Gay couples hope legislation makes Ha...

Gay couples hope legislation makes Hawaii first Western state w...

There are 16148 comments on the The Morning Call story from Feb 22, 2009, titled Gay couples hope legislation makes Hawaii first Western state w.... In it, The Morning Call reports that:

Hawaii , the state that adopted the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment a decade ago, has now become the latest battleground in the fight for same-sex civil unions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Morning Call.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#16838 Nov 6, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I applaud you, sir. You have covered more in your posts on this one page of this thread than most of us have over our entire time on this forum. I truly wish I had the writing talents of you and several others who post here. Congratulations.
Thanks Ralph! Comes from years of commenting in these forums... This place is such a boot camp for learning how to defend LGBT rights.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16839 Nov 6, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put, the fact that such benefits are offered to married couples means that by extension, the same benefits should be offered to same sex married couples as a matter of fairness. However, I cannot speak to the reasons why married couples deserve tax benefits that singles are not afforded. In fact, there is a growing movement of people who believe that our government by treating married couples as somehow special is privileging them in terms of rights and responsibilities, which in essence, violates the rights of those who wish to remain single. I don't take a position on that matter, but it is good food for thought.
You don't take a position on it? Sure you do! A bigoted position. How is a single person's right to that deduction any different than a ss couple's?

You deny/ignore the original reason for the deduction, what is the basis now?

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#16840 Nov 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't take a position on it? Sure you do! A bigoted position. How is a single person's right to that deduction any different than a ss couple's?
You deny/ignore the original reason for the deduction, what is the basis now?
Ah, I think I know what you mean. You're assuming that married same sex couples are more similarly situated to singles than married heterosexual couples. Not so. Many same sex couples do all the same general things that married couples do- open joint bank accounts, buy a home together, file taxes jointly, make medical decisions on each other's behalf, and raise children together (especially lesbians). Until recently, we've been prevented from doing many of those things. For mere lack of recognition of our marriages, States often view a couple as legal strangers to each other. Just because that is so does not make gay couples similarly situated to singles. We've been shoehorned into that designation.

On a personal note, I always balked at the IRS tax forms that while threatening that a person must tell the truth or potentially face perjury charges, not only asked but required that a person in a same sex marriage like myself attest that they are single... Like being required by law to lie and simultaniously threatened with charges for doing so. Thankfully, that is no longer the case.

Anyway, I guess I read your question slightly ascant in my interpretation of it, but if the singles movement is correct in it's assessment that marriage wrongly privileges couples to the detriment of singles, then yes, I suppose that any position advocating civil marriage would effectually prove an agenda bigoted against singles. However, I have not made up my mind whether or not that is the case, so I don't take a position on it. That said, I do know about the only thing that could possibly make everyone happy is if the government got out of the marriage business altogether. Besides, I do consider it a predominately social and/or religious institution. Maybe that's something the government should not be involved with at all? Unfortunately, I think that is a potential resolution that remains severely out of reach.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16841 Nov 6, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, I think I know what you mean. You're assuming that married same sex couples are more similarly situated to singles than married heterosexual couples. Not so. Many same sex couples do all the same general things that married couples do- open joint bank accounts, buy a home together, file taxes jointly, make medical decisions on each other's behalf, and raise children together (especially lesbians). Until recently, we've been prevented from doing many of those things. For mere lack of recognition of our marriages, States often view a couple as legal strangers to each other. Just because that is so does not make gay couples similarly situated to singles. We've been shoehorned into that designation.
On a personal note, I always balked at the IRS tax forms that while threatening that a person must tell the truth or potentially face perjury charges, not only asked but required that a person in a same sex marriage like myself attest that they are single... Like being required by law to lie and simultaniously threatened with charges for doing so. Thankfully, that is no longer the case.
Anyway, I guess I read your question slightly ascant in my interpretation of it, but if the singles movement is correct in it's assessment that marriage wrongly privileges couples to the detriment of singles, then yes, I suppose that any position advocating civil marriage would effectually prove an agenda bigoted against singles. However, I have not made up my mind whether or not that is the case, so I don't take a position on it. That said, I do know about the only thing that could possibly make everyone happy is if the government got out of the marriage business altogether. Besides, I do consider it a predominately social and/or religious institution. Maybe that's something the government should not be involved with at all? Unfortunately, I think that is a potential resolution that remains severely out of reach.
Wow, I got dizzy with all that gay twirl.

What gives ss couples the right for tax breaks and not singles?

It's a simple question. What prevailing interest does the government have to discriminate?

You know, like it did between marriage and ss couples?

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#16842 Nov 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I got dizzy with all that gay twirl.
What gives ss couples the right for tax breaks and not singles?
It's a simple question. What prevailing interest does the government have to discriminate?
You know, like it did between marriage and ss couples?
Really, truly, and honestly, I'm not sure at all what gives the government a right to distinguish between singles and married couples. A moniker I used frequently in the past was, "Equal means EQUAL" and therefore I am inclined to agree with the position of the singles movement because their position appears rooted on solid ground. However, I'm not going to deny the reality that the current state of affairs "is what it is". If a serious proposition to abolish civil marriage and institute a fairer system came forward, pending its details, I would support it. There would have to be a lot of reform in that area first though. For one, I think if and when a person dies, he or she should be able to leave their assets to whomsoever they do so choose 100% tax free. Second, there should be no limitations on rights dependent on marital status, such as the ability to open up a joint bank account or choose to file taxes with somebody else jointly. The logistics of which are enormous and dire with potentially adverse complications. Last, one would have to disentangle the concept of parental status from marriage, and while some of this has already happened, complete disentanglement would be a new paradigm. No, I am inclined to say the easiest and fairest way forward for all is simply to open up the civil institution of marriage as an option to all adults regardless of gender.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16843 Nov 6, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, truly, and honestly, I'm not sure at all what gives the government a right to distinguish between singles and married couples. A moniker I used frequently in the past was, "Equal means EQUAL" and therefore I am inclined to agree with the position of the singles movement because their position appears rooted on solid ground. However, I'm not going to deny the reality that the current state of affairs "is what it is". If a serious proposition to abolish civil marriage and institute a fairer system came forward, pending its details, I would support it. There would have to be a lot of reform in that area first though. For one, I think if and when a person dies, he or she should be able to leave their assets to whomsoever they do so choose 100% tax free. Second, there should be no limitations on rights dependent on marital status, such as the ability to open up a joint bank account or choose to file taxes with somebody else jointly. The logistics of which are enormous and dire with potentially adverse complications. Last, one would have to disentangle the concept of parental status from marriage, and while some of this has already happened, complete disentanglement would be a new paradigm. No, I am inclined to say the easiest and fairest way forward for all is simply to open up the civil institution of marriage as an option to all adults regardless of gender.
What a load of crap.

Your 'easiest and fairest way' still excludes singles.

The reason those benefits were given was to support the nuclear family. The fairest way forward is to exclude ALL others.

Which brings us back to the clear distinctions between marriage and ss couples.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#16844 Nov 6, 2013
I guess that's why all childless straight married couples get the 'nuclear family' tax break too..

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#16845 Nov 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap.
Your 'easiest and fairest way' still excludes singles.
The reason those benefits were given was to support the nuclear family. The fairest way forward is to exclude ALL others.
Which brings us back to the clear distinctions between marriage and ss couples.
You are ignoring the fact that minus the classification of gender, same sex couples live thier lives and function as nuclear families. You might disagree on principal that no such family should exist, but we do, and disagreement will not change that. So you can either continue this mean-spirited campaign in favor of doing everything you can to keep families like us apart, or just accept the fact and like any good decent person, wish others the best.

What you have in mind is not to our best interests.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16846 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap.
Your 'easiest and fairest way' still excludes singles.
The reason those benefits were given was to support the nuclear family. The fairest way forward is to exclude ALL others.
Which brings us back to the clear distinctions between marriage and ss couples.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
You are ignoring the fact that minus the classification of gender, same sex couples live thier lives and function as nuclear families. You might disagree on principal that no such family should exist, but we do, and disagreement will not change that. So you can either continue this mean-spirited campaign in favor of doing everything you can to keep families like us apart, or just accept the fact and like any good decent person, wish others the best.
What you have in mind is not to our best interests.
So you are admitting the privileges given to ss couples with prejudice for no prevailing government interest? Something that identifies you with singles, AND NOT marriage?

Now you turn around and demand it on the basis of a facade???

I don't disagree on 'principle', the above and numerous other distinctions I list are facts!

And facts are not 'mean spirited'. Ss couples simply are not the same as marriage. You have diverted at every point from the facts.

Nor am I the one who is bias. I DO have the best interests of marriage and family in mind. But I also have the best interests of homosexuals in mind.

The only thing that you have confirmed in our discussion is the immense amount of denial necessary for this charade. Denial is NEVER healthy for a person or those around them.

You are the one guilty of hate and harm Josh.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16847 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Which brings us back to the clear distinctions between marriage and ss couples.
Who has been trying to compare marriage and ss couples? Oh, that's right, just you.

You got nothing. You never have, and you never will. Your "clear distinctions" are nothing but fundi-twirling. They are completely irrelevant to everyone but you.

Let us know when the state and the federal government's view of our MARRIAGES is superseded by your nonsense! Until then, piss off old catty bitch!! Smile!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16848 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
But I also have the best interests of homosexuals in mind.
Go f*ck yourself and your interests.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#16849 Nov 7, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Go f*ck yourself and your interests.
After all of his bent-azz twirl posts(and there PLENTY) I can't believe he said that!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16850 Nov 7, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>After all of his bent-azz twirl posts(and there PLENTY) I can't believe he said that!
Slave owners had the slave's "best interest" too!! He's a worthless moron. Another fundie malcontent. Nothing more.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#16851 Nov 7, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Slave owners had the slave's "best interest" too!! He's a worthless moron. Another fundie malcontent. Nothing more.
No He's worse. He's been spouting hate speech for years and should have been removed on here a long time ago. Why Topix still allows him a registered account is a mystery.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#16852 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap.
Your 'easiest and fairest way' still excludes singles.
The reason those benefits were given was to support the nuclear family. The fairest way forward is to exclude ALL others.
Which brings us back to the clear distinctions between marriage and ss couples.
<quoted text>
So you are admitting the privileges given to ss couples with prejudice for no prevailing government interest? Something that identifies you with singles, AND NOT marriage?
Now you turn around and demand it on the basis of a facade???
I don't disagree on 'principle', the above and numerous other distinctions I list are facts!
And facts are not 'mean spirited'. Ss couples simply are not the same as marriage. You have diverted at every point from the facts.
Nor am I the one who is bias. I DO have the best interests of marriage and family in mind. But I also have the best interests of homosexuals in mind.
The only thing that you have confirmed in our discussion is the immense amount of denial necessary for this charade. Denial is NEVER healthy for a person or those around them.
You are the one guilty of hate and harm Josh.
I don't hate anybody (well maybe clowns). That's an absurd accusation and I cannot for even a second imagine why you would say that. And there is a compelling state interest in having marriage equality- protecting the rights of families who are currently not covered under the law.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16853 Nov 7, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't hate anybody (well maybe clowns). That's an absurd accusation and I cannot for even a second imagine why you would say that. And there is a compelling state interest in having marriage equality- protecting the rights of families who are currently not covered under the law.
Did you read the posts that preceded yours?

Among other things, you falsely accused me of being mean spirited when I simply have stated the facts. I'm sorry, but that is hateful.

Now you flip back to wanting to include children. I'm sorry, but gays have been adamant that children cannot be considered for marriage. Moreover, the government has more assistance for children in default situations than it does for nuclear families!

Josh! Look at how you are flipping around!

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#16854 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the posts that preceded yours?
Among other things, you falsely accused me of being mean spirited when I simply have stated the facts. I'm sorry, but that is hateful.
Wow, you think it's hateful to characterize your disposition on this matter as mean-spirited? I do so because it has become apparent that you don't care about what people like us have to go through because of lack of recognition for our marriages. I gave a number of examples- most pointedly, the example of Windsor receiving a $350,000 tax bill upon the death of her wife. People not even a year ago were losing their homes over similar governmental BS, but you just don't care about them, now do you? That's why I'm characterizing your position as mean spirited, and it's not hateful to say so- it's the truth (as you so often like to say).
KiMare wrote:
Now you flip back to wanting to include children. I'm sorry, but gays have been adamant that children cannot be considered for marriage.
You have been saying that over and over, but I have not said it once. Children should be considered for marriage, but they are not a deciding factor for which the marital right is granted to couples. Not now, and not ever. People are allowed to marry whether or not they have or want kids. However, there are kids being raised by same sex couples, and they are themselves discriminated against by the various laws in our country... prime example, a kid who cannot inherit from one of his fathers after a sudden fatal car accident, or children of gay parents who are unable to be on the working spouse's health plan. That's just two examples.
KiMare wrote:
Moreover, the government has more assistance for children in default situations than it does for nuclear families!
Josh! Look at how you are flipping around!
Yes, but children of gay parents are put at a disadvantage by the side effects of government considering their parents to be unmarried. Gay couples often have to go through lengthy adoption procedures to gain parental rights over one or the other of their children, even if the child was born biologically (example, 2 lesbians, one an egg donor, the other a surrogate). If the state considered the couple to be married, then adoption is virtually automatic.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16855 Nov 7, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you think it's hateful to characterize your disposition on this matter as mean-spirited? I do so because it has become apparent that you don't care about what people like us have to go through because of lack of recognition for our marriages. I gave a number of examples- most pointedly, the example of Windsor receiving a $350,000 tax bill upon the death of her wife. People not even a year ago were losing their homes over similar governmental BS, but you just don't care about them, now do you? That's why I'm characterizing your position as mean spirited, and it's not hateful to say so- it's the truth (as you so often like to say).
<quoted text>
You have been saying that over and over, but I have not said it once. Children should be considered for marriage, but they are not a deciding factor for which the marital right is granted to couples. Not now, and not ever. People are allowed to marry whether or not they have or want kids. However, there are kids being raised by same sex couples, and they are themselves discriminated against by the various laws in our country... prime example, a kid who cannot inherit from one of his fathers after a sudden fatal car accident, or children of gay parents who are unable to be on the working spouse's health plan. That's just two examples.
<quoted text>
Yes, but children of gay parents are put at a disadvantage by the side effects of government considering their parents to be unmarried. Gay couples often have to go through lengthy adoption procedures to gain parental rights over one or the other of their children, even if the child was born biologically (example, 2 lesbians, one an egg donor, the other a surrogate). If the state considered the couple to be married, then adoption is virtually automatic.
Why does someone need a break on a $350,000 tax bill, let alone DESERVE IT?

YOU couldn't justify it, now you are back to it??? This is the flipping around I was talking about!

Oh, I'm sorry, that was mean to say...

Now you are double talking about kids. First you say kids are not necessary for marriage, now you say that justifies your cause.

Not to mention the idiotic attempt to equate a duplicate half of default parents to a mother and father!

Moreover, your examples are false. You forget I've been a foster parent to over ten kids, and worked with numerous adoptive situations.

Your final example disgusts me. It is heartbreaking when a child loses a parent, but how dare someone deliberately birth a child with the intention of depriving them of a mother or father! It is simply diabolical, and certainly should be criminal.

You've done nothing but prove that ss marriage is an oxymoron. Get your own relationship and rights. Help orphans find a mother AND father. Then you will find the self esteem you long for.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#16856 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does someone need a break on a $350,000 tax bill, let alone DESERVE IT?
Simply put, it is not a tax break. If a couple works their entire lives building their assets together, then taking those assets away upon the other's death is a true injustice. As it has happened in the past, usually half the belongings of the couple default to inheritance by the next legal kin. In that case, the surviving spouse is usually forced to sell the estate to pay off the taxes in order to take ownership of the other 50%, or the extended family gets greedy and keeps the money for themselves thereby disenfranchising the surviving spouse of their rightful property. If this happened to you're grandmother, you'd be stomping mad about it.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU couldn't justify it, now you are back to it??? This is the flipping around I was talking about!
I have justified protecting the assets of the surviving spouse in a same sex relationship... on humanitarian grounds.
KiMare wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, that was mean to say...
No need for apologies, I gotta tougher skin than that babe!
KiMare wrote:
Now you are double talking about kids. First you say kids are not necessary for marriage...
I said they are not a necessary consideration for whether or not a person CAN marry. Stop twisting my words. I was very distinct.
KiMare wrote:
...now you say that justifies your cause.
Yes, because bans on gay marriage discriminate against the children of gay couples too!
KiMare wrote:
Not to mention the idiotic attempt to equate a duplicate half of default parents to a mother and father!
I take it you do not know any gay parents or anybody raised by two moms or two dads. You might have a change of heart if you did. Ask for some personal perspectives on that and see what they say if you ever get a chance to.
KiMare wrote:
Moreover, your examples are false. You forget I've been a foster parent to over ten kids, and worked with numerous adoptive situations.
No, I didn't forget. It's the first time you mentioned it to me except that you worked with some organizations.
KiMare wrote:
Your final example disgusts me. It is heartbreaking when a child loses a parent, but how dare someone deliberately birth a child with the intention of depriving them of a mother or father! It is simply diabolical, and certainly should be criminal.
It is our biological right. You would ban us from having children, but not a couple of drug addict felons? Man this world is messed up. Research also doesn't support your position that a child growing up with two dads or two moms is hurt psychologically by that. Quite the opposite, what research there is shows them to be oddly well-adjusted in comparison to other kids.
KiMare wrote:
You've done nothing but prove that ss marriage is an oxymoron. Get your own relationship and rights. Help orphans find a mother AND father. Then you will find the self esteem you long for.
I have plenty of self-esteem, and I don't need your permission or blessing to exercise my rights, which are thankfully now being recognized. In 10 years, marriage equality will be the law of the land in all 50 states.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16857 Nov 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does someone need a break on a $350,000 tax bill, let alone DESERVE IT?
Equal representation.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU couldn't justify it, now you are back to it??? This is the flipping around I was talking about!
He did justify it, you just didn't like the justification so as always you try and re-direct with questions and obfuscation.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I'm sorry, that was mean to say...
Why do you say you're sorry when you're not? Oh, that's right, you have absolutely no integrity.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are double talking about kids. First you say kids are not necessary for marriage, now you say that justifies your cause.
There was no double talking. Children are a part of many marriages, however, they are not a requirement of marriage. The gays of this forum have NEVER asked that children be removed from consideration. This is a fact you hate, so you just pretend things have been said that were never said. It's part of your lying for Jesus routine.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention the idiotic attempt to equate a duplicate half of default parents to a mother and father!
No one attempted to make this idiotic equation. No one needs to.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Moreover, your examples are false. You forget I've been a foster parent to over ten kids, and worked with numerous adoptive situations.
No one gives a crap about how much slave labor you've taken into your home. Every example given can be demonstrated easily with actual events backing them up. Sorry Kuntmare that facts don't bear out your lies.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your final example disgusts me.
Not as much as you digust us.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is heartbreaking when a child loses a parent, but how dare someone deliberately birth a child with the intention of depriving them of a mother or father! It is simply diabolical, and certainly should be criminal.
The "deprivation" you mention is totally manufactured in your head. Go peddle your fake disgust somewhere else. You could care less about children. You use them as pawn to promote your agenda. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, you ridiculously call it your "crusade". LOL!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You've done nothing but prove that ss marriage is an oxymoron.
Kuntmare, YOU have never proven it's an oxymoron. You're the only one calling it that. Because you're a moron. No one else on the planet is trying to prove this statement....because it's stupid and baseless and proves you have an extremely infantile ability to use the English language properly.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Get your own relationship and rights.
That's exactly what we are doing. But for some creepy reason, you seem to think you have some say in our relationships and rights. You don't. All your day in and day out denial of our marriages means ..... NOTHING!! You are nothing!!!! Smile dear.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Help orphans find a mother AND father.
Only pathetic cur like yourself think a loving and stable home is established solely by the gender make up of the parents. Moral people seek loving and supportive homes over homes that just happen to have 2 parents of different genders. As previously noted, you could care less about children. You would deny a child a loving and supportive home over your crusade. You're a spineless, cowardly, lying cur.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you will find the self esteem you long for.
LOL!!! Says the cretin desperate for self esteem. You reek of desperation Kuntmare. Smile dear, you're still a dog. A cur. A pervert. Do have a good day scum sheep.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min RealDave 1,382,099
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 59,438
News Suspect Had Quit Rehab (Mar '08) 8 hr JoeBakRotsInHell 134
News West Hartford Seniors Win Gold At State Table T... 8 hr Coolstory 1
News Shots Fired After Bank Robbery, Police Chase In... (Mar '08) 8 hr JoeBakRotsInHell 87
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 hr zef 311,138
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 12 hr Sue Remington 20,274
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages