social construct that developed on its own and predates govt. It has taken many forms – and while homosexuality has had its up and downs – Rome is a wonderful study in all of its angles – the fact is at the center has been a male and a female. Govt merely recognized what was there. But a civil rights issue? Outside of the real civil rights fight, race, I don’t see it. I’m not discriminating against anyone – you want a new definition. Eventually you may get your wish. My disagreement isn’t a violation of anyone rights.

Preventing someone from accessing the same benefits based soley on who they love IS a violation of rights. Antimiscegeny laws were struck down on the same basis.

Oh and I wasn’t speaking about a conspiracy issue so I am sorry I wasn’t clear. What I meant was the beautiful people who try and re-write the rules of humankind have built a very large house of cards. The re-emergence of the radical left of communists and nazis in Europe is getting a little frightening as our belief we can re-order basic facts comes under threat. That is all I meant. Gay marriage is just a little sliver of that, the rape and pillaging by leftist/statist politicians of the people they supposedly represent is in place even in the US as our electorate becomes more polarized between those who know actions create consequences and those who think you can put your head in the sand and all the bad guys will just run away. Oh and they think money doesn’t run out either.

Granting marriage benefits to homosexual couples isn’t going to ruin our nation. The same arguement you set forth has been made in regard to miscegeny.

We can afford a debate on gay marriage now because we have the wealth to deal with it – it won’t probably encompass enough people to create a problem for society regardless. If the whole economic order of western civ is destroyed by politicians bankrupting their states, gay marriage discussion will end overnight – and the practice will quickly disappear.

Zomcon JEM on May 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM

I’m sure many other arguments would end with the collapse of the western economy. However, that is irrelevant to this arguement.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Also, I didn’t realize this was a competition and you were the judge.

Now you know.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM

You ask many questions, Grasshopper. Pull it down to one or two. For example, may a society recognize and endorse an institution that is beneficial to it and universal throughout history? And, can a society have a predominant moral outlook that tolerates deviance without celebrating it?

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I challenged the “universal” claim many times throughout with specific examples. I also challenge the notion that it is solely for the breeding and rearing of offspring, as history is rife with examples of romantic union/marriage as well.
Also, does that society, founded under the premise of liberty for all, have the right to tell it’s citizens how to behave in private when that behavior does not adversely affect anyone? What “moral outlook” does that society prescribe to? One derived from Judeo-Christian roots? Then where do we draw the line in legislating that morality? The Bible does endorse slave-keeping, polygamy, death as punishment for non-homicidal infractions, and so forth. How do you define “deviance”? Is sodomy among heterosexual partners immoral? Should it be outlawed as well?
Legistlated morality has no place in this Republic. We are NOT a theocracy.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Now you know.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM

How mature of you.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 8:12 PM

You ask many questions,
spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Strange, I’ve been told this before, as if being inquisitive is a bad thing. That was when I questioned religion.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Yes, it’s pretty obvious there’s a religious axe on this Grindstone.

1)Your challenge failed–marriage between man and woman is universal. Citing deviance as a disproof of normality is absurd.

2)The purpose of marriage is not the issue; its definition is.

3)Your other questions are either irrelevant or distractions. But keep posting if it makes you feel happy. We want you to feel happy.

The reason homosexuals and the Democrats Who Pander to Them want their “marriages” recognized by the state has nothing to do with the Rightness of the issue. There is no right being granted or denied here, and the notion that a state cannot deny endorsement to any social contract is laughable on its face. The real reason has everything to do with their psychological self-validation, rejection of a moral code that will not pander to their foolishness, and the goal of an ideal society where there is no such thing as deviant behavior and in which the ignorant, neanderthal yokels with Bibles have been reduced to impotence. In other words, LGBT Heaven. Barack’s World.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Strange, I’ve been told this before, as if being inquisitive is a bad thing. That was when I questioned religion.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM

lol being inquisitive is a bad thing, at least for people who don’t like to think very much. :)

Bizarro No. 1 on May 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Yes, it’s pretty obvious there’s a religious axe on this Grindstone.

I am areligious, I don’t follow any religion, nor do I attack any. I only ask that religion not be pushed on me, especially through legislation.

1)Your challenge failed–marriage between man and woman is universal. Citing deviance as a disproof of normality is absurd.

Right, so showing that marriage, as practiced in the US, is no where near the same as the many different forms it has taken throughout history, I have failed to display that what we take as “normal” is, in fact, absurd?

2)The purpose of marriage is not the issue; its definition is.

What is the significance of the definition of a word, then? How many words in the English language have evolved over the centuries of it’s existance? How many in just the last few decades?
How is “changing the definition” harming anyone?

3)Your other questions are either irrelevant or distractions. But keep posting if it makes you feel happy. We want you to feel happy.

If you can’t see the relevance of the questions I ask, I don’t know what to tell you.

The reason homosexuals and the Democrats Who Pander to Them want their “marriages” recognized by the state has nothing to do with the Rightness of the issue. There is no right being granted or denied here, and the notion that a state cannot deny endorsement to any social contract is laughable on its face. The real reason has everything to do with their psychological self-validation, rejection of a moral code that will not pander to their foolishness, and the goal of an ideal society where there is no such thing as deviant behavior and in which the ignorant, neanderthal yokels with Bibles have been reduced to impotence. In other words, LGBT Heaven. Barack’s World.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Ok, so you know exactly why every single homosexual wants to legally bind with their partners? All for politics?
For me, personally, I don’t like seeing any person marginalized for who they are in a society that claims to be founded upon liberty.
You’re more than welcome to have your religious convictions, I will defend your right to practice them as you see fit, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. However, when they do start interfering with the rights and lives of others, I have an issue with that.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 9:09 PM

lol being inquisitive is a bad thing, at least for people who don’t like to think very much. :)

Bizarro No. 1 on May 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM

So it has been demonstrated to me time and again.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM

The State never did “take over” marriage.

It was the Founding Fathers who wanted the State to reflect Christianity, and all of the institutions that the God of the Bible began.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I’m sorry, I must’ve missed that part of the US Consitution that said “The United States of America is a Christian nation”.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 4:28 PM

.
Having the State reflect Christianity, and being a “Christian nation” are not the same thing.

Apologies for the lateness of this reply.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I am areligious, I don’t follow any religion, nor do I attack any. I only ask that religion not be pushed on me, especially through legislation.

Yes, and the majority of people who do have a religion-based morality don’t like it when anti-religious, immoral doctrines are pushed on them, either. Where do we go from here? How about adopting the prevailing moral code of the society?

Right, so showing that marriage, as practiced in the US, is no where near the same as the many different forms it has taken throughout history, I have failed to display that what we take as “normal” is, in fact, absurd?

The fact that marriage is between partners of the opposite sex, 99.99999% of the time, should be enough for you to accept that it is the norm. Try to grasp this important point.

What is the significance of the definition of a word, then? How many words in the English language have evolved over the centuries of it’s existance? How many in just the last few decades?
How is “changing the definition” harming anyone?

Oh yeah. Try it with the words “right” and “life”, contrasting the meanings in 1776 and 2012, and see if the definitional change resulted in harm to anyone.

Ok, so you know exactly why every single homosexual wants to legally bind with their partners? All for politics?

Don’t knock reason. After all, it’s all you’ve got since you ditched revelation. Just try to reason better than you have reasoned tonight, please.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Having the State reflect Christianity, and being a “Christian nation” are not the same thing.

Apologies for the lateness of this reply.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

In what part does the State “reflect Christianity”?

Yes, and the majority of people who do have a religion-based morality don’t like it when anti-religious, immoral doctrines are pushed on them, either. Where do we go from here? How about adopting the prevailing moral code of the society?

