You know, this does sound desperate, sad, and borderline funny in a tragic / incompetent sort of way.
But…
I just can’t laugh at this. These people are essentially saying a basic civil right should be denied to a class of people because it’s inconvenient. It might cost us some money.
That’s not funny. I think it’s the type of callous, calculating banality that breeds evil.
So here’s the quote from the OP’s link that I still, after several readings, can’t figger WTF he means:
Um, yep, you’ve got someone who is included as a spouse, as anyone who ask to be considered as a spouse, declaring their union.Why does this make any difference at all in taxes, assumed as a married couple? What at all extra is involved there.? How do same sex couples cost him money???
I don’t mean to hijack this thread, so if I should start a new thread just tell me and I will. But I have a question for the SSM folks.
Is it important for you to be “married”? I have no problem with gay people who want to suffer with us straight folks when it comes to a permanent union :D, but could you live with having all the rights of a marriage (including health benefits, and whatever else) and just call it a civil union (or SS union)? Or something without the word “marriage” in it?
Seems that if you take the word “marriage” out of the discussion, folks that are against this lose a lot of their energy.
Just curious.
Two words, Stink Fish Pot: Jim Crow.
Anyway, what’s wrong with calling it “marriage?” The forms are already printed.
A plethora of brilliantly clear and passionate posts have been made on this very subject. Searching for Prop 8 will find you some from recent months.
I think Steele is talking as if he were a small business owner. He’s right, too. If I hire a nice young 20 something single man, he costs me a certain amount in benefits a month. Then all of a sudden his girlfriend - who wasn`t considered a spouse! - gets married to him, and I have to pay to insure her too. And don’t get me started about when those two assholes have a fucking kid and I have to insure the whole family. And if we let gays have equal rights the whole institution of family would be marginally worse for small business owners’ bottom lines!
And also,
What the fuck is big bling? Is that something that exists?
A man who truly represents his constituency then.
I think it was Petroleum V. Nasby who said something about a foolish constituency being the hobgoblin of the Republican mind. Could have been Heisenberg, I’m not sure.
Anyway, time to feed the cat. Maybe.
Not being gay, I can’t speak for those who would avail themselves of the right… but essentially, it boils down to this: if you’re not extending the same right to gay people, it can be taken away. On the other hand, if you grant gay people the right to marry, you can’t take it away from them without taking it away from everyone.
That’s what dropzone is alluding to: if you call them civil unions, you’ve just created a second class of citizens.
I laughed for the first time in several days. Very clever.
OK, so I mispelled “chump”! Bid geal, its my birthday, and I’m bussed, Buzzed!
And if this is really the first time you’ve laughed in several, you should do something about that. P.G. Wodehouse? Mark Twain? Garrison Poundstone?
My Darling Marcie has been suffering from a long lasting migraine; absolute quiet has been imposed. Laughing out loud would have proved fatal. She’s better, now.
Sounds like a sound argument for socialized medicine to me!
But when the White Party, Black Party, Purple Party, Taupe Party, etc. come around… HUGE loss in productivity.
Actually, it IS an argument for socialized medicine; our lack of it drives companies out of America, because they don’t want to shoulder their worker’s health care costs.
This.
Yes, yes he is.
Hah! Well done. Of course I wish I’d had a little warning. I almost choked on a swig of hot coffee there. 
Thanks for the search tip. I assumed this has been covered, probably in GD, but I don’t frequent there. I’ll do some research.
I think the problem that many people have is that marriage has a definition. A long standing definition of a man and a woman with procreation as a potential result. I’m not a bible-thumper, but I can understand the concern for redefining the word. With that said, I worked for a company that recognized same-sex unions, and I was in a position to hire/fire. Not one person expressed their concern about the wording, as long as they were treated the same, and their partners were eligible for the same benefits as a “married” couple. These folks also had an official avenue to pursue anything they felt was discriminatory. Honestly, other than calling it SS-unions, I didn’t see any difference.
I am straight, therefore I realize that I don’t really have a grasp of the emotional part of this. My company was fairly advanced for the time, and everything was equal as far as I know, including programs like adoption support. I never saw any discriminatory treatment.
I’ll leave the thread and do the research as suggested. My apologies for the slight hi-jack.
No need to re-hash my posting and answer any questions. I need to read as some have suggested.
One question I do have, however. How do other countries handle this?
Yes.
No, I wouldn’t find that acceptable.
The thing to keep in mind is that the emotional investment in the concept of marriage that leads to those people fighting so hard against extending it to gays? Gays feel the same way. That’s why we’re fighting so hard to get access to it.
