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.

The Worlds Biggest Lie

Pittsfield, MA

#226 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.
Indeed. An attempt on Jackson as well. Garfield gone. Monroe. Lincoln created about $400,000 for circulation. Gonzo!
The fed has gotta go if this country is to be saved from the war mongers and Zionists. The Biderbergers. The high society perverted sex ring awaits. It's all coming back around now.
In time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#227 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But you just got done claiming the states would determine who's married and dictate to the federal govt. So which is it?

As I've stated numerous times, the few incidents where state & feds cooperate for benefits - like Medicaid- there will likely be accomodation with the state law.

However, states DO NOT pay Medicare or Social Security or VA benefits or a myriad of other federal benefits. The FEDERAL GOVT pays.

So STATE paid benefits- yes, the state will likely decide who's married.

Federal benfefits- the federal govt will decide how they will recognize marriages, whether state of residence or state of issue.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#228 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Marriage benefits are PART OF military pay & BENEFITS. And the state has ZERO control over those marriage benefits, just like they have ZERO control over the federal marriage benefits related to Social Security, Medicare, VA benefits, etc, etc.

Just like now, the federal govt can decide to recognize a marriage even though a state doesn't recognize it, like first cousin marriages.

And just like 1st cousin marriages the states aren't forced to recognize it.

So again, for STATE benefits the state will determine who's married.
For FEDERAL benefits, the federal govt will determine which marriages to recognize.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#229 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that people outside of the military have their benefits determined by the DOD. You can't make this stuff up.
Yes, a civilian spouse or child of a military member has their benefits which are related to being a spouse/child of a military member determined by the DOD.

The DOD determines if that CIVILIAN spouse/child gets healthcare at a military hospital, commissary benefits, exchange privileges, etc.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#230 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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)
Only for state benefits.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#231 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, a civilian spouse or child of a military member has their benefits which are related to being a spouse/child of a military member determined by the DOD.
The DOD determines if that CIVILIAN spouse/child gets healthcare at a military hospital, commissary benefits, exchange privileges, etc.
The wife of a serviceman is part of a military family.
My wife is not part of a military family.
Do you not understand the difference?

I served in the military and when my term came to an end I refused re-enlistment. The Captain offered me a bonus, I refused again. He told me they needed more men like me. I agreed with him but declined his offer again. He asked me why I wasn't interested and I told him. I can't work under the people I have to work under. One guy actually signed his check with an 'x'. They were a bunch of high school dropouts, if they ever went to school at all. Some of them couldn't read or write. They couldn't get a job anywhere else. The Captain insisted that was changing. They were getting a higher quality of people and he said it wouldn't be long before I was a higher rank than the people I had to work with or for. I thanked him for his offer but told him that it wasn't happening fast enough. You were one of those old lifers, weren't you. At least you can write.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#232 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage benefits are PART OF military pay & BENEFITS.
I think everyone understands that. Why do you think you are the only one that does?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#233 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Oh that's right, since military pay & benefits are a FEDERAL right/benefit, it will be decided by the FEDERAL government.
Why are you going on and on about the obvious?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#234 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The wife of a serviceman is part of a military family.
My wife is not part of a military family.
Do you not understand the difference?
I served in the military and when my term came to an end I refused re-enlistment. The Captain offered me a bonus, I refused again. He told me they needed more men like me. I agreed with him but declined his offer again. He asked me why I wasn't interested and I told him. I can't work under the people I have to work under. One guy actually signed his check with an 'x'. They were a bunch of high school dropouts, if they ever went to school at all. Some of them couldn't read or write. They couldn't get a job anywhere else. The Captain insisted that was changing. They were getting a higher quality of people and he said it wouldn't be long before I was a higher rank than the people I had to work with or for. I thanked him for his offer but told him that it wasn't happening fast enough. You were one of those old lifers, weren't you. At least you can write.
A spouse or child is NOT a member of the military. PERIOD. They are NOT subject to the UCMJ in any way shape or form. I was specifically talking about civilian spouses/children of servicemembers, not the general civilian population.

This isn't the military of the 60's or 70's. The majority of today's military members have college degrees or are working on completing them. The military no longer takes just anyone; they can afford to be more selective.

I did my 20 years, got my bachelors degree, and saved a buttload of money so I could retire at age 38.

Oh, and best of all, I met my husband of 25+ years while we were stationed on a small pacific island together!

Yep, life's pretty great.

Well, the salmon are biting, so I'm going fishing. It's not like I have to work........

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#235 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you going on and on about the obvious?
Because Jane DUH keeps claiming the states will dictate federal benefits.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#236 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
1. The majority of today's military members have college degrees or are working on completing them.
2. The military no longer takes just anyone; they can afford to be more selective.
1. That's false. The majority are enlisted and sign up before going to college. Over 90% these days do have high school diplomas though. Some of these enlisted people do take advantage of military benefits and persue a college education.
2. That's an improvement.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#237 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Jane DUH keeps claiming the states will dictate federal benefits.
States may influence same sex marriage for service members and therefore dictate benefits.
"The Pentagon memos noted that the ceremonies must not be prohibited by "applicable state and local law." Gay rights activists argued that does not prevent a base in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages from being used to hold a ceremony if the license is obtained in a state that does allow it. Same-sex marriages are not honored across all state lines."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/19/natio...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#238 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Jane DUH keeps claiming the states will dictate federal benefits.
The real question is, why are you feeding "Wondering the Troll", who has yet to contribute anything of substance to any thread on which they are posting?
Little Blue Alien

Pittsfield, MA

#239 Oct 4, 2012
All hail Justice Lides
All hail praxis
All hail satan
All hail regressive liberals
All hail Ernst Rohm (Hitler's right hand man)
All hail Pre WWII Germany all over again
All hail the dirty bubble

When will the local print in Beserkshire county stop going to bed with the GOB's and others. When will pedophile accusations no longer be buried and followed up thoroughly. Especially when this bloggers young girl was in the presence of such a boogeyman in 2004 at the school? What are the tradeoffs? Oh yeah, I get to listen to Lides' and praxis' bs on topix.
Or what about failing to report a rape of young teen boys cus the man was one of their own at the adm level.
Oh you dirty Bassturds!
Oh the years ahead.
Job security for govt I guess.
Cosly to the people.
The tip of the iceberg and you know it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#240 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. That's false. The majority are enlisted and sign up before going to college. Over 90% these days do have high school diplomas though. Some of these enlisted people do take advantage of military benefits and persue a college education.
2. That's an improvement.
I'm talking about the career military force; the ones you were complaining about serving under. Even the enlisted now have college degrees or are working on them. Everyone I worked with had an associates degree or were taking college courses.

Today's servicemembers are the most educated in the history of the military.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#241 Oct 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
States may influence same sex marriage for service members and therefore dictate benefits.
"The Pentagon memos noted that the ceremonies must not be prohibited by "applicable state and local law." Gay rights activists argued that does not prevent a base in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages from being used to hold a ceremony if the license is obtained in a state that does allow it. Same-sex marriages are not honored across all state lines."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/19/natio...
Nope, states can only dictate STATE benefits, NOT federal benefits.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#242 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, states can only dictate STATE benefits, NOT federal benefits.
Well, if the military doesn't allow the marriage then there is no need to discuss the benefits.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#243 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But you just got done claiming the states would determine who's married and dictate to the federal govt. So which is it?
A
dude...
the fed can pay its EMPLOYEES anything it wants...
so as to FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, they can do what they want...

as to SHARED BENEFITS between the state and fed, which is very different from FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY, the state definition will control..

in short, military PAY is not related to the discussion...
that's why your basing your opinion on it as to SHARED BENEFITS is wrong...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#244 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, states can only dictate STATE benefits, NOT federal benefits.
except all the instances the state already does, and the DOMA decisions finding exactly this, RIGHT?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#245 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Jane DUH keeps claiming the states will dictate federal benefits.
Because that's EXACTLY what the DOMA decisions say!

Thats what resolving the federalism issue in favor of the state's means!

"The court, the first federal appeals panel to rule against the benefits section of the law, agreed with a lower court judge who in 2010 concluded that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage"

Your false reliance on federal supremacy when that goes against the very heart of these decisions is what will enable you to ignorantly call the decision bigotry when they play 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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cyprus' first public gay wedding takes aim at p... 20 min Sargent Cantaloupe 11
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 1 hr Belles Echoes 34
News When unexpected body parts appear in the shower 1 hr david traversa 4
News Gay men more likely to use condoms if they see ... 1 hr Belles Echoes 1
News LGBTQ community to celebrate "Earth Gay" in Ver... 1 hr Belles Echoes 1
News Caitlyn Jenner Takes a Piss on Ted Cruz 2 hr Sargent Cantaloupe 2
News LGBT rights protesters vow to keep fighting Mis... 2 hr Sargent Cantaloupe 12
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 3 hr DebraE 2,814
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 hr Terra Firma 34,672
More from around the web