What's missing from pro-gay marriage ...

What's missing from pro-gay marriage TV ads? Gays

There are 282 comments on the KHQ-TV Spokane story from Sep 26, 2012, titled What's missing from pro-gay marriage TV ads? Gays. In it, KHQ-TV Spokane reports that:

President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney are pitching to college students and working-class voters in Ohio less than a week before early voting kicks off in the critical Midwestern state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KHQ-TV Spokane.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#206 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying the spouse and/or children of a servicemember will lose their healthcare benefits, housing, commissary/px privileges, etc, depending on the duty station of their spouse?
.
no, it would be based on the RESIDENCE of the couple....
not where they are, but where they permanently RESIDE...
like where the hold their license and vote?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#207 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no, it would be based on the RESIDENCE of the couple....
not where they are, but where they permanently RESIDE...
like where the hold their license and vote?
Obviously you know nothing about the military.

While the active duty spouse may maintain their official state of residency in the state they joined up, their civilian spouse and children do NOT.

Under your scenario the active duty military member would be considered married by the federal govt, but their spouse would not be married to them depending on which state they live in. In addition, the active duty member could have legal children at one duty station, but would be considered legal strangers to them at their next duty station.

In addition, many servicemembers change their official state of residence over the years, and would lead to the same type of scenarios.

If you had ever bothered to serve your country, you'd know that such a scenario is simply unrealitic & unworkable.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#208 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying the spouse and/or children of a servicemember will lose their healthcare benefits, housing, commissary/px privileges, etc, depending on the duty station of their spouse?
Will the spouse of servicemember lose their right to be buried next to their spouse in a military cemetery depending on the state they are living in when they die?
Will the surviving spouse lose their spousal social security benefits they've been receiving if they move from New York to Pennsylvania?
Those are the real world applications of your interpretation.
It's unrealistic and will lead to chaos and lawsuits, especially in the military and among seniors.
Really? The military is your example? The military is governed by the UCMJ. Those laws do not apply to the general population. That is the real world application of your interpretation. Do service members have consttutional rights on par with the general population? Sort of.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#209 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you know nothing about the military.
While the active duty spouse may maintain their official state of residency in the state they joined up, their civilian spouse and children do NOT.
Under your scenario the active duty military member would be considered married by the federal govt, but their spouse would not be married to them depending on which state they live in. In addition, the active duty member could have legal children at one duty station, but would be considered legal strangers to them at their next duty station.
In addition, many servicemembers change their official state of residence over the years, and would lead to the same type of scenarios.
If you had ever bothered to serve your country, you'd know that such a scenario is simply unrealitic & unworkable.
go on and on about military pay and ignore how medicaid works..
I know why...
yup, when you change states, you change eligibility...

the fed cannot dictate to a state anything, only the other way around...
why dont you grasp this?
"Under your scenario the active duty military member would be considered married by the federal govt, but their spouse would not be married to them depending on which state they live in."

See, the FED takes the resident STATES definition...
thats the whoe fedrealism part of tre DOMA decisions...
you can;t be this dense...

MILITARY Pay is FEDERAL WAGES it has NO ANALOGY to what we are talking about!

BTW, you flip flopped on where service members are said to reside within the same post!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#210 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? The military is your example? The military is governed by the UCMJ. Those laws do not apply to the general population. That is the real world application of your interpretation. Do service members have consttutional rights on par with the general population? Sort of.
and he will just respond with more about the military...
(we know why)

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#211 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
JFK wanted to end the fed too. Look what happened to him.
“He who controls the currency controls the country”. Keynes.
Nice, gloating about a man cut down in his 40's under incredible violence. Real compassion.

Hey, did you ever hear the story about that guy in Jerusalem, nailed onto a cross and fed vinegar and left to die? I bet that story makes you laugh till your tummy hurts.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#212 Oct 4, 2012
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Nice, gloating about a man cut down in his 40's under incredible violence. Real compassion.
Is that what you got from my post? How incredibly stupid you are.
It's good that I don't care what you think.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#213 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? The military is your example? The military is governed by the UCMJ. Those laws do not apply to the general population. That is the real world application of your interpretation. Do service members have consttutional rights on par with the general population? Sort of.
The UCMJ doesn't determine pay & benefits; DOD policy does.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#214 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
go on and on about military pay and ignore how medicaid works..
I know why...
yup, when you change states, you change eligibility...
the fed cannot dictate to a state anything, only the other way around...
why dont you grasp this?
"Under your scenario the active duty military member would be considered married by the federal govt, but their spouse would not be married to them depending on which state they live in."
See, the FED takes the resident STATES definition...
thats the whoe fedrealism part of tre DOMA decisions...
you can;t be this dense...
MILITARY Pay is FEDERAL WAGES it has NO ANALOGY to what we are talking about!
BTW, you flip flopped on where service members are said to reside within the same post!
Military pay is dependent on marital status among other things. See, if you ever actually served you would know this. Married servicemembers get more pay than single servicemembers of the same rank & length of service.

Some servicemembers claim their current duty station at their official state of residency, some maintain their original state residency regardless of where they are posted. Servicemembers have that option; another thing you would know had you ever served.

Their civilian spouses however do NOT have that option; they are residents of whichever state they are currently living in. So that's how you have the scenario of the active duty spouse being a legal resident of New York even though they are stationed in Omaha, but their civilian spouse must be a legal resident of Nebraska.

So who decides whether they are married or not? Will it be the state of Nebraska or the state of New York? It can't be both.

Who decides which pay & benefits the couples will receive? Will it be Nebraska or New York?

Oh that's right, since military pay & benefits are a FEDERAL right/benefit, it will be decided by the FEDERAL government.

If they want to use the state where the marriage was contracted as the controlling factor, then they can.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#215 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
BTW, if you go back and look at your recent posts in this thread you will see that you do little else other than to offer up insults. Hint, that is you. You can't make this up, you're dumb enough to put your name on your idiocy.
That is, in part, because I am responding to a simpleton, who is incapable of laying out even the most basic argument for their position. Feel free to prove me wrong, and illustrate that you are a competent and intelligent person, who can articulate a rational argument. I don't think you can, and your repeated posts where you have not, nor have you tried to do so, firmly illustrate that point.

It is not my fault that you are an imbecile.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#216 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and he will just respond with more about the military...
(we know why)
Because military pay/benefits is one of those federal benefits which you seem to think the state has some control over.

Medicare? Yes, the state may have some control over who's considered married for that.

The rest of the federal benefits? No. The DOJ will decide what standard they want to use; state of residence or state of issue.

Considering the current Obama DOJ, which do you think it will pick?.......
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#217 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Military pay is dependent on marital status among other things..
But NO ONE DISPUTES THE MILITARY CAN PAY WHATEVER IT WANTS TO ITS EMPLOYEES!

Other benefits incidental to marriage require cooperation between fed and state that MILITARY PAY DOES NOT!
In those instances, like with medicare and medicaid, the STATE PAYING BENEFITS CONTROLS ELIGIBILITY.

god you are dense.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#218 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because military pay/benefits is one of those federal benefits which you seem to think the state has some control over.
its like talking to a bricjk wall..

THE FED CAN PAY ITS EMPLOYEES WHATEVER IT WANTS!

No wonder you think I am dumb, you think dumb things and then attribute them to me...

Marriage BENEFITS, like medicare are a balance between the state and fed, MILITARY PAY IS NOT!

I am not suggesting the Military cant pay whatever it want to its employees, but it cannot deem someone married and make any state accept that.

As to all other kinds of benefits, they will accept the RESIDENT state determination...

So if you moved to NJ, you would not be eligible to file jointly with the IRS, or be taken as spouses under medicare/aid, or social security survivorship bene's....
because these determination are based on state law and the fed cannot force a state to accept anything else...

keep cheering the DOMA cases bucko...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#219 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
But NO ONE DISPUTES THE MILITARY CAN PAY WHATEVER IT WANTS TO ITS EMPLOYEES!
Other benefits incidental to marriage require cooperation between fed and state that MILITARY PAY DOES NOT!
In those instances, like with medicare and medicaid, the STATE PAYING BENEFITS CONTROLS ELIGIBILITY.
god you are dense.
Are you high? The cost of benefits lie with the employer, period end of story. The military is funded by the federal government. Marriage is regulated by the states.

Read the 10th Amendment, and weep.

Oh, and feel free to indicate where the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage that would render the DOMA constitutional.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#220 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The UCMJ doesn't determine pay & benefits; DOD policy does.
So you think that people outside of the military have their benefits determined by the DOD. You can't make this stuff up.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#221 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because military pay/benefits is one of those federal benefits which you seem to think the state has some control over.
Say what! Are you and lides on the same meds?
You two are almost as funny as Jon Stewart.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#222 Oct 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That is, in part, because I am responding to a simpleton,
Really? Who are you to judge? After all, you are Justice Dumbass.
Why don't you start "driving me crazy" by not responding to my posts.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#223 Oct 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Are you high?
2. The cost of benefits lie with the employer, period end of story.
3. The military is funded by the federal government.
1. I think you are more often than not.
2. Duh!
3. The military is funded by the TAXPAYERS.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#224 Oct 4, 2012
lides wrote:
competent and intelligent
Two qualities that you'll never possess.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#225 Oct 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you high? The cost of benefits lie with the employer, period end of story. The military is funded by the federal government. Marriage is regulated by the states.
Read the 10th Amendment, and weep.
Oh, and feel free to indicate where the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage that would render the DOMA constitutional.
psst, in your haste, you failed to realize that you said exactly what i had in all caps...

its a states right to determine, we agree, right?

How come you couldn't gather that from what I wrote in ALL CAPS?

I know, and so i would ask that you pitch your ignorant vitrol somewhere else...

I already taught you enough...(like Baker is a federal case) and you don't even appreciate it!(ha, I even made myself smile)

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 7 min Mite Be 662
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 9 min June VanDerMark 10,666
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 14 min Big C 13,036
News The Latest: Obama pledges federal support in fl... 14 min WasteWater 10
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 16 min Big Gay Man 906
UPDATE: BIG 4th of JULY PARTY 28 min Leon 33
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 50 min EdmondWA 37,295
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 933
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 7 hr Mite Be 40
More from around the web