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

#246 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Only for state benefits.
right, "state" benefits like medicaid, medicare and social security...

ever notice that in states that's allow common law spouses, they then can get SS survivorship bene's?
BUT not in STATE'S that don't?

so state law determines eligibility?

Can't you at least make you fiction a little reality based?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#247 Oct 5, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if the military doesn't allow the marriage then there is no need to discuss the benefits.
We're talking about post-DOMA, when the military will have to recognize married same-sex servicemembers.

DUH!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#248 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Again, marriage benefits ARE part of military pay. Married servicemembers get paid MORE just for being married or having kids.

So therefore marriage benefits related to the civilian spouse and/or child of a servicemember IS relative.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#249 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, marriage benefits ARE part of military pay. Married servicemembers get paid MORE just for being married or having kids.
So therefore marriage benefits related to the civilian spouse and/or child of a servicemember IS relative.
it is NOT A BENEFIT with payment SHARED BY THE STATE...and so it is not relevant to the point YOU are TRYING to make...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#250 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
military pay.
An EMPLOYER can PAY WHATEVER THEY WANT...

My employer can say i am married to my desk and pay me more..SO WHAT!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#251 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
No, that's whay YOU think the DOMA decisions say.

Yes, the states get to define marriage, but the feds still get to decide which marriages they recognize as long as that doesn't violate equal protection and/or due process.

That's the crux of these DOMA cases.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#252 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
but the feds still get to decide which marriages they recognize
sure just show me where they say anything close to that...

oh right, you take supporting yourself with court language as a sign of weakness...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#253 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
right, "state" benefits like medicaid, medicare and social security...
ever notice that in states that's allow common law spouses, they then can get SS survivorship bene's?
BUT not in STATE'S that don't?
so state law determines eligibility?
Can't you at least make you fiction a little reality based?
Nope, the states do not pay Medicare or Social Security.

The federal govt decides whether or not to accept a state's definition of marriage, and will provide or deny benefits based on that decision.

As long as they don't violate equal protection and/or due process (as DOMA does) the feds can recognize or deny recognition to whatever marriages they wish, regardless of state law.

That's why the federal govt currently recognizes the marriages of 1st cousins who moved to Kentucky, even though Kentucky refuses to recognize that same marriage.

That's why the federal govt always recognized inter-racial marriages regardless of whether or not the state the couple resided in did.

The states get to decided whom to marry, but don't get to decide whom the federal govt must recognize as married (with the obvious equal protection/due process caveat).

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#254 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
it is NOT A BENEFIT with payment SHARED BY THE STATE...and so it is not relevant to the point YOU are TRYING to make...
No, it's not relevant to the point YOU are trying to make.

I never limited the discussion to only state shared payments. YOU did that once you realized I proved you wrong on benefits which are paid by the fed govt such as social security, medicare, military pay/benefits, VA benefits, etc, etc, etc.

You managed to find ONE benefit which is a shared federal-state cost (Medicaid) and now have to hinge you entire argument on that one benefit.

NOTHING in the DOMA decisions will prevent the federal govt from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples currently living in one of the 42 states which refuse to recognize it.

NOTHING.

The sooner you accept that simple fact, the less disappointed you will be.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#255 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
sure just show me where they say anything close to that...
oh right, you take supporting yourself with court language as a sign of weakness...
The courts don't have to address that, because that's the way the federal govt has ALWAYS worked. When DOMA is repealed, the federal govt will simply revert back to recgonizing marriages as they always have- i.e. if the marriage was legally contracted, the federal govt will recognize it.

Unless the courts SPECIFICALLY say they can't, then the feds can do what they historically have.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#256 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
r not the state the couple resided in did.
The states get to decided whom to marry, but don't get to decide whom the federal govt must recognize as married.
Except that this is EXACTLY what the DOMA courts found...

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/07/what_the_mass...

"Here's what Judge Tauro said about the right of the federal government to get involved in defining marriage.

It is a fundamental principle underlying our federalist system of government that "[e]very law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution." And, correspondingly, the Tenth Amendment provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The division between state and federal powers delineated by the Constitution is not merely "formalistic." Rather, the Tenth Amendment "leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." This reflects a founding principle of governance in this country, that "[s]tates are not mere political subdivision of the United States," but rather sovereigns unto themselves.

in other words, the States have all the power, and the Feds can only act if there is a specific okay in the Constitution."

Now, just provide anyone else who says what you think it says...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#257 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
An EMPLOYER can PAY WHATEVER THEY WANT...
My employer can say i am married to my desk and pay me more..SO WHAT!
Correct, an employer such as the DOD can determine who they recognize as married, regardless of state law.

Just as the federal govt can decide to recognize married same-sex couples and pay them FEDERAL benefits regardless of state law.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#258 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not relevant to the point YOU are trying to make.
I never limited the discussion to only state shared payments. YOU did that once you realized I proved you wrong on benefits which are paid by the fed govt such as social security, medicare, military pay/benefits, VA benefits, etc, etc, etc.
You managed to find ONE benefit which is a shared federal-state cost (Medicaid) and now have to hinge you entire argument on that one benefit.
NOTHING in the DOMA decisions will prevent the federal govt from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples currently living in one of the 42 states which refuse to recognize it.
NOTHING.
The sooner you accept that simple fact, the less disappointed you will be.
You suggestion that the federal govt will pay benefits when the resident state does not is just silly, that's why they accept the state determinations in medicare medicaid and SS...

You hammering on what an employer pays its employee is not related in ANY WAY...

what you miss, is a federal decision would usurp the power of the RESIDENT state...
the sooner you grasp that the DOMA cases were an extension of STATE'S rights and a denial of gay rights, the closer to reality you will be...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#259 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that this is EXACTLY what the DOMA courts found...
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/07/what_the_mass...
"Here's what Judge Tauro said about the right of the federal government to get involved in defining marriage.
It is a fundamental principle underlying our federalist system of government that "[e]very law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution." And, correspondingly, the Tenth Amendment provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The division between state and federal powers delineated by the Constitution is not merely "formalistic." Rather, the Tenth Amendment "leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." This reflects a founding principle of governance in this country, that "[s]tates are not mere political subdivision of the United States," but rather sovereigns unto themselves.
in other words, the States have all the power, and the Feds can only act if there is a specific okay in the Constitution."
Now, just provide anyone else who says what you think it says...
If that were the case, then the federal govt wouldn't be able to recognize ANY marriages or base federal taxation/benefits/rights on marriage status for ANYONE because that is NOWHERE in the constitution.

Yes, states get to decide who they marry, with certain limitations (i.e. equal protection & due process).

And the federal govt will recognize any legally contracted state marriage, just like they always have (with the obvious DOMA exception).
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#260 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were the case, then the federal govt wouldn't be able to recognize ANY marriages or base federal taxation/benefits/rights on marriage status for ANYONE because that is NOWHERE in the constitution.
Yes, states get to decide who they marry, with certain limitations (i.e. equal protection & due process).
And the federal govt will recognize any legally contracted state marriage, just like they always have (with the obvious DOMA exception).
I know why you find no support for that interpretation...its pure fiction...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#261 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
You suggestion that the federal govt will pay benefits when the resident state does not is just silly, that's why they accept the state determinations in medicare medicaid and SS...
You hammering on what an employer pays its employee is not related in ANY WAY...
what you miss, is a federal decision would usurp the power of the RESIDENT state...
the sooner you grasp that the DOMA cases were an extension of STATE'S rights and a denial of gay rights, the closer to reality you will be...
The federal govt paid benefits to married inter-racial couples living in states which did not recognize those marriages.

The federal govt CURRENTLY pays benefits to married 1st cousins living in states which do not recognize those marriages.

NOTHING in the DOMA decisions prevents the federal govt from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples just because they live in a STATE which doesn't recognize their marriage.

NOTHING.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#262 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I know why you find no support for that interpretation...its pure fiction...
Every constitutional scholar I've read has said the federal govt will simply go back to recognizing all legally contracted marriages regardless of state residency.

Common sense also dictates that.

Reality also dictates that.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#263 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Every constitutional scholar I've read
EVERY one?
Do you selectively read? You must..

and why haven't you SHARED even one?
I would more interested in that than the stories you spin...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#264 Oct 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

NOTHING in the DOMA decisions prevents the federal govt from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples just because they live in a STATE which doesn't recognize their marriage.
NOTHING.
as long as you ignore the analysis of the case that is...

it infringes on the state's rights to control benefits IT pays...that's the logic of the cases bucko...

if you understood, you wouldn't be prattling on and on about FEDERAL WAGES.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#265 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
EVERY one?
Do you selectively read? You must..
and why haven't you SHARED even one?
I would more interested in that than the stories you spin...
Try google, it's a simple tool for a simple tool.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Julia 270,120
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min RiversideRedneck 2,563
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Joy 1,535,660
News White House rebuts Washington Post report of Tr... 9 min spud 843
News Trump claims witch hunt, says he's most hounded... 14 min Waikiki Vermin 377
News The Latest: Democrats launch ads on Montana bod... 15 min Julia 40
News Hillary Clinton to address Wellesley College gr... 15 min RustyS 2
News James Comey fired as FBI director 46 min Trump your President 2,686
More from around the web