Bill Introduced To Give Spousal Benef...

Bill Introduced To Give Spousal Benefits To Gay Servicemembers

There are 103 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Jun 28, 2012, titled Bill Introduced To Give Spousal Benefits To Gay Servicemembers. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Lesbians and gays can fight and die for the United States, but they are still treated as second class citizens by the law.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Jun 28, 2012
We all know this bill will go nowhere with the GOPasaurs in charge of the House.

Luckily it won't matter because DOMA will be overturned by this time next year, and then all legally married same-sex military members will have to be treated equally with all other married couples.
Pete

Pekin, IL

#2 Jun 28, 2012
Sodomy is NOT a basis for family.

Lililth_Satans_B ore

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#3 Jun 28, 2012
Pete wrote:
Sodomy is NOT a basis for family.
says the single lonely loser in illinoid who has no spouse himself..... lol... guess you were no basis for aq family either.... what to much hate in you lonely loser

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Boston, MA

#4 Jun 28, 2012
Pete wrote:
Sodomy is NOT a basis for family.
Tell that to every straight couple who engages in oral or anal intercourse.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Jun 28, 2012
The topic is military benefits for same-sex spouses; let's stick to the issues for once and ignore the trolls.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#6 Jun 28, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The topic is military benefits for same-sex spouses; let's stick to the issues for once and ignore the trolls.
Sounds like a plan. Do you really think the Federal DOMA has only a year left of life? How so? I hope you're right.
KING TUT OBAMA

Wasilla, AK

#7 Jun 28, 2012
Bill introduced to give FREE condoms to farm animals.

This gives Communist Progressives a backdoor to outlaw meat eating.

LibberROTchies HATE meat unless it is realated to SEX.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8 Jun 28, 2012
Pete wrote:
Sodomy is NOT a basis for family.
But lifebonding IS.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Jun 28, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a plan. Do you really think the Federal DOMA has only a year left of life? How so? I hope you're right.
Yes.

The 1st circuit recently ruled 3-0 that DOMA is unconstitutional, not even meeting the rational basis test; 2 of the judges were GOP appointees.

The SCOTUS will take the case this coming term, with a decision due by Jun 2013. Of course this only affects federal recognition, not any state bans.

In addition, Prop 8 is likely to be gone by then and we will have had our 1st victory at the ballot as well.
Disgusted American

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Jun 29, 2012
Pete wrote:
Sodomy is NOT a basis for family.
so you're saying oral sex and any sex thats NOT missionary/hetero is sodomy? FYI - Einstein - Look up the word sodomy...why are you so fixated on everything Gay? its Very Telling to say the least.......

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#11 Jun 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
The 1st circuit recently ruled 3-0 that DOMA is unconstitutional, not even meeting the rational basis test; 2 of the judges were GOP appointees.
The SCOTUS will take the case this coming term, with a decision due by Jun 2013. Of course this only affects federal recognition, not any state bans.
In addition, Prop 8 is likely to be gone by then and we will have had our 1st victory at the ballot as well.
I have always felt that altho it would not have legal effect on state bans, that it woud provide great social pressure for states to finally put aside their bans. Ny reasoning being that without DOMA, same-sex couples woudl begin to garner all the same Federal benefits of opposte-sex couples. This, of course, would pressure companies to do the same. In turn, the companies would be reluctant to expand in states without Marriage Equality, fearful of not being able to recruit the talent of gays & lesbians.

Make sense?

Excuse mt typos, please. I had a mild stroke a few months ago, and I still cannot type with my left hand.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Jun 29, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always felt that altho it would not have legal effect on state bans, that it woud provide great social pressure for states to finally put aside their bans. Ny reasoning being that without DOMA, same-sex couples woudl begin to garner all the same Federal benefits of opposte-sex couples. This, of course, would pressure companies to do the same. In turn, the companies would be reluctant to expand in states without Marriage Equality, fearful of not being able to recruit the talent of gays & lesbians.
Make sense?
Excuse mt typos, please. I had a mild stroke a few months ago, and I still cannot type with my left hand.
Keep working that hand. The neurons will find/create new pathways ONLY if you work it like mad. Typing is far to fine-motor so soon, but it will return ... if you work that arm and hand like there's nothing else important.

Experience speaking.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Jun 29, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always felt that altho it would not have legal effect on state bans, that it woud provide great social pressure for states to finally put aside their bans. Ny reasoning being that without DOMA, same-sex couples woudl begin to garner all the same Federal benefits of opposte-sex couples. This, of course, would pressure companies to do the same. In turn, the companies would be reluctant to expand in states without Marriage Equality, fearful of not being able to recruit the talent of gays & lesbians.
Make sense?
Excuse mt typos, please. I had a mild stroke a few months ago, and I still cannot type with my left hand.
Agree that may have an effect on a few states like Oregon or Wisconsin or Colorado, but those bans still need to be overturned by a vote of the people. I just don't see the majority of people in Alabama or Kentucky or Kansas giving a rats ass about any possible negative economic effects; they'd rather be unemployed & live in poverty than give same-sex couples the right to marry.

More likely is federal recognition will push the courts to overturn the state bans.
Reality

Barre, VT

#14 Jun 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
The 1st circuit recently ruled 3-0 that DOMA is unconstitutional, not even meeting the rational basis test; 2 of the judges were GOP appointees.
this is not an accurate assessment of that case.

They ruled on federalism grounds. They specifically found no right to gay marriage and that gays were not a suspect class. Having found gays have no rights to marriage, they ruled based on state's rights which doe snot include the standard of reviews for individual rights.

from the decision:
"Baker does not
resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that
do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex
marriage."

"Second, to create such a new suspect classification for
same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications--in
particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer--a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. "

"It is true that DOMA intrudes extensively into a realm
that has from the start of the nation been primarily confided to
state regulation--domestic relations and the definition and
incidents of lawful marriage--which is a leading instance of the
states' exercise of their broad police-power authority over morality and culture."

1.no right to gay marriage at all...
2.no suspect class (gays are NOTHING LIKE racial civil rights)'
3. FEDERALISM.
end of story.
Reality

Barre, VT

#15 Jun 29, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep working that hand. The neurons will find/create new pathways ONLY if you work it like mad. Typing is far to fine-motor so soon, but it will return ... if you work that arm and hand like there's nothing else important.
Experience speaking.
there is so much negativity around here,
glad to see some people being human...

I applaud you guys...
Reality

Barre, VT

#16 Jun 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree that may have an effect on a few states like Oregon or Wisconsin or Colorado, but those bans still need to be overturned by a vote of the people. I just don't see the majority of people in Alabama or Kentucky or Kansas giving a rats ass about any possible negative economic effects; they'd rather be unemployed & live in poverty than give same-sex couples the right to marry.
More likely is federal recognition will push the courts to overturn the state bans.
Legally speaking, I just don't see that path...
I see the courts moving away from federal power...
I see the federal courts saying marriage is a state "police power" issue...

"It is true that DOMA intrudes extensively into a realm
that has from the start of the nation been primarily confided to
state regulation--domestic relations and the definition and
incidents of lawful marriage--which is a leading instance of the
states' exercise of their broad police-power authority over morality
and culture. As the Supreme Court observed long ago,
[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations
of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs
to the laws of the States and not to the laws
of the United States.
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 581 (1979)(quoting In re
Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)); see also Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1, 7 (1967)(marriage)."

In short, DOMA is unconstitutional for overstepping on states....by this logic, a federal law demanding ssm be recognized must meet the same fate as DOMA for the same reasons.

If federal courts find it is a police power of the state, gay marriag eis sunk.

I also think gay marriage supporters think the separate is inequal is a better argument than it really is...
CU's suffice legally, maybe not socially...but gays themselves need to make progress socially...

If I were gay, I would welcome the chance to make CU's better than marriage. Since you guys argue that your divorce rates would be lower, why not stick it to us heteros with a lower rate on CU's?

I know why.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Jun 29, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
this is not an accurate assessment of that case.
They ruled on federalism grounds. They specifically found no right to gay marriage and that gays were not a suspect class. Having found gays have no rights to marriage, they ruled based on state's rights which doe snot include the standard of reviews for individual rights.
from the decision:
"Baker does not
resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that
do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex
marriage."
"Second, to create such a new suspect classification for
same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications--in
particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer--a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. "
"It is true that DOMA intrudes extensively into a realm
that has from the start of the nation been primarily confided to
state regulation--domestic relations and the definition and
incidents of lawful marriage--which is a leading instance of the
states' exercise of their broad police-power authority over morality and culture."
1.no right to gay marriage at all...
2.no suspect class (gays are NOTHING LIKE racial civil rights)'
3. FEDERALISM.
end of story.
I don't care why, the only thing that matters is DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the 1st circuit 3-0, and 2 of those were GOP appointed judges.

The SCOTUS will rule the same way.

End of story.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Jun 29, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Legally speaking, I just don't see that path...
I see the courts moving away from federal power...
I see the federal courts saying marriage is a state "police power" issue...
"It is true that DOMA intrudes extensively into a realm
that has from the start of the nation been primarily confided to
state regulation--domestic relations and the definition and
incidents of lawful marriage--which is a leading instance of the
states' exercise of their broad police-power authority over morality
and culture. As the Supreme Court observed long ago,
[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations
of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs
to the laws of the States and not to the laws
of the United States.
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 581 (1979)(quoting In re
Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)); see also Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1, 7 (1967)(marriage)."
In short, DOMA is unconstitutional for overstepping on states....by this logic, a federal law demanding ssm be recognized must meet the same fate as DOMA for the same reasons.
If federal courts find it is a police power of the state, gay marriag eis sunk.
I also think gay marriage supporters think the separate is inequal is a better argument than it really is...
CU's suffice legally, maybe not socially...but gays themselves need to make progress socially...
If I were gay, I would welcome the chance to make CU's better than marriage. Since you guys argue that your divorce rates would be lower, why not stick it to us heteros with a lower rate on CU's?
I know why.
We all know it's only a matter of time before the right SCOTUS gets the right case and then marriage for same-sex couples will be ruled a constitutional right. It may take another decade to get to that point, but it's inevitable.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Jun 29, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>

If I were gay, I would welcome the chance to make CU's better than marriage. Since you guys argue that your divorce rates would be lower, why not stick it to us heteros with a lower rate on CU's?
I know why.
Feel free to have a civil union if you think they're so great.

I'm married and I won't stop fighting until my marriage is treated the same as any other marriage by the feds & the states.
Reality

Barre, VT

#20 Jun 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care why,.
too bad for you.

I would not advise anyone to remain purposefully ignorant especially if you want to rant about the subject...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

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.

Adam Smith Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News U.S. calls for new nuclear weapons as Russia de... Feb '18 Mullah Pres Elect... 1
News Pelosi says Congress should weigh policy change... (Oct '17) Oct '17 Cordwainer Trout 18
News The Latest: Duckworth says transgender ban disc... (Jul '17) Jul '17 Jaysus Sharia 57
News U.S. Marine Corps looking into nude photo scand... (Mar '17) Mar '17 Ann 38
Adam Smith views on trade (Nov '16) Nov '16 dlnewhouse 1
News What do LGBT rights and a pay raise for U.S. tr... (Nov '16) Nov '16 Frankie Rizzo 2
News Hillary Clinton wins the District of Columbia's... (Jun '16) Jun '16 WeTheSheeple 45