Conservative group sues MSU for offering health insurance to pa...

Full story: South Bend Tribune

A conservative group on Wednesday sued to stop Michigan State University from offering health insurance to the partners of gay workers and said the school is violating a 2004 amendment to the state ...
Comments
1 - 18 of 18 Comments Last updated Feb 8, 2007
Rev Laurence Roberts

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 6, 2006
 
Mean and snide. STOPPING others. What are they trying to conserve ? Cetainly not "Love thy neighbour" or " Love thy enemy" --thats for sure !
Inquisitarian

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 6, 2006
 
So much for their lies that the amendment was only about marriage. They're showing their true colors now. It was never about marriage. It was and always has been about doing everything possible to make life miserable for gay people. It's not about curing some 'social problem'- it's about inflicting suffering.

'Mean and snide' is putting it a little too nicely from where I sit.
RayHab

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 6, 2006
 
Taken directly from the text. Apparently someone didn't read it:

The purpose of the suit is to ensure that courts rule on the constitutionality of domestic partner benefits at public universities, said Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor.

In 2004, Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment that made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."
RayHab

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 6, 2006
 
Guess we need to stop letting voters decide and just make up the rules as we go.
Inquisitarian

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 7, 2006
 
RayHab wrote:
Taken directly from the text. Apparently someone didn't read it:
The purpose of the suit is to ensure that courts rule on the constitutionality of domestic partner benefits at public universities, said Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor.
In 2004, Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment that made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."
Oh, I read it alright. We did everything in our power at the time to try to let people know what they were voting on, but the liars who kept saying it wasn't about taking away partner benefits had a lot more money to advertise their message (thanks to the Catholic church, which put up more than half the funds behind the campaign).

I stand by my statement. Mean and snide doesn't begin to cover it.
Rob in NY

West Milford, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 7, 2006
 
Inquisitarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I read it alright. We did everything in our power at the time to try to let people know what they were voting on, but the liars who kept saying it wasn't about taking away partner benefits had a lot more money to advertise their message (thanks to the Catholic church, which put up more than half the funds behind the campaign).
I stand by my statement. Mean and snide doesn't begin to cover it.
They don't want to stop there... they would kill us if they could.. I just read on 375gay.com that they are opposing a religious film about a missionary, just because Chad Allen played the part, and he's openly gay. In that article it described how they are trying to pressure advertisers from buying time on gay themed shows, and trying to deny gay actors employment. Imagine them trying to prevent a gay person from making a living.

They're so blind to their evil deeds..
Rob in NY

West Milford, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 7, 2006
 
RayHab wrote:
Guess we need to stop letting voters decide and just make up the rules as we go.
It should never have been up to the voters... civil rights should never be open to a vote.. they should be taken for granted...
Rob in NY

West Milford, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 7, 2006
 
RayHab wrote:
Taken directly from the text. Apparently someone didn't read it:
The purpose of the suit is to ensure that courts rule on the constitutionality of domestic partner benefits at public universities, said Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor.
In 2004, Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment that made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."
And the next time all those "good" people who voted for the ban in that state say the part of the pledge of allegience that says, "liberty and justice of all," may your God smite you all sick for being the hypocrites you are....
Inquisitarian

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 7, 2006
 
Rob in NY wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't want to stop there... they would kill us if they could.. I just read on 375gay.com that they are opposing a religious film about a missionary, just because Chad Allen played the part, and he's openly gay. In that article it described how they are trying to pressure advertisers from buying time on gay themed shows, and trying to deny gay actors employment. Imagine them trying to prevent a gay person from making a living.
They're so blind to their evil deeds..
Actually, I think the proponents of these measures have their eyes wide open. They know exactly what they're up to. We don't need to imagine them trying to prevent a gay person from making a living - they're already doing precisely that as evidenced above.

This is the new reality in the U.S. Things are going to get very ugly and nasty, indeed.

I have a friend who is old enough to remember the days when you could be arrested simply for frequenting an establishment catering to gay people. It's my opinion that if things keep going the way they are, we'll end up right back in the same situation and probably worse.
dances_with_weeb les

Brazil

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 7, 2006
 
Inquisitarian wrote:
So much for their lies that the amendment was only about marriage. They're showing their true colors now. It was never about marriage. It was and always has been about doing everything possible to make life miserable for gay people. It's not about curing some 'social problem'- it's about inflicting suffering.
'Mean and snide' is putting it a little too nicely from where I sit.
i think that it's as simple as this... conservatives are for big business and big profits... it's all about the money that the insurance companies don't want to have to pay out. i doubt that one can get amy more cold blooded than that.
dances_with_weeb les

Brazil

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 7, 2006
 
Rob in NY wrote:
<quoted text>
And the next time all those "good" people who voted for the ban in that state say the part of the pledge of allegience that says, "liberty and justice of all," may your God smite you all sick for being the hypocrites you are....
how about a really good (and immediate) case of diarhea every time they say it.
Rob in NY

West Milford, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 7, 2006
 
dances_with_weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
how about a really good (and immediate) case of diarhea every time they say it.
That's pretty non-fatal so I'd go for that.. and it's very symbolic of their actions against us..
Rob in NY

West Milford, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 7, 2006
 
Inquisitarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I think the proponents of these measures have their eyes wide open. They know exactly what they're up to. We don't need to imagine them trying to prevent a gay person from making a living - they're already doing precisely that as evidenced above.
This is the new reality in the U.S. Things are going to get very ugly and nasty, indeed.
I have a friend who is old enough to remember the days when you could be arrested simply for frequenting an establishment catering to gay people. It's my opinion that if things keep going the way they are, we'll end up right back in the same situation and probably worse.
Over my dead body,,, and a few million others..
dances_with_weeb les

Brazil

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 7, 2006
 
don't get mad,rob. just remember, Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
dances_with_weeb les

Brazil

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 7, 2006
 
en ways to tell that the supreme court doesn't really care...

10. Opinion based on coin flip so they could make 2:40 showing of "Superman Returns"

9. Tough to concentrate with Ruth Bader Ginsburg trying on bikinis

8. Spent last two days hearing arguments between Barbara Walters and Star Jones

7. All gavels make crazy "boing" sound

6. Recesses now take place at area Hooters

5. Chief Justice John Roberts demands to be called "J. Ro"

4. After heated debate, ruled 7-to-2 that Aerosmith does indeed rock

3. Upheld gay marriage, but only for really hot babes

2. For kicks they reversed an old decision and now Gore's President

1. Invited Anna Nicole Smith back to stand around and look slutty
Tim

Burlingame, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 8, 2006
 
Focus on the Family backed that film knowing all along he was gay when it was made and funded by the fundamentalists. Chad Allen was quite open about it. It is all quite funny. Chad had just played a gay Jesus in a play in LA.
Rob in NY wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't want to stop there... they would kill us if they could.. I just read on 375gay.com that they are opposing a religious film about a missionary, just because Chad Allen played the part, and he's openly gay. In that article it described how they are trying to pressure advertisers from buying time on gay themed shows, and trying to deny gay actors employment. Imagine them trying to prevent a gay person from making a living.
They're so blind to their evil deeds..
Inquisitarian

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 8, 2006
 
Rob in NY wrote:
<quoted text>
Over my dead body,,, and a few million others..
It may very well come to that.
kbsurfer

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 8, 2007
 
Rob in NY wrote:
<quoted text>
It should never have been up to the voters... civil rights should never be open to a vote.. they should be taken for granted...
EXACTLY. Civil equal rights are to be EXPECTED by every citizen in this country because they are GUARANTEED. It is appalling that Americans are actually allowed to vote on things like this. These are inalianable rights, according to the Bill of Rights, and yet they are allowed to be voted on?
Utterly ridiculous and a horrible transgression of the documents that founded this country.
Can those conservative groups be tried for Treason? Sounds to me like they are enemies of the state.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••