Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, March 7, 2009
Politics Deceptive Ads on Domestic Partnerships
Posted by Dominic Holden on Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Yesterday, we brought you news of the religious right's rising campaign against the state domestic partnership bill, which would expand the partnership law to extend virtually ever right of marriage to registered same-sex couples. Their strategy, it seems, is to target senators (mostly Democrats) from swing districts into reversing their support for the bill. Now they've posted seven deceptive videos on YouTube—no word on whether these are actually running on the teevee—singling out the senators they want folks to contact. Here's one aimed at senator Chris Marr (D-6) that claims passing the bill would "redefine marriage" and result in "teaching that gay marriage is normal and healthy in public schools."
This ad only uses the word "marriage," never acknowledging that the bill only applies to domestic partnerships. Conservatives often claim that they don't oppose granting equal rights to gay couples; they want to preserve the institution of marriage. Well, this bill would preserve "marriage." So these ads—this fight—isn't about protecting their sacred word or their unions: They're blatantly fighting to deny equal rights.
Phone numbers for the lawmakers groups are targeting are here. And you can find your legislator's contact info here.
1
Sadly, this neither surprises nor shocks me. I've always known those bigots hated and feared gays and want to punish them for what they see as dirty sins.
It never had anything to do with "protecting" marriage. It always had everything to do with their own immature and hateful beliefs.
It never had anything to do with "protecting" marriage. It always had everything to do with their own immature and hateful beliefs.
2
This does not surprise me in the least. The Republican leadership has been lying out both sides of their mouth for the last 8 years. I can only hope that the Democrats don't cave - even if I am all the way across the country of the East Coast. It really scares me that these people want to deny gays of their civil rights. If they succeed, who will they go after next?
3
perhaps I can be of assistance:
Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'.
No one is, or can be, promised by the government that they can marry the person they 'love'.
I hope this helps . . . . .
Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'.
No one is, or can be, promised by the government that they can marry the person they 'love'.
I hope this helps . . . . .
4
@3
"Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'."
No, it's a constitutional right.
"No one is, or can be, promised by the government that they can marry the person they 'love'."
Nonsense, the government promises this to anyone who meet the guidelines as set down in law.
"Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'."
No, it's a constitutional right.
"No one is, or can be, promised by the government that they can marry the person they 'love'."
Nonsense, the government promises this to anyone who meet the guidelines as set down in law.
5
@4
"Nonsense, the government promises this to anyone who meet the guidelines as set down in law."
Precisely wanting to marry someone of your own gender goes against the most basic of those guidelines set down by the law: Marriage is only between one man and one woman.
"Nonsense, the government promises this to anyone who meet the guidelines as set down in law."
Precisely wanting to marry someone of your own gender goes against the most basic of those guidelines set down by the law: Marriage is only between one man and one woman.
6
@1, you nailed it. Some people have simply surrendered to being hate-filled organisms. The interesting thing I've noticed over the years is that people like that tend to deteriorate before your eyes if you know them long enough. It's almost as if they cave in under the weight of their own wrath. In the end, when they're broken and writhing under the strain of their own twisted egos, I actually find myself pitying them.
P.S. Not that they tend to live happy lives before that point...it's just until they wear themselves out, they're too busy riding the waves of self-righteousness and holy anger to notice.
P.S. Not that they tend to live happy lives before that point...it's just until they wear themselves out, they're too busy riding the waves of self-righteousness and holy anger to notice.
7
Pursuant to Loving v. Virginia, @5, marriage is considered a civil right. The ruling was made with no consideration of gender nor did it bind marriage to any specific gender-pairing.
Absent a constitutional amendment that defines marriage, there is no gender requirement for marriage and thus gay marriage by any definition would certainly stand.
This is why it's good for your side that the Federal Marriage Amendment did not pass and why DOMA is good for your cause, as the former would have opened up the possibility of a case before the SCOTUS and the latter is just ambiguous enough that it does not intend to be a federal mandate, merely a state-level protection.
Absent a constitutional amendment that defines marriage, there is no gender requirement for marriage and thus gay marriage by any definition would certainly stand.
This is why it's good for your side that the Federal Marriage Amendment did not pass and why DOMA is good for your cause, as the former would have opened up the possibility of a case before the SCOTUS and the latter is just ambiguous enough that it does not intend to be a federal mandate, merely a state-level protection.
8
In addemdum @7
In Romer v. Evans the S.Ct found that governmental discrimination against gays had to have a rational basis, or it would be overturn.
Hopefully the courts will realize that there is no rational reason to discriminate against gays and will overturn state and federal bans on gay marriage.
In Romer v. Evans the S.Ct found that governmental discrimination against gays had to have a rational basis, or it would be overturn.
Hopefully the courts will realize that there is no rational reason to discriminate against gays and will overturn state and federal bans on gay marriage.
9
These ads are just full of lies and we will respond. The stuff about schools is outrageous. But for the moment let me repost and simply ask folks to take action now.
Thanks Josh Friedes, ERW
The biggest mistake the LGBT civil rights movement can make is assuming that the passage of the Domestic Partnership Bill of 2009 is a done deal. Regardless of whether or not the votes exist to pass the bill, the bill is an important vehicle to educate legislators about the lives of LGBT families and the breadth of support—gay and straight—for achieving full equality for Washington’s LGBT residents.
It is vital that persons outside Seattle in particular contact their legislators in support of the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009. And it is equally important that everybody encourages their friends, family co-workers and neighbors to do the same. We must be constantly building our movement. And we must tell our stories. Everybody gay and straight has a story to tell! (see links below)
One of the reasons that I am confident that we can respond to the surge of activity from the radical right is that so many people have used the e-advocacy systems of Equal Rights Washington (ERW), FUSE, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the ACLU and other organizations. This is no secret, online petitions and action alerts passed from one friend to another allow us to build our lists so we can respond as needed. So despite the concerns raised in this post please do continue to spread action alerts that are sent to you by ERW and allied organizations. At the same time remember that it is important to call, visit and send hand written notes to your legislators from time to time and whenever things really heat up as they are doing now. We must build and deepen relationships with our elected leaders.
I hope Dom’s post (Friday March 6th) will begin a vibrant conversation on the slog and elsewhere about the need for our community to increase our advocacy and better focus our efforts. c I know our opposition reads the SLOG as well as our friends. I will not here, therefore, telescope out the strategy and tactics we are undertaking to counter what is a very intense effort by the right to defeat the domestic partnership bill as well as stop the march toward marriage equality. Again, since this is no secret ERW does have state of the art technology that easily allows us to identify and call voters who support LGBT civil rights, so if you are interested in calling LGBT friendly voters in districts where the reactionary right is turning up the heat please either e-mail info@equalrightswashington.org or call ERW at 206-324-2570 and ask for Kate. This is a great way for folks in Seattle to help.
Below are also a few links you can use to contact your legislators if you have not already done so as well as info about Equality Day. PLEASE EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE & AT THE START OF YOUR E-MAIL TELL YOUR PERSONAL STORY.
If YOU CAN.NOT ATTEND EQUALITY DAY PLEASE USE THIS LINK
http://eqfed.org/campaign/virtual_eqday2…
IF YOU ARE ATTENDING EQUALITY DAY OR THINKING ABOUT IT PLEASE USE THIS LINK
http://eqfed.org/campaign/DP_2009
AND PLEASE REGISTER AND COME TO EQUALITY DAY. IF YOU THINK THINGS ARE NASTY NOW, JUST WAIT TILL THE MARRIAGE BILL STARTS MOVING. WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF US.
http://equalrightswashington.org/events/…
Please visit the ERW website www.equalrightswashington.org regularly as we will be posting updates and of course those of you on our e-mail list, you can expect a few alerts over the next few days!
--
Joshua A. Friedes
Advocacy Director
Equal Rights Washington
W 206-324-2570
More...
Thanks Josh Friedes, ERW
The biggest mistake the LGBT civil rights movement can make is assuming that the passage of the Domestic Partnership Bill of 2009 is a done deal. Regardless of whether or not the votes exist to pass the bill, the bill is an important vehicle to educate legislators about the lives of LGBT families and the breadth of support—gay and straight—for achieving full equality for Washington’s LGBT residents.
It is vital that persons outside Seattle in particular contact their legislators in support of the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009. And it is equally important that everybody encourages their friends, family co-workers and neighbors to do the same. We must be constantly building our movement. And we must tell our stories. Everybody gay and straight has a story to tell! (see links below)
One of the reasons that I am confident that we can respond to the surge of activity from the radical right is that so many people have used the e-advocacy systems of Equal Rights Washington (ERW), FUSE, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the ACLU and other organizations. This is no secret, online petitions and action alerts passed from one friend to another allow us to build our lists so we can respond as needed. So despite the concerns raised in this post please do continue to spread action alerts that are sent to you by ERW and allied organizations. At the same time remember that it is important to call, visit and send hand written notes to your legislators from time to time and whenever things really heat up as they are doing now. We must build and deepen relationships with our elected leaders.