How is letting people live their lives as they see fit pushing an immoral, anti-religious doctrine on you? The mere fact that a homosexual exists and is happy is a threat? Once upon a time, there were many points of the “prevailing moral code of the society” that have since been proven to be bigoted, unjust, and anti-liberty. How is this any different?

The fact that marriage is between partners of the opposite sex, 99.99999% of the time, should be enough for you to accept that it is the norm. Try to grasp this important point.

So because it’s a “norm” means it’s ok to discriminate against our own citizens? I seem to recall something similar to that…

Oh yeah. Try it with the words “right” and “life”, contrasting the meanings in 1776 and 2012, and see if the definitional change resulted in harm to anyone.

Oh, goody, now the abortion debate.
Well, tell you what, once a homosexual marriage is proven to kill anyone, I’ll be right along with you in protesting it.

Don’t knock reason. After all, it’s all you’ve got since you ditched revelation. Just try to reason better than you have reasoned tonight, please.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

That is not reasoning, that is speculation at best.

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Grindstone. Bubi. Give it a rest. Your work is done here. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

.
In what part does the State “reflect Christianity”?

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM

.
Defining “normal”.

We don’t execute people for cognitively practicing that which the Bible calls abnormal, like in Iran.
But we do publicly “call it out”.

Refusing to accept institutionalized homosexuality (which is what same-sex marriage would be), is a reflecting of the God of the Bible.
Conducting a “Spanish Inquisition” (complete with severe punishments and/or executions) would not be.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Grindstone. Bubi. Give it a rest. Your work is done here. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

spiritof61 on May 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I guess the Arbitrator of All Online Discussions has nothing more to add?

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM

All that shameless whining and fury about the ,,rights” to marry! These sodomites are really behaving as annoying pests,
just sick of them.:(

magone on May 17, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Right, so showing that marriage, as practiced in the US, is no where near the same as the many different forms it has taken throughout history, I have failed to display that what we take as “normal” is, in fact, absurd?
….
Ok, so you know exactly why every single homosexual wants to legally bind with their partners? All for politics?

For me, personally, I don’t like seeing any person marginalized for who they are in a society that claims to be founded upon liberty.
You’re more than welcome to have your religious convictions, I will defend your right to practice them as you see fit, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. However, when they do start interfering with the rights and lives of others, I have an issue with that.
Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Since none of those so-called “different forms” “throughout history” has included two men or two women, this is basically a non sequitur. Totally irrelevant.

No rights are being denied to anybody. That’s just an attempt to frame the discussion sympathetically to the side you’re advocating for, which is the “redefine marriage” side.

So no, this is not an issue about rights being denied. This is also not an issue about tolerance for homosexuality. It’s not even about acceptance of homosexuality, per se.

It’s about making homosexuality equivalent to normal sexuality. More specifically, it’s an attempt to make everyone agree that a homosexual relationship is every bit as normal and healthy as a normal marriage.

The problem, of course, is that homosexuality is in every way inferior. It is less healthy physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and spiritually.

Homosexuals are more likely to die young. They are more likely to have emotional problems. They are less equipped to be parents, because children need a father and mother. Homosexual relationships do not produce children, do not produce stable homes, and do not help children to grow up with normal attitudes towards the opposite sex.

And even if you disagree with some or all of the above, the point of trying so desperately hard to force people to accept homosexual marriage is to make it impossible to reject homosexuality as in any way deficient.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 17, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 9:09 PM

.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 17, 2012 at 1:14 AM

.
Well spoken.

Guess we’ll have to wait a bit for a response.

listens2glenn on May 17, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Clinton, BTW, didn’t just “harrass”; he actually raped.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

And…off the deep end.
Usually happens this far into a thread.

verbaluce on May 17, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Clinton, BTW, didn’t just “harrass”; he actually raped.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM
And…off the deep end.
Usually happens this far into a thread.

verbaluce on May 17, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Her name was Broadrick and the evidence would indicate that Bill Clinton was fully capable of what this woman claimed he did. This woman had nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking about her rape. His “woman problems” continue into his old age.

Portia46 on May 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Grindstone’s list of demands for “equality”:

Tax Benefits
Estate Planning
Social Security
Employment Benefits
Medical Benefits
Death Benefits
Family Benefits
Housing Benefits
Consumer Benefits

Tax benefits? Didn’t we just talk about the marriage tax penalty that is part of both the President’s plan and Maryland’s new tax the rich plan? Two single people pay a lower tax rate and can earn more that a married couple filing jointly or married filed separately. If one of the married couple doesn’t have a job, the rate reflects that there on two people living on that one income. You can avail yourself of that by proving you provide the sole support of someone else, even an adult child. The ONLY time there is an advantage to filing married returns is when there are deductions for children. This wouldn’t apply to you.

Social Security: Survivor benefits are there because Congress recognized that even when a woman did not join the work force and stayed home to raise children, she deserved a portion of her husband’s benefit. That’s the same reasoning the military used to provide survivor’s benefit for career personel’s wives. They couldn’t establish a career because they were always moving. Bottom line? Work to change that. I can see it changing for military retirement but not for SS since times have changed and if there are no children, there’s no reason to assume a spouse or partner needs to not work. I have stayed home and worked. I have no access to my husband’s SS.

Employment benefits: Most competitive companies already provide that a domestic partner can be put on the health care program. You don’t have to denegrate a constant in biological and cultural tradition to change that, and there’s no law which requires companies to supply health insurance for families. BTW, my company won’t put MY husband on my plan if he has access to his own plan at his work. If I do, it costs a LOT of money. Same with survivor benefits for his or my retirement check. The current benefit can be cut by almost half. And it’s available at my company for domestic partners. The rest of the benefits (401K, life insurance), just name your partner. I have to specify my husband as a beneficiary. I could specify my neighbor’s dog if I wanted.

Medical benefits: see above. If you are very good at what you do and companies compete for your services, make that part of your requirement for employment. That’s why my company furnishes family benefits AND domestic partner benefits. They want the talent here and not with their competators. BTW, under Obamacare, I’m predicting none of us will have benefits in 4 or 5 years.

Death benefits: You want the $200 burial benefit for SS? Work for legislation to change the law. I’d support that. Doesn’t the military allow you to designate who gets the death benefit? It did when I worked on legislation.

Family benefits: ???? You want deductions for children without actually having children? I do not understand exactly what this is.

Housing Benefits: Military? There are no civilian ones, and since DADT is relatively new, I don’t see why redefining marriage can’t be fixed here. That’s an easy fix. Call your Congressman. If it’s a mortgage, two people can co-sign for a mortgage without benefit of marriage. It’s been that way for 40 years.

Consumer Benefits: ????? What consumer benefits? You want to put both your names down for a credit card, you can do that. You want to put just YOUR name down, you can do that. If I didn’t work, I can’t get financing without my husband’s signature and I am not legally responsible for any debt he incurs without my signature and vice verse. This makes no sense whatsoever.

I sincerely wish you well, but comparing your choice of life-style to something like race or sex is completely illogical. Under the law, both those conditions are immaterial as to how the law should be assigned. One’s sex life, one’s lifestyle is a matter of choice. I won’t get into natural inclinations because that cannot be considered as a part of legal considerations. An alcoholic has natural inclinations but the law making those inclinations and choices part of civil rights is illogical. Unaniable rights doesn’t mean society or government must provide accomdation for all our wishes or needs.

Finally, Judao Christian philosophy is in fact the bedrock of all Western civilization which culminated in the founding of this country. If our rights are government given instead of God given, then how are there any rights since the government can and will decide.

Portia46 on May 17, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Clinton, BTW, didn’t just “harrass”; he actually raped.

Portia46 on May 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

.
And…off the deep end.
Usually happens this far into a thread.

verbaluce on May 17, 2012 at 8:53 AM

.
No, I think Juanita Broderick has much more credibility than either Bill Clinton or yourself.

listens2glenn on May 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3