Texas National Guard refuses to process same sex benefits in opposition to gay marriage

Sep 4, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Daily Mail

The state agency said it couldn't process the applications because the Texas Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman Tuesday was the first working day that gays in the military could apply for benefits previously denied to them The Texas National Guard has refused to process requests from same-sex couples for benefits on Tuesday ... (more)

Comments
1 - 14 of 14 Comments Last updated Sep 5, 2013

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Sep 4, 2013
This is going to be fun.
Lamer

Piqua, OH

#2 Sep 4, 2013
snyper wrote:
This is going to be fun.
Non issue. Will happen just like in PA and the Pentagon will threaten to take any everything they provide. And Texas will comply or just not have a national guard. Up to them...
Larry

Mesquite, TX

#3 Sep 4, 2013
The other shoe is about to fall. The gay community in Texas is on the way to Marriage. Gov. Perry and the other Bible translators should head out of the State now.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#4 Sep 4, 2013
Cut off the National Guard's federal subsidy and they will straighten up and fly right quicker than you can say 'whoa hoss'!!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5 Sep 4, 2013
Lamer wrote:
<quoted text>
Non issue. Will happen just like in PA and the Pentagon will threaten to take any everything they provide. And Texas will comply or just not have a national guard. Up to them...
The "National Guard" is the name for the State Militia. Unless it is specifically Federalized for some purpose, it remains a State institution that works only cooperatively with the DoD. As such it operates under State Law.

The problem is that there is such overlap between State Militias and the U.S. Armed Forces in training, personnel, liaison, joint exercises, funding, etc. this is going to prove very entertaining ... at least to those like myself are endlessly amused to see human kittens snarl themselves in their own yarn.
Lamer

Piqua, OH

#6 Sep 4, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The "National Guard" is the name for the State Militia. Unless it is specifically Federalized for some purpose, it remains a State institution that works only cooperatively with the DoD. As such it operates under State Law.
The problem is that there is such overlap between State Militias and the U.S. Armed Forces in training, personnel, liaison, joint exercises, funding, etc. this is going to prove very entertaining ... at least to those like myself are endlessly amused to see human kittens snarl themselves in their own yarn.
I am well aware of how the national guard works and this has already played out in another state. Yes, they are a state militia whom gets the majority of their funding from the fed. Without all that federal money and training, and Texas lax tax regs., there wouldnt be much of a guard there.

But yes, it is very humorous to see them as you put it, "snarl themselves in their own yarn" but it seems that these childish tantrums come out of texas more than they should.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#7 Sep 4, 2013
Lamer wrote:
<quoted text>
I am well aware of how the national guard works and this has already played out in another state. Yes, they are a state militia whom gets the majority of their funding from the fed. Without all that federal money and training, and Texas lax tax regs., there wouldnt be much of a guard there.
But yes, it is very humorous to see them as you put it, "snarl themselves in their own yarn" but it seems that these childish tantrums come out of texas more than they should.
Hmmmmm,one man's "childish tantrums" could be another's dangerous governmental social engineering.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#8 Sep 5, 2013
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmmmm,one man's "childish tantrums" could be another's dangerous governmental social engineering.
So how does treating people equally and with respect equate to social engineering??
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#9 Sep 5, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
So how does treating people equally and with respect equate to social engineering??
Was it not "social engineering" when the words concerning the equality and respect you reference were first penned in Philadelphia over 200 years ago?
Are not humans actually animals of this planet with animalistic instincts and desires? Does not the very idea of "treating people equally and with respect" equate to exactly that ... social engineering? Is not a man written law, written to curb animalistic tendencies, in and of itself, a form of social engineering?
Would you like to try again?
Lamer

Piqua, OH

#10 Sep 5, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it not "social engineering" when the words concerning the equality and respect you reference were first penned in Philadelphia over 200 years ago?
Are not humans actually animals of this planet with animalistic instincts and desires? Does not the very idea of "treating people equally and with respect" equate to exactly that ... social engineering? Is not a man written law, written to curb animalistic tendencies, in and of itself, a form of social engineering?
Would you like to try again?
yes, everything is social engineering. Laws are not really laws and regulations are not really regulations and going to jail isnt really going to jail; its all just social engineering. After all, simple animals could not conform to such a life.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#11 Sep 5, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it not "social engineering" when the words concerning the equality and respect you reference were first penned in Philadelphia over 200 years ago?
Are not humans actually animals of this planet with animalistic instincts and desires? Does not the very idea of "treating people equally and with respect" equate to exactly that ... social engineering? Is not a man written law, written to curb animalistic tendencies, in and of itself, a form of social engineering?
Would you like to try again?
You consider a system to laws requiring people to be treated with equality and respect to be "dangerous social engineering"???

You can tap dance around your statements as much as you want, but you're the one that made them, not me. I'm just asking you to explain what you meant, something it appears you can't do.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#12 Sep 5, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it not "social engineering" when the words concerning the equality and respect you reference were first penned in Philadelphia over 200 years ago?
Are not humans actually animals of this planet with animalistic instincts and desires? Does not the very idea of "treating people equally and with respect" equate to exactly that ... social engineering? Is not a man written law, written to curb animalistic tendencies, in and of itself, a form of social engineering?
Would you like to try again?
Perhaps you're confused. These are the words I was responding to:

okimar wrote: <quoted text>Hmmmmm,one man's "childish tantrums" could be another's dangerous governmental social engineering.

You're implying that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are actually "dangerous governmental social engineering"?? Really???
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#13 Sep 5, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You consider a system to laws requiring people to be treated with equality and respect to be "dangerous social engineering"???
You can tap dance around your statements as much as you want, but you're the one that made them, not me. I'm just asking you to explain what you meant, something it appears you can't do.
Say what? Tap dance around statements? Good God man, I haven't even responded to you yet. sheeesh
It appears I can't do it? I have not even responded yet Mr. John.

I never said one word about "dangerous". You did. I simply said it was social engineering when our founding documents were penned ... and it was just that ... social engineering. They were "engineering" a new country.
Get a grip Mr. John.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#14 Sep 5, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you're confused. These are the words I was responding to:
okimar wrote: <quoted text>Hmmmmm,one man's "childish tantrums" could be another's dangerous governmental social engineering.
You're implying that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are actually "dangerous governmental social engineering"?? Really???
You are the one that is confused Mr. John.
You are the one making up implications.
You are the one that thinks I was commenting on "dangerous social engineering".

Now that you mention it though, yeah, those documents could be considered to be "dangerous" and they in fact are considered just that ... by some people. King George sure thought those social engineers in the colonies were "dangerous". The progressives of the world sure think them to be "dangerous".
I believe otherwise.

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.

Rick Perry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Militias complicate situation on Texas border 3 hr betrayed 156
Defiant Gov. Perry rejects 'outrageous' indictment 5 hr SirPrize 125
Perry says GOP Congress is key to solving problems 5 hr fyi 4
A ticket to Sarah Palin's funhouse 16 hr kuda 100
Rick Perry's mug shot Wed Tea Party Supporter 6
Rick Perry hits the road Wed Tea Party Supporter 64
Mayor Greg Wortham resigns, will run for Texas ... Wed Doodles 7
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Rick Perry People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••