Justice Dept extending new benefits to same sex couples

posted at 4:01 pm on February 8, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

With the pen and the phone, eh? It’s a brave new world, folks.

The Justice Department on Monday will extend a new package of federal benefits to same-sex couples that Attorney General Eric Holder said will give “lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law.”

In remarks prepared for a speech Saturday night to the Human Rights Campaign in New York, Holder said the new benefits will apply to gay couples who are legally married, even to those who live in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage.

The moves are the latest in a series of actions following the US Supreme Court’s ruling in June that struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had barred the federal government from recognizing legally valid same-sex marriages.

Of course, what they can do from the Justice Department is fairly limited. None of these new guidelines will apply at the state level (yet) and primarily affect rules designed to benefit married couples in their dealings with the federal justice system. These include:

- Federal death benefits and educational payments given to surviving spouses of injured or deceased public safety officers
- Visitation rights and eligibility for compassionate release or sentence reductions for inmates in federal prisons
- The application of eligibility rules for married couples in federal bankruptcy proceedings

Apparently Holder is giving a policy speech this weekend which will highlight this theme and he wants you to know that he really, really means it.

Holder, who has made civil rights a priority for the Justice Department, said that as important as the right against racial discrimination has been, “my commitment to confronting discrimination based on sexual orientation runs just as deep.”

I imagine this is an early shot across the bow from the President to demonstrate that he meant it when he said he would act without Congress where he can. It’s not difficult to imagine that other departments will be lining up with similar rulings wherever the word “marriage” intersects with their particular bailiwick. And it’s true that Obama can make an end run around Congress on these items since they fall pretty much elusively in the Executive branch powers.

But there are two things to remember about this. First, the number of people affected is actually fairly small, as such orders can’t touch proceedings at the state level and not that many couples wind up in the federal system for these purposes as compared to local and state proceedings. That’s pretty much baked into the cake as per the Constitution. And second, such orders which are enacted with a stroke of the Executive pen have a shelf life precisely as long as the amount of time the author keeps hold of said pen. The next President can keep the rules, modify them, or discard them as they wish.

All in all, this is much like raising the minimum wage by executive fiat, but only having it apply to federal workers. It’s largely symbolic, buys some good headlines over a few days of the news cycle (for an administration that really needs some good news) and only directly affects those already caught in the web of the federal system.


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 7

It’s largely symbolic, buys some good headlines over a few days of the news cycle (for an administration that really needs some good news) and only directly affects those already caught in the web of the federal system.

“Good headlines”, because we live in a corrupt & perverted generation that calls good evil & evil good.

Um, aren’t all of us “already caught in the web of the federal system”?

itsnotaboutme on February 8, 2014 at 4:05 PM

That sh*t ain’t gonna fly in Texas.
Molon Labe!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:08 PM

It’s about persuading Justice Kennedy.

Wethal on February 8, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Lame.

dpduq on February 8, 2014 at 4:10 PM

More of that “fundamental transformation.”

rbj on February 8, 2014 at 4:10 PM

itsnotaboutme on February 8, 2014 at 4:05 PM

It’s “good headlines” as viewed by the Obama administration as it pumps up their base and the media will eat it up with a spoon. (As they already are.)

Jazz Shaw on February 8, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Culture by decree, with the hammer of the state. You will be made to bend the knee and conform, like it or not.

And yes, we are ALL increasingly caught in the federal system. Try being a cake maker or photographer and choosing to run your business according to your religious beliefs.

Land of the free indeed.

xNavigator on February 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Justice Dept extending new benefits to same sex couples

Good! I’m glad for this lawlessness. The more of it there is, the more emboldened the administration will become. The ultimate backlash will be epic.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Culture by decree, with the hammer of the state. You will be made to bend the knee and conform, like it or not.

xNavigator on February 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM

The hammer and sickle of the state. :(

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:22 PM

I left a comment on the CNN page. It took about 2 seconds for some lib-twit to report it.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:23 PM

hopefully barry will be constrained to symbolic attacks. I think it is true that scotus would knock him down pretty quick if he tried anything like Truman.

But…the bad part is that he does have the power to destroy coal…and the leftists hate coal. These things won’t be easily be rolled back. The fiat order of 55 mpg standard by 2025 for cars won’t be rolled back. The light bulb ban won’t be rolled back.

the press will take its job to defend every on of barry’s initiatives…shrieking and pounding the table every the racist homophobic cretins try to roll back Progress..the New Age

(yes, of course I know the light bulb ban was Bush, thx W)

r keller on February 8, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Justice Dept extending new benefits to same sex couples

So this is the role of the Justice Department…

Who knew….

Are there any same-sex Black Panthers?

Not in the wild, I am sure.

Electrongod on February 8, 2014 at 4:25 PM

I really don’t see what the big deal here is and why everyone is throwing a fit over this…

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 4:28 PM

I really don’t see what the big deal here is and why everyone is throwing a fit over this…

Welcome to Hotair.

Mmm...Burritos on February 8, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Will the last person to get federal benefits please turn out the light.

Fallon on February 8, 2014 at 4:29 PM

I really don’t see what the big deal here is and why everyone is throwing a fit over this…

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Focused like a laser…..

On anything but jobs….

Electrongod on February 8, 2014 at 4:30 PM

What’s the issue here?

No where in the constitution does it say marriage is between a man and a woman.

15 years from now same-sex marriage will not even be an issue.

It is troubling that anyone would want to use the power of the government do deny consensual adults the pursuit of happiness.

liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

If you think about it, the whole same/both/unknown sex group is really just a sub-set of the free shiite army.

Take away the government freebies, money, and tax benefits. I bet they would lose their interest in encoding their perversion in the law books.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 4:32 PM

In remarks prepared for a speech Saturday night to the Human Rights Campaign in New York, Holder said the new benefits will apply to gay couples who are legally married, even to those who live in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage.

The states will love this overreach. The Feds have cut pay In certain agencies that are enemy to the fascist regime. I’m sure this new entitlement will go over like a lead balloon. The FBI has finally had enough of lawless Eric.
Every little move brings us closer to the pitchfork.

Cheese Wheel on February 8, 2014 at 4:32 PM

liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Marriage is one man+one woman. Period. Anything/EVERYTHING else is deviancy. I’ve always been supportive of civil unions…but this intentional destruction of this nation’s Judeo-Christian moral fabric is starting to push me away even from that.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:34 PM

What’s the issue here?

No where in the constitution does it say marriage is between a man and a woman.

15 years from now same-sex marriage will not even be an issue.

It is troubling that anyone would want to use the power of the government do deny consensual adults the pursuit of happiness.

liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Please point to the benefits section of the constitution.
With your party in charge, this place will be Zimbabwe with a dash of East Germany. Plus, we will all be speaking Spanish.

Cheese Wheel on February 8, 2014 at 4:34 PM

I left a comment on the CNN page. It took about 2 seconds for some lib-twit to report it.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Your reputation preceeds you. ;0

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Of course sodomites get special rights. That’s freedom.

Lean Forward.

Murphy9 on February 8, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM

That must be it. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM

No where in the constitution does it say marriage is between a man and a woman.

liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Which means………

The States and/or the people decide…

Electrongod on February 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM

No where in the constitution does it say marriage is between a man and a woman.

liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

True, the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. Including providing benefits and legal protections to “spouses.”

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Yes. Put it to a vote in each state. It’s shot down every time.

Cheese Wheel on February 8, 2014 at 4:39 PM

What’s the issue here?

No where in the constitution does it say marriage is between a man and a woman.

15 years from now same-sex marriage will not even be an issue.

It is troubling that anyone would want to use the power of the government do deny consensual adults the pursuit of happiness.

liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

If you would read the Constitution, then you would not ask such stupid questions. The Constitution does not grant the Federal Government any authority to address marriage at all.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 4:39 PM

I think it’s funny that gays are so hellbent on getting married considering that 99% of them favor open relationships.

PrettyMooch on February 8, 2014 at 4:40 PM

I left a comment on the CNN page. It took about 2 seconds for some lib-twit to report it.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:23 PM

You should try that ALTwerk nom instead, maybe they won’t know its you!

*running away lmao, hoping you can’t catch me*

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Marriage is one man+one woman. Period.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Says who?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Will the last person to get federal benefits please turn out the light.

Fallon on February 8, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Lights’ll be off long before that point…

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Justice Dept extending new benefits to same sex couples

Since the DOMA ruling was based on the claim that the states got to define marriage laws rather than the federal government, and this DOJ action ignores state laws and applies to SSM couples who are not legally married in their states, it seems clear that this is blatantly unconstitutional even by the suspect reasoning SCOTUS used in the DOMA ruling.

Of course, the progressives don’t care if it’s unconstitutional, as long as they get their way. Much like your typical spoiled toddler.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Says who?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

God.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Of course sodomites get special rights. That’s freedom.

Lean Forward.

Murphy9 on February 8, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Not just the sodomites.

The gals.
The Hispanics.
The blacks……

Oh hell, let’s just shortcut and say it this way.

You have special rights unless you are a white male. You have even less rights if you are a Southern white male.

I just served jury duty last week- guess who immediately got dismissed from the jury? (hint: it wasn’t the gals or sodomites)

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Mainstreaming gross immorality and perversion is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for the United States of America.

Murphy9 on February 8, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Great news–now Obama and Eric Holder can finally tie the knot!

There hasn’t been a White House wedding for such a long time.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 4:44 PM

I think it’s funny that gays are so hellbent on getting married

They’re really not. They are hellbent on destroying the institution of marriage, as part of their continued campaign to normalize perversion and force active promotion (not just tolerance) of the gay lifestyle.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 4:46 PM

Marriage is one man+one woman. Period.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Says who?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

So you’re okay with marriage to include the following equations?

Marriage= one man + two women (or vice versa?)

Marriage= one man + one goat

Put bluntly, why isn’t any combination of men, women, animals, or whatever okay if you break down the definition that worked from a societal and biological basis for thousands of years? Couples joined in partnership to make babies and raise the next generation of humans. You only have a case when sodomites can do the same.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Well now I can breath a sigh of relief…..This is the most important thing for our Country… Forget unemployment, IRS, Benghazi ,NSA…

sandee on February 8, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Not sure this is something that the executive should be able to do without Congress… but honestly it makes sense. If you’ve got same-sex civil unions* etc, it stands to reason that the couple are treated the same way as heterosexual couples. Else the principle of equality before the law breaks down, and for anyone with classical liberal principles that’s the only equality worth caring about.

* Never mind same-sex marriage or whether there should be same-sex civil unions, that’s a separate issue. If they exist, then, wherever possible, legal equality should be the norm.

Teleros on February 8, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Marriage is one man+one woman. Period.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Says who?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Doesn’t matter who says it. It matters whether it is true.

It’s basic biology. Frankly, if not for homosexual advocates trying to “normalize” their “sexual orientation,” there would be absolutely nobody even raising the question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 8, 2014 at 4:51 PM

They’re really not. They are hellbent on destroying the institution of marriage, as part of their continued campaign to normalize perversion and force active promotion (not just tolerance) of the gay lifestyle.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 4:46 PM

You forgot revenge. Gays are pretty much intolerant bigots who will not be happy until the Pope is forced to wed sodomites at the high altar in St. Peters. Or, alternatively, shutter the doors of the church.

Gays falsely claim that they just want to live their lives with society’s acceptance. That’s a fat lie. They want us all to live in their world.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:53 PM

You only have a case when sodomites can do the same.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Well, there’s Obama, that shiite could be case one.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 4:53 PM

It it supposed to be a states issue, because the individual states have a vested interest in the unions they sanction.

It’s been said many times before, but once you legalize gay marriage, what is your rationale to stop there?

There isn’t any–hence the institution becomes meaningless, which is the entire goal.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Whatever happened to the liberal battle cry:

“Get the government out of my bedroom?”

Oh, the irony of it all.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Doesn’t matter who says it. It matters whether it is true.

It’s basic biology. Frankly, if not for homosexual advocates trying to “normalize” their “sexual orientation,” there would be absolutely nobody even raising the question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 8, 2014 at 4:51 PM

It is startling how simple and evident the truths are that the Left seeks to deny.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Under Obamacare, are gay men required to pay higher premiums for the number of rectal exams they’ll need throughout their lives?

BuckeyeSam on February 8, 2014 at 4:56 PM

One of the few good things this Administration has done is support gay rights. Of course, it’s doing so for political reasons, but what else is new.

DisneyFan on February 8, 2014 at 4:57 PM

God.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 4:42 PM

The US is not a theocracy. The Bible, or any other holy text, isn’t the Constitution.

So you’re okay with marriage to include the following equations?

Marriage= one man + two women (or vice versa?)

Marriage= one man + one goat

Put bluntly, why isn’t any combination of men, women, animals, or whatever okay if you break down the definition that worked from a societal and biological basis for thousands of years?

I am not “okay” with such marriages, not necessarily, but I am in favor of legalizing it.

I can ask you a similar question: are you “okay” with marriage being one rich man + one gold-digger, or one man who’s only in it for the sex + one woman who has psychological issues and needs the intimacy/whatever from that man, or one man who’s only interested in passing on his genes + one woman who’s only getting married to piss off her dad/ex-boyfriend/whatever, etc.?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Whatever happened to the liberal battle cry:

“Get the government out of my bedroom?”

Oh, the irony of it all.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Sandra Fluck has a few words for you…

What the hell…

She just wants your money..

Electrongod on February 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Not just the sodomites.

The gals.
The Hispanics.
The blacks……

Gals?

What is this, 1954?

You people really Do. Not. Get. It.

Do you?

lostmotherland on February 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Destroying every last aspect of our Biblical foundation they can.

Cleombrotus on February 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM

If you’ve got same-sex civil unions* etc, it stands to reason that the couple are treated the same way as heterosexual couples. Else the principle of equality before the law breaks down, and for anyone with classical liberal principles that’s the only equality worth caring about.

Teleros on February 8, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Under civil union guidelines, what would you claim is not being equally permitted? The word?..go ahead and use. Call the ceremony anything you like.
Many words are, for all intents and purposes, banned without an outcry of “Inequality!” I don’t think “marriage” is or will be one of them.

Mimzey on February 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I can ask you a similar question: are you “okay” with marriage being one rich man + one gold-digger, or one man who’s only in it for the sex + one woman who has psychological issues and needs the intimacy/whatever from that man, or one man who’s only interested in passing on his genes + one woman who’s only getting married to piss off her dad/ex-boyfriend/whatever, etc.?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Is it in the Constitution?

No?

Then the Feds stay out of it…

Electrongod on February 8, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Doesn’t matter who says it. It matters whether it is true.

It’s basic biology. Frankly, if not for homosexual advocates trying to “normalize” their “sexual orientation,” there would be absolutely nobody even raising the question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 8, 2014 at 4:51 PM

It is startling how simple and evident the truths are that the Left seeks to deny.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 4:56 PM

What truth? What is the biological difference between husband-and-wife and boyfriend-and-girlfriend? Marriage really has nothing to do with biology, it’s entirely cultural/social.

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:05 PM

That should be “husband-and-wife and husband-and-husband/wife-and-wife.”

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Who says marriage is between one man and one woman? Given that the first bases for the institution is procreation of the species and maintenance of the population of a society, biology says so.

Why is sex in itself important for society? Why should persons who decide to enter into a relation for the sake of pleasure and/or companionship alone receive special privileges in terms of treatment under the law?

The question is serious — why should gays in a committed relationship receive privileges that (for example) relatives who aren’t having sex who want a committed relation receive? The relative positioning of their genitals at some time?

Marriage, insofar as sex goes, is centered on the completion of the biological completion of the pair. This completion does not exist in homosexual relations. Heterosexual relations have an aspect, by their very nature, that homosexual relations lack.

If we want to say that marriage is no longer about sex, that’s another question. But in that case, why not just speak about “committed unions” and not twist the proper meaning of marriage?

philosoph0123 on February 8, 2014 at 5:09 PM

The argument for or against the legitimacy of gay marriage misses the truly disturbing components of this story. We have a Justice Department that prioritizes this kind of crap over the important executive interests of this country. Holder, et al, have de facto legalized marijuana through various pronouncements to the DOJ; Illegal immigration is essentially unenforced,; conservative groups are set upon by the IRS; crack and powder cocaine punishment has been brought into “parity” (though the significantly greater deleterious effects of crack use disproportionately effect the black community); and on and on. By slow degree, but accelerating every day, this administration hacks away at that which we used to honor, and elevates that which we used to (rightfully) condemn.

Nagan1 on February 8, 2014 at 5:10 PM

So you’re okay with marriage to include the following equations?

Marriage= one man + two women (or vice versa?)

Marriage= one man + one goat

Put bluntly, why isn’t any combination of men, women, animals, or whatever okay if you break down the definition that worked from a societal and biological basis for thousands of years?

I am not “okay” with such marriages, not necessarily, but I am in favor of legalizing it. I can ask you a similar question: are you “okay” with marriage being one rich man + one gold-digger, or one man who’s only in it for the sex + one woman who has psychological issues and needs the intimacy/whatever from that man, or one man who’s only interested in passing on his genes + one woman who’s only getting married to piss off her dad/ex-boyfriend/whatever, etc.?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

In no way are those similar questions. I notice that all these examples you quote are between a man and a woman, AKA, marriage as it has always existed. Seems like you’re trying to diminish all normal marriages in order to make SSM look better, or to make those defending marriage look absurd.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 8, 2014 at 5:11 PM

it’s entirely cultural/social.

I don’t agree with this, but I suppose that is the point of contention.

In strict legal terms, perhaps, but the intent traditionally was to encourage stable reproductive relationships.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM

No where in the constitution does it say marriage is between a man and a woman.

liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Thus making the constitutional argument (ie-legal argument) for the federal government to stay out of the issue.

It is troubling that anyone would want to use the power of the government do deny consensual adults the pursuit of happiness.
liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Thus making the leftist argument that nothing is valid unless the federal government sanctions it (including one’s pursuit of happiness).

anuts on February 8, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Obama and Teh Gays have a few things in common:

1)destroy American Traditions
2) destroy Christianity

There it is folks.

PrettyMooch on February 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Gals?

Why does this trouble you so?

Would it bother you if I said you seemed happy and gay?

Why does the Left get to redefine the language as it chooses?

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM

it’s entirely cultural/social.

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Say that point of view were accurate and it was a cultural standard. What gives the 1 percenters the special right of changing that culture to their particular preference. That would seem unjust. Don’t you agree?

Mimzey on February 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

philosoph0123 on February 8, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Are you really claiming a couple that can’t have children, or can’t have sex due to a physical disability or psychological trauma, or are simply asexual, are somehow “less” of a married couple? If all you care about in a relationship is sex and procreation, you are literally just an animal. Maybe you are an evolutionist as well?

In no way are those similar questions. I notice that all these examples you quote are between a man and a woman, AKA, marriage as it has always existed. Seems like you’re trying to diminish all normal marriages in order to make SSM look better, or to make those defending marriage look absurd.

My point is you don’t have to personally approve of a union to tolerate it or give it the same legal recognition and benefits as other unions… unless you support not recognizing the types of marriages I listed?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM

I was on the Social Security website today and they addressed the issue of benefits for same sex couples. Evidently benefits are available in many cases.

bopbottle on February 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM

The US is not a theocracy. The Bible, or any other holy text, isn’t the Constitution.

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

You asked, I answered. You don’t like the answer, tough stuff, it does not change the truth. Gay marriage is not in the Constitution either, nor do the Feds have any right to be involved in it. So stop defending the right of the government to cram pro-gay rules and legislation down our throats.

Your stupid equivocation of the financial status of a man + woman marriage compared to a sodomite marriage is, well, breathtakingly stupid.

Please, take your righteous indignation down the hall to someone who cares, and take your free shiite government control to some socialist country.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Here’s the more important point–why precisely are gays not satisfied with civil unions that provide equal legal status?

If equality is the whole goal, what’s the problem?

The answer is that equal unions are not the goal; the goal is to destroy the institution of marriage.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:23 PM

It is troubling that anyone would use the power of the government do deny consensual adults the pursuit of happiness.
liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

You seem to have no problem with using the power of government to provide them with benefits that they can get on their own.

Cleombrotus on February 8, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Was Obama stoned during Bob Costas interview?

VorDaj on February 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM

The perks of being King…

Electrongod on February 8, 2014 at 5:24 PM

I can ask you a similar question: are you “okay” with marriage being one rich man + one gold-digger, or one man who’s only in it for the sex + one woman who has psychological issues and needs the intimacy/whatever from that man, or one man who’s only interested in passing on his genes + one woman who’s only getting married to piss off her dad/ex-boyfriend/whatever, etc.?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Wow! What a strawman that is. Though, in the future, if you choose to quote my comments- please give attribution.

Short answer, yes I am okay if a rich man marries a gold digger (Wendy Davis ring a bell?) or any of the other scenerios you present. History is filled with instances of these kinds of marriages. But they fit the model of traditional marriage. Civil unions should be good enough for sodomites.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Doesn’t matter who says it. It matters whether it is true.

It’s basic biology. Frankly, if not for homosexual advocates trying to “normalize” their “sexual orientation,” there would be absolutely nobody even raising the question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 8, 2014 at 4:51 PM

It is startling how simple and evident the truths are that the Left seeks to deny.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 4:56 PM

What truth?

Ah, the favorite question of Pilate. I suspect a similar level of dishonesty.

What is the biological difference between husband-and-wife and boyfriend-and-girlfriend? Marriage really has nothing to do with biology, it’s entirely cultural/social.

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Boyfriends and girlfriends often become husband and wife. They can have sexual intercourse, unlike two men or two women.

To jump from there to the claim that marriage has nothing to do with biology is absurd. When a boyfriend and girlfriend have sexual intercourse without getting married, the very reason it’s considered morally objectionable is because they’re acting like they’re married without having the ceremony.

That’s why they call it “shacking up.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 8, 2014 at 5:26 PM

My point is you don’t have to personally approve of a union to tolerate it or give it the same legal recognition and benefits as other unions… unless you support not recognizing the types of marriages I listed?

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Your point, is at the top of your head.

There is a difference between tolerance and legal recognition. Do you understand that? There is no point in interacting with you if you do not.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:26 PM

The US is not a theocracy. The Bible, or any other holy text, isn’t the Constitution.
Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Correct. Not a theocracy. But there is undoubtedly Judeo-Christian influence in its draft and mission.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names…

Year of our Lord… Which “Lord” do you suppose they were referring?

anuts on February 8, 2014 at 5:27 PM

Say that point of view were accurate and it was a cultural standard. What gives the 1 percenters the special right of changing that culture to their particular preference. That would seem unjust. Don’t you agree?

Mimzey on February 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Well, firstly, it isn’t 1% – surveys show around half the population, give or take, support recognizing gay marriages. Secondly, I see no injustice where nobody’s rights are violated.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM

This is just a personal attack. “You are wrong because… well, you’re stupid, that’s why!” And great job pulling out the Commie card, even though none of us mentioned economics at all.

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:29 PM

The answer is that equal unions are not the goal; the goal is to destroy the institution of marriage.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:23 PM

As I posted above. Not until the Pope is forced to bless sodomy at the high altar of St. Peter’s. Or (the real aim) to shutter the church entirely.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 5:30 PM

The answer is that equal unions are not the goal; the goal is to destroy the institution of marriage.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:23 PM

True in the secular world perhaps. However, traditional marriage advocates will always perservere. If the government tries to re-define marriage, what difference does that make in reality to any of us who know and believe in a true marriage.

My marriage was performed, sanctified, and blessed in the Church. No government law can take that away or change that. What the government says is of no concern to me.

Governments come and go, truth is eternal.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Or (the real aim) to shutter the church entirely.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 5:30 PM

You’re correct. A more accurate statement is that the goals are to destroy marriage, the family, and the (Christian) church.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:32 PM

My marriage was performed, sanctified, and blessed in the Church. No government law can take that away or change that. What the government says is of no concern to me.

And this is precisely what galls them

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Yes, because sexual deviancy deserves government protection and recognition.

Cleombrotus on February 8, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Besides, the union of any and all configurations (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, etc.) are wholly and separately unique from one another. So much so that they deserve their own term as they are their own concept. Marriage is the term for only one of these unions as a concept. It doesn’t work for any other.

anuts on February 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:29 PM

You want to invade my personal life with your gay laws. You made it personal. Get your damn nanny state government out of my face and life!

Your correct, I think your stupid, explained why, and asked you a question which you did not answer. Please, prove me wrong and say something that isn’t stupid.

“pulling out the Commie card, even though none of us mentioned economics at all.” Exhibit “B” of stupid. Do you have any idea what the tenants of socialism are? Hint, it is more than economics. History, try it some time. The first thing a communist country does is try to destroy religion. Look at China and the USSR for examples.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:31 PM

And what happens when the Church is forced by law to perform, sanctify and bless a same sex union? The gay marriage activists poisoned the well on this issue when they went after bakers and photographers seeking to destroy them. In order to preserve our religious freedom we can never be passive about protecting our First Amendment rights.

Rose on February 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Well, firstly, it isn’t 1% – surveys show around half the population, give or take, support recognizing gay marriages. Secondly, I see no injustice where nobody’s rights are violated.

So what? Polls are for the most part not even closely related to reality. If what your strawman claims to be true, were in fact true, why is it so often voted down? That said, what is your hangup on the word? If civil unions offered the same benefits as marriage, you would cease to see it as an issue, right?..riiight??

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Mimzey on February 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM

It is troubling that anyone would use the power of the government do deny consensual adults the pursuit of happiness.
liberalrules on February 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Tell that to the tea party groups that had to deal with the IRS you b!tch!

PrettyMooch on February 8, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Was Obama stoned during Bob Costas interview?

VorDaj on February 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Possibly. Certainly a whole lot of people were when they voted for him. Twice.

xNavigator on February 8, 2014 at 5:42 PM

As I posted above. Not until the Pope is forced to bless sodomy at the high altar of St. Peter’s. Or (the real aim) to shutter the church entirely.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2014 at 5:30 PM

From http://tinyurl.com/o8qct8y
Feb. 7, 2014: Cardinal Sebastián Aguilar, 84 years old, a good friend of Pope Francis, has been charged by the authorities of Mallorca, Spain of the crime of homophobia, for which a conviction could carry prison time. The “slandering” Cardinal, fully in accord with Catholic teaching that views practicing homosexuality as a mortal sin, expressed in a tv interview a negative opinion of homosexuaity and suggested that it could be cured with proper treatment.

VorDaj on February 8, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Replying to the earlier question — I DO hold that the marriage is less perfect than it could be; it is still a marriage. To use an analogy — a dog with 3 legs is still a dog, but a less perfect dog.

And, before you get on your high horse here — my wife and I are in that situation. The marriage is less perfect because of this. Nevertheless, it is still a true marriage.

If you believe that legitimacy of an institution comes from the government, then you must hold that slavery was legitimate. If you hold that legitimacy is conferred by personal opinion, then a man having sexual relations with a doorknot could be just as legitimately married as any couple (although he is less likely to have to worry about divorce, let alone alimony). If marriage is ultimately based on the objective criteria that characterizes the biological aspects of marriage, however, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

philosoph0123 on February 8, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Rose on February 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM

I see your point, I was not clear. On a personal/spiritual level, I can care less what the government says marriage is, or the color of the sky for that matter.

However on a political level, I care, and I fight. I will not submit to the moral equivocations, straw men, and lies of people like Federati.

As far as the Church being forced to perform gay marriage, I am not worried. The Catholic Church will never submit to that.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM

No government law can take that away or change that. What the government says is of no concern to me.

Governments come and go, truth is eternal.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:31 PM

To you it can’t. Your marriage was performed in a yet to be distorted ceremony.

It could be thought of as people who go through the steps and commitments of becoming legal citizens….and then some power broker waves a pen or makes a phone call and *poof* they are no different than the ones who sneak in. ( not a perfect analogy, but close)…why bother?

Mimzey on February 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Yes, because sexual deviancy deserves government protection and recognition. Cleombrotus on February 8, 2014 at 5:36 PM

They’ll grant and enforce “rights” that don’t threaten the federal govt, while at the same time undermining the Bill of Rights which limits the federal govt.

This is the core of modern American liberalism.

Akzed on February 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM

I really don’t see what the big deal here is and why everyone is throwing a fit over this…

Federati on February 8, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Then you will have no problem when those benefits are rescinded when another administration comes in… right?

Skywise on February 8, 2014 at 5:47 PM

Question: How does the ability for homosexual couples to marry have any effect on your own marriages? Why do cons care so much about who can get married?

Note: I hope no one brings religion into this. It’s impossible to debate with half-retarded chimps who believe in fairy tales.

LeftoCenter on February 8, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Was Obama stoned during Bob Costas interview?
VorDaj on February 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM

If only that were true. Islamist justice for a closet Islamist.

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Note: I hope no one brings religion into this. It’s impossible to debate with half-retarded chimps who believe in fairy tales.

LeftoCenter on February 8, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Ahh, the irony.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 8, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Mimzey on February 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM

…and then some power broker waves a pen or makes a phone call and *poof* they are no different than the ones who sneak in.

The definition of a true marriage has not changed for thousands of years. It is not going to change now. Pretenders will always be just that, no matter how sneaky.

I can tell people the truth, try to convince them of it, live it. The choice to follow the truth is not my decision to make or force upon someone else.

God is my judge, He is the one I will have to answer to for the results of my life. The government is nothing more than temporary rules that may or may not be just.

captnjoe on February 8, 2014 at 5:53 PM

It’s impossible to debate with half-retarded chimps who believe in fairy tales.

LeftoCenter on February 8, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Great to see that you’re bringing the right open-minded attitude to the debate. Hope you enjoy your stay here!

Art Vandelay on February 8, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7