I hope Dom’s post (Friday March 6th) will begin a vibrant conversation on the slog and elsewhere about the need for our community to increase our advocacy and better focus our efforts. c I know our opposition reads the SLOG as well as our friends. I will not here, therefore, telescope out the strategy and tactics we are undertaking to counter what is a very intense effort by the right to defeat the domestic partnership bill as well as stop the march toward marriage equality. Again, since this is no secret ERW does have state of the art technology that easily allows us to identify and call voters who support LGBT civil rights, so if you are interested in calling LGBT friendly voters in districts where the reactionary right is turning up the heat please either e-mail info@equalrightswashington.org or call ERW at 206-324-2570 and ask for Kate. This is a great way for folks in Seattle to help.
Below are also a few links you can use to contact your legislators if you have not already done so as well as info about Equality Day. PLEASE EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE & AT THE START OF YOUR E-MAIL TELL YOUR PERSONAL STORY.
If YOU CAN.NOT ATTEND EQUALITY DAY PLEASE USE THIS LINK
http://eqfed.org/campaign/virtual_eqday2…
IF YOU ARE ATTENDING EQUALITY DAY OR THINKING ABOUT IT PLEASE USE THIS LINK
http://eqfed.org/campaign/DP_2009
AND PLEASE REGISTER AND COME TO EQUALITY DAY. IF YOU THINK THINGS ARE NASTY NOW, JUST WAIT TILL THE MARRIAGE BILL STARTS MOVING. WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF US.
http://equalrightswashington.org/events/…
Please visit the ERW website www.equalrightswashington.org regularly as we will be posting updates and of course those of you on our e-mail list, you can expect a few alerts over the next few days!
--
Joshua A. Friedes
Advocacy Director
Equal Rights Washington
W 206-324-2570
10
Thank you for the helpful links. We have forwarded them to all our members so they can voice their opposition to the bill.
12
I live in Vancouver. Who is my state senator?
I'll contact my state senator on this if I have the contact info.
Josh says we should tell our stories. Well, man, do I have a story to tell!
I'll contact my state senator on this if I have the contact info.
Josh says we should tell our stories. Well, man, do I have a story to tell!
13
@3
Why are you talking about "marriage?"
This isn't about marriage. Marriage has already been taken off the table.
We're talking about treating homosexuals as human beings. Would you like to comment on that?
Why are you talking about "marriage?"
This isn't about marriage. Marriage has already been taken off the table.
We're talking about treating homosexuals as human beings. Would you like to comment on that?
14
14
Homosexuals are treated the same under current laws.
They are seeking new special rights and benefits from the taxpayer. Two consenting adults can go and form whatever kind of bond they wish with each other and it is their business. But it is an entirely different matter to then go to the government and demand benefits that cost public dollars. Whatever you wish to call it, the public sees no benefit to society and no interest in subsidizing it.
And where do you draw the line? If you recognize same sex relationships why not polygamy? Any argument to expand recognized relationships from man-woman to same sex can also be used to demand recognition of multiple partner relationships. Dan will tell you what a crock monogamy is so how is it fair not to let a guy hook up with six or seven 'partners' and get government benefits for the whole tribe?
You are already treated like human beings.
This is about getting a hand in the (empty and in debt) taxpayers' wallet and taxpayers aren't in the mood.
sorry
Homosexuals are treated the same under current laws.
They are seeking new special rights and benefits from the taxpayer. Two consenting adults can go and form whatever kind of bond they wish with each other and it is their business. But it is an entirely different matter to then go to the government and demand benefits that cost public dollars. Whatever you wish to call it, the public sees no benefit to society and no interest in subsidizing it.
And where do you draw the line? If you recognize same sex relationships why not polygamy? Any argument to expand recognized relationships from man-woman to same sex can also be used to demand recognition of multiple partner relationships. Dan will tell you what a crock monogamy is so how is it fair not to let a guy hook up with six or seven 'partners' and get government benefits for the whole tribe?
You are already treated like human beings.
This is about getting a hand in the (empty and in debt) taxpayers' wallet and taxpayers aren't in the mood.
sorry
15
I want to treat my wife as chattel. It's traditional and civilization for ten thousands years has been based on this concept. It's in the Bible. If you redefine marriage so she's an equal, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE????
Also: same with my other 12 wives. And I'm comfortable knowing that in our tribe my brothers are forced to marry them if I die.
Society is built on this! If you change it WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
Also: same with my other 12 wives. And I'm comfortable knowing that in our tribe my brothers are forced to marry them if I die.
Society is built on this! If you change it WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
16
Maybe Dan should go on TV whining about how it makes God unhappy to see Christians bearing false witness with their mouths.
17
Let us stone to death the chefs who prepare and the patrons who consume pigs, camels, shellfish, lizards, and most poultry. They are unclean. It is in Leviticus.
Also, let us stone to death all the patrons of Wallmart, Sears, and K-mart for they are wearing unclean cotton-poly blends. Sinners were man-made materials of mixed fibers. Shatnas are unclean. Leviticus says so.
Let us stone to death all the children who curse or have cursed at their parents. Leviticus tells us this is right.
Those who don't convert to Judaism should be executed...or (as amended by Exodus) enslaved. The Bible is law!
Oh, yes and we can't forget the adulterers. Leviticus and Jesus were down on adulterers. And who did Jesus think were committing adultery? In Matthew 5:31–32, he says, "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, he says, "And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery". In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Likewise, Luke 16:18 says, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." Well, let's just stone those bastards to death right now!
p.s. Leviticus doesn't actually mention homosexuals. The actual word is "masturbators". And the bible right up to the 40's said masturbators, not homosexuals, until somebody in publishing decided to put it in there.
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comme…
More...
Also, let us stone to death all the patrons of Wallmart, Sears, and K-mart for they are wearing unclean cotton-poly blends. Sinners were man-made materials of mixed fibers. Shatnas are unclean. Leviticus says so.
Let us stone to death all the children who curse or have cursed at their parents. Leviticus tells us this is right.
Those who don't convert to Judaism should be executed...or (as amended by Exodus) enslaved. The Bible is law!
Oh, yes and we can't forget the adulterers. Leviticus and Jesus were down on adulterers. And who did Jesus think were committing adultery? In Matthew 5:31–32, he says, "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, he says, "And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery". In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Likewise, Luke 16:18 says, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." Well, let's just stone those bastards to death right now!
p.s. Leviticus doesn't actually mention homosexuals. The actual word is "masturbators". And the bible right up to the 40's said masturbators, not homosexuals, until somebody in publishing decided to put it in there.
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comme…
19
May I suggest:
You homos give it a rest already. People who were tolerant of you to a certain degree are getting annoyed by your forced demands.
People are starting to get sick of hearing about this over and over.
You homos give it a rest already. People who were tolerant of you to a certain degree are getting annoyed by your forced demands.
People are starting to get sick of hearing about this over and over.
20
We hear about this bill giving equal "rights" associated with marriage to gay couples, but would it confer equal responsibilities as well? An in, having your credit ruined and wages garnished due to your partner's financial mistakes, alimony, assumed co-parentage of children your partner birthed during the relationship, and so on?
21
The state should not be in the marriage business.
Health care should be given to all and not tied to employment.
It has been made clear the DPs are just a step to GM so why wouldn't opponents point that out? But, the state shouldn't be in the business anyway so let's just provide some boilerplate partnership agreements and go from there. Let everyone name their tax free heir and make it easy to provide access to "family" in the hospital etc.
Gays are valid without marriage. Get married in the church of your choice. Get the state out of it and bestow equal rights to all relationships not just couples.
Health care should be given to all and not tied to employment.
It has been made clear the DPs are just a step to GM so why wouldn't opponents point that out? But, the state shouldn't be in the business anyway so let's just provide some boilerplate partnership agreements and go from there. Let everyone name their tax free heir and make it easy to provide access to "family" in the hospital etc.
Gays are valid without marriage. Get married in the church of your choice. Get the state out of it and bestow equal rights to all relationships not just couples.
22
I am very Queer - and appreciate the equality sense of the move toward marriage.
But I am dumb founded that so many GLBT people do not see the ago old traps of " real marriage".
Even the new all the way Dom. Partner bill in Oly. provides that you must go to court to dissolve this agreement. Here we are feeding attorneys hundreds of thousands of dollars in divorce courts.
My partner and I of 20 years are mad in love. We do not live together, each has his own apt. Works better that way. A wonderful Lesbian minister confirmed our union years ago - and we have had several other moments of vows and deep tethering to each other.
That formal marriage, for what- maybe we are just too secure already.
Beware the divorce trap. And a piece of paper from the state, well good luck if your relationship really really needs that.
I think we need more work on anti-violence and coming out in a better society for youth. Equality in the Army?
But I am dumb founded that so many GLBT people do not see the ago old traps of " real marriage".
Even the new all the way Dom. Partner bill in Oly. provides that you must go to court to dissolve this agreement. Here we are feeding attorneys hundreds of thousands of dollars in divorce courts.
My partner and I of 20 years are mad in love. We do not live together, each has his own apt. Works better that way. A wonderful Lesbian minister confirmed our union years ago - and we have had several other moments of vows and deep tethering to each other.
That formal marriage, for what- maybe we are just too secure already.
Beware the divorce trap. And a piece of paper from the state, well good luck if your relationship really really needs that.
I think we need more work on anti-violence and coming out in a better society for youth. Equality in the Army?
24
Why are there so many blatant homophobes trolling the slog lately? Who told these asshats about teh interwebs anyway. Go back to living in your caves and beating your wives, you cretins.
25
@22 -- while that's awesome that _you_ don't need the protections of divorce, not everyone is so fortunate.
Divorce protects both parties of the relationship -- which is really important if there's an income (or other "power") disparity. Divorce ensures that property acquired during the relationship is apportioned equitably, which can be a big issue for same-sex relationship because of not all couples have both their names on deeds and mortgages. Divorce protects the children of a relationship, and ensures their care through child support and alimony (indirectly), and allows for visitation for the non-custodial parent.
Divorce is VERY much a marriage right and is probably among the top 10 most important ones.
Remember, a huge portion of the rights and responsibilities of marriage are only used in times of trouble or distress -- hospital visitation and medical decision making, right to remains (of the deceased), right to sue for wrongful death, spousal privilege (can't be forced to testify against a spouse in court), and yes, d-i-v-o-r-c-e.
Divorce protects both parties of the relationship -- which is really important if there's an income (or other "power") disparity. Divorce ensures that property acquired during the relationship is apportioned equitably, which can be a big issue for same-sex relationship because of not all couples have both their names on deeds and mortgages. Divorce protects the children of a relationship, and ensures their care through child support and alimony (indirectly), and allows for visitation for the non-custodial parent.
Divorce is VERY much a marriage right and is probably among the top 10 most important ones.
Remember, a huge portion of the rights and responsibilities of marriage are only used in times of trouble or distress -- hospital visitation and medical decision making, right to remains (of the deceased), right to sue for wrongful death, spousal privilege (can't be forced to testify against a spouse in court), and yes, d-i-v-o-r-c-e.
26
#22: That's great that you and your partner don't see the need to legally marry. More power to you. On the other hand, a lot of unmarried co-habitating couples-- both hetero and gay--have been shocked by how few rights they have, and they tend to find this out when it's too late. Case in point: the deceased gay man in Oklahoma who willed his ranch to his partner of 25 years, only for his homophobic estranged cousins to come out of the woodwork and easily overturn the will. It would have been much harder for those cousins to have to have done so if they couple had been legally married. You define marriage as a "piece of paper", but a piece of paper can be very important: think about your birth certificate, academic transcripts, apartment lease, paycheck, and so on.
27
#22 is an honest queer, and his views are those of many other queers.
Only a small percentage of queers see a need to keep agitating for marriage.
Thank you Larry for saying what the majority really thinks.
Only a small percentage of queers see a need to keep agitating for marriage.
Thank you Larry for saying what the majority really thinks.
28
@ 27,
There is no tolerance for queers...especially from folks like you. And no matter how many fundie trolls come to slog, this blog is hella gay, dudes. Get The Fuck Over It. the LGBT will not be sitting down and shutting up...because now it's No More Mister Nice Gay.
There is no tolerance for queers...especially from folks like you. And no matter how many fundie trolls come to slog, this blog is hella gay, dudes. Get The Fuck Over It. the LGBT will not be sitting down and shutting up...because now it's No More Mister Nice Gay.
29
@28--- I read @22 and @27 as saying that not all gay people want to fight for marriage because it is such a losing fight. Civil unions or other means could have been/could be better routes.
This is my position too, and I sure as hell ain't no fundie troll.
This is my position too, and I sure as hell ain't no fundie troll.
30
Maybe what we need to do is to reinstate the sodomy laws.
Perhaps the fags will then see how good they have it now and stop bitching.
Perhaps the fags will then see how good they have it now and stop bitching.
32
29
Civil Union with the rights of marriage is the reasonable way to go.
And it is very doable.
Some homosexual activist have a thing about religion and want to stick it to the Catholics and Fundies by calling it marriage.
They would rather lose than give up a chance to bash religion at every turn.
Civil Union with the rights of marriage is the reasonable way to go.
And it is very doable.
Some homosexual activist have a thing about religion and want to stick it to the Catholics and Fundies by calling it marriage.
They would rather lose than give up a chance to bash religion at every turn.
33
"Homosexuals are treated the same under current laws.
They are seeking new special rights and benefits from the taxpayer. Two consenting adults can go and form whatever kind of bond they wish with each other and it is their business. But it is an entirely different matter to then go to the government and demand benefits that cost public dollars. Whatever you wish to call it, the public sees no benefit to society and no interest in subsidizing it.
And where do you draw the line? If you recognize same sex relationships why not polygamy? Any argument to expand recognized relationships from man-woman to same sex can also be used to demand recognition of multiple partner relationships. Dan will tell you what a crock monogamy is so how is it fair not to let a guy hook up with six or seven 'partners' and get government benefits for the whole tribe?
You are already treated like human beings.
This is about getting a hand in the (empty and in debt) taxpayers' wallet and taxpayers aren't in the mood.
sorry"
I’m sorry that OUR GAY TAX DOLLARS are spent on heterosexual marriages and divorces!!! These are the rigths married persons are entitled:
Filing joint income tax returns
Family health care plans (Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer)
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses
Wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse
Exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes
Hospital visitation rights
Power of attorney
Inheritance rights without a will
Life estate trusts
Public assistance benefits
Family leave (FMLA through an employer)
Bereavement leave (spouses family)
Adoption
Single signature contractual agreements
Family rates for Insurances
Consumer discounts for married couple only
Legal Protection for wrongful death of spouse
Marital communications privilege
Victims' recovery benefits
Immigration and residency benefits
Equitable division of property
Spousal or child support
Child custody and visitation
You need to back up your statement and give me some figures about how these rights cost taxpayers any monies. Especially when if homosexuals were straight WE WOULD BE GETTING MARRIED ANYWAY!!! You my friend are an idiot!
Im not even going to bother with your statement about polygamy. But you should also look into facts about other countries that allow same-sex partnerships and how they are NOT seeing an uprising of polygamy. I WIN!!!
More...
They are seeking new special rights and benefits from the taxpayer. Two consenting adults can go and form whatever kind of bond they wish with each other and it is their business. But it is an entirely different matter to then go to the government and demand benefits that cost public dollars. Whatever you wish to call it, the public sees no benefit to society and no interest in subsidizing it.
And where do you draw the line? If you recognize same sex relationships why not polygamy? Any argument to expand recognized relationships from man-woman to same sex can also be used to demand recognition of multiple partner relationships. Dan will tell you what a crock monogamy is so how is it fair not to let a guy hook up with six or seven 'partners' and get government benefits for the whole tribe?
You are already treated like human beings.
This is about getting a hand in the (empty and in debt) taxpayers' wallet and taxpayers aren't in the mood.
sorry"
I’m sorry that OUR GAY TAX DOLLARS are spent on heterosexual marriages and divorces!!! These are the rigths married persons are entitled:
Filing joint income tax returns
Family health care plans (Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer)
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses
Wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse
Exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes
Hospital visitation rights
Power of attorney
Inheritance rights without a will
Life estate trusts
Public assistance benefits
Family leave (FMLA through an employer)
Bereavement leave (spouses family)
Adoption
Single signature contractual agreements
Family rates for Insurances
Consumer discounts for married couple only
Legal Protection for wrongful death of spouse
Marital communications privilege
Victims' recovery benefits
Immigration and residency benefits
Equitable division of property
Spousal or child support
Child custody and visitation
You need to back up your statement and give me some figures about how these rights cost taxpayers any monies. Especially when if homosexuals were straight WE WOULD BE GETTING MARRIED ANYWAY!!! You my friend are an idiot!
Im not even going to bother with your statement about polygamy. But you should also look into facts about other countries that allow same-sex partnerships and how they are NOT seeing an uprising of polygamy. I WIN!!!
34
@5 - Sorry, but you're full crap. To marry is to take a "SPOUSE." Since "SPOUSE" is gender neutral, then IT DOES apply equally to same-sex marriage. Taking a "SPOUSE" does not mean taking someone of the opposite gender. So, now, not only is YOUR straight agenda to keep your precious word "marriage" for just two people of the opposite sex, YOU also want to redefine the word "SPOUSE."
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
In Which Peter Steinbrueck Peforms in Blackvoice by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS