Vet sues after burial with gay partner is denied

There are 20 comments on the Jul 8, 2014, Seattle Post-Intelligencer story titled Vet sues after burial with gay partner is denied. In it, Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that:

Madelynn Taylor, 74, looks at a 2011 photo of herself with her wife Jean Mixner, in Boise, Idaho on July 7, 2014.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#1 Jul 8, 2014
This is just one more reason for equality.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3 Jul 8, 2014
There are plenty of private cemeteries that would allow that.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#5 Jul 8, 2014
Justin wrote:
These freaks keep demanding more and more. The more we give them the more they want. What selfish greedy animals.
And we keep GETTING more and more. And we won't stop until we have EVERYTHING. Your ugly, fat mama is an animal and a freak.
Aspirin Between My Legos

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Jul 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
There are plenty of private cemeteries that would allow that.
That would be less than, since the veteran's status is important to the person involved. But you know that.

You're a stupid, ossified, ignorant bigot whose entire reason for existing is to bray about how lgbt people should be treated as less than.

Right back at you, sub-human filth.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#8 Jul 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
There are plenty of private cemeteries that would allow that.
There sure are, if they voluntarily choose to do so.

But this Federal veteran's cemetery is going to find out that they have no choice.
Morpheus

Singapore, Singapore

#9 Jul 8, 2014
Justin wrote:
These freaks keep demanding more and more. The more we give them the more they want. What selfish greedy animals.
Damn you! We want more then you! The greedy animals are looking at you pining for your death.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10 Jul 8, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
There sure are, if they voluntarily choose to do so.
But this Federal veteran's cemetery is going to find out that they have no choice.
If it were a federal cemetery, I would agree with you. It's not.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11 Jul 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
If it were a federal cemetery, I would agree with you. It's not.
Well, true enough, it's not "federal". But, it is "government", and it is for vets. I assume it's not just for veterans of Idaho wars, but for veterans of wars fought by the entire federal government as a whole.

The cemetery won't win this suit. Being "Idaho" rather than "Federal" does not give them the right to flout federal anti-discrimination policies.
Aspirin Between My Legos

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Jul 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If it were a federal cemetery, I would agree with you. It's not.
No, you still would not agree. You're a defaming liar.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, true enough, it's not "federal". But, it is "government", and it is for vets. I assume it's not just for veterans of Idaho wars, but for veterans of wars fought by the entire federal government as a whole.
The cemetery won't win this suit. Being "Idaho" rather than "Federal" does not give them the right to flout federal anti-discrimination policies.
I won't say the cemetery will lose but I think it should.
The problem is they were partners, not spouses.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#14 Jul 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
I won't say the cemetery will lose but I think it should.
The problem is they were partners, not spouses.
But that only begs the question. They can't BE spouses in Idaho. There can't be punishment against a person for not doing what they're not allowed to do.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#15 Jul 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I won't say the cemetery will lose but I think it should.
The problem is they were partners, not spouses.
They were legally married.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#16 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
There can't be punishment against a person for not doing what they're not allowed to do.
It's not punishment, it's against the law.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#17 Jul 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
It's not punishment, it's against the law.
An unconstitutional law. Don't be a champion for those.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#18 Jul 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
But that only begs the question. They can't BE spouses in Idaho. There can't be punishment against a person for not doing what they're not allowed to do.
To me, allowing this to happen is a small thing and would make two veterans happy. Even though they shouldn't be veterans because homosexuals were not allowed to enlist when they did it wouldn't be disruptive. That said, the state has laws and shouldn't bend on the law. There can be no exceptions or the law isn't the law anymore. They can't give an inch because then they lose ground.
Zeke

Paris, TN

#19 Jul 11, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
To me, allowing this to happen is a small thing and would make two veterans happy. Even though they shouldn't be veterans because homosexuals were not allowed to enlist when they did it wouldn't be disruptive. That said, the state has laws and shouldn't bend on the law. There can be no exceptions or the law isn't the law anymore. They can't give an inch because then they lose ground.
Your post is rather confused.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#20 Jul 11, 2014
Zeke wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post is rather confused.
I will help you understand it if I can. Ask away.
Zeke

Paris, TN

#21 Jul 11, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I will help you understand it if I can. Ask away.
Explain each sentence. There seem to be implicit contradictions in your post
Homostats

Las Vegas, NV

#22 Jul 11, 2014
Zeke wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain each sentence. There seem to be implicit contradictions in your post
Yet homosexuality is an explicit contradiction of nature.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#23 Jul 11, 2014
Wondering wrote:
To me, allowing this to happen is a small thing and would make two veterans happy.
This is a nice thing to say, but it isn't really the reason this suit will succeed. They will be shown to be constitutionally entitled to a joint burial, regardless of how big or small of a "thing" this is, nor what their emotional reaction will be.
Wondering wrote:
Even though they shouldn't be veterans because homosexuals were not allowed to enlist when they did it wouldn't be disruptive.
Because the policy which barred them has been struck down, this is no argument. DADT was a wrongheaded policy to begin with. Homosexuals should be recognized as ALWAYS having been entitled to be veterans, only MISTAKENLY barred.
Wondering wrote:
That said, the state has laws and shouldn't bend on the law. There can be no exceptions or the law isn't the law anymore. They can't give an inch because then they lose ground.
By following an unconstitutional law, the state is "bent" on the law NOW. But that's okay, this suit will sort everything out.

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.

US Navy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News General: Russian forces tied down in Ukraine a ... Thu DENAZIFY RUSSIA NOW 28
News Marine murder case reveals US-Philippine sore spot (Oct '14) Thu Christopher Santos 47
News Sea of sorrows: Many migrants drown trying to r... Apr 21 SpaceBlues 1
News Showdown at Sea? Aircraft carrier sent to Yemen... Apr 21 Tim 1
News Allentown mayor considering run for US Senate Apr 15 jones 3
News American dumps iron for Canadian salmon (Oct '12) Apr 10 toxic-bunker-fuel... 5
News Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia? (Mar '10) Apr 8 Elise Gingrich 80
More from around the web