Archive

Discharged for being gay, veterans face problems in re-enlisting

  • Con_Alma
    I Wear Pants;1038038 wrote:Now you want our pies to? My god you homos have no limits do you? :)

    I think most people that argue that the state should have no hand in marriage are pro-gay marriage anyway.
    Don't tell isadore that.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1036591 wrote:indicted, tried and convicted of obvious enthusiasm for an unlimited right to marry anyone.
    I have no problem with an unlimited right to marry anyone. I don't run around and fight for it like you seem to be doing.

    Under whose authority has this been carried out under?
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038074 wrote:Thank you for finally concurring that there is no requirement for the State to sanction marriage. I appreciate it.
    State sanctioned marriage has always been a right like suffrage. Americans are not required to vote or to marry. But if they want the full benefit of either right they must sign up, register or getting a license.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038075 wrote:State sanctioned marriage is not a right. There no need to have the State involved.

    There's also no reason to believe that benefits will be cut.
    The Supreme Court and millions of Americans say it is a right. And there is good reason to believe benefits will be lost.
    [INDENT]“In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits.
    On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
    joint parenting;
    joint adoption;
    joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
    status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
    joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
    dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support
    immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
    inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
    joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
    inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
    benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
    spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
    veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
    joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
    wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
    bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
    decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
    crime victims' recovery benefits;
    loss of consortium tort benefits;
    domestic violence protection orders;
    judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
    and more....
    Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. “

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm [/INDENT]
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038267 wrote:The Supreme Court and millions of Americans say it is a right. And there is good reason to believe benefits will be lost.[INDENT]“In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits.
    On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
    joint parenting;
    joint adoption;
    joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
    status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
    joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
    dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support
    immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
    inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
    joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
    inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
    benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
    spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
    veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
    joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
    wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
    bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
    decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
    crime victims' recovery benefits;
    loss of consortium tort benefits;
    domestic violence protection orders;
    judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
    and more....
    Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. “

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm [/INDENT]
    Nowhere in the above information does it define that State sanctioning is required for a marriage to occur and obtain those benefits.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038250 wrote:... But if they want the full benefit of either right they must sign up, register or getting a license.


    They should not have to get a license to obtain the benefit of a personal relationship. That's not mandated anywhere and State's should have the ability to force it.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038077 wrote:Don't tell isadore that.
    Well we have a suppposed authority on the beliefs of the large majority of opponents of the basic right to civil marriage who has no basis for his claim as to their attiutude toward gay rights. But beyond that what we have here is on particular opponent of that basic right. He/She comes onto a thread about gay rights and advocates the abolition of a basic right the large majority of gay couples want. He\She works against their wishes and efforts.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038272 wrote:They should not have to get a license to obtain the benefit of a personal relationship. That's not mandated anywhere and State's should have the ability to force it.
    Just like the benefit of voting, you want to exercise it, sign up.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038276 wrote:Well we have a suppposed authority on the beliefs of the large majority of opponents of the basic right to civil marriage who has no basis for his claim as to their attiutude toward gay rights. But beyond that what we have here is on particular opponent of that basic right. He/She comes onto a thread about gay rights and advocates the abolition of a basic right the large majority of gay couples want. He\She works against their wishes and efforts.
    I am not an opponent of any basic right. I am opposed to gaining the State's permission to act on that right.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038278 wrote:Just like the benefit of voting, you want to exercise it, sign up.
    It not voting. It a personal relationship. They are not the same. The State's have no business saying who can and can't get married.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038078 wrote:I have no problem with an unlimited right to marry anyone. I don't run around and fight for it like you seem to be doing.

    Under whose authority has this been carried out under?
    as your early emphasis showed, you were brimming with enthusiasm for unlimited right to marry ANYONE.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038076 wrote:There no reason to have the State involved at all.

    You and everybody can have their "little Slice of the pie" equally if we rid the State from this process.
    You want to destroy the pie. Gays want state sanctioned marriage and you want it abolished. You are opposed to their goal.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038284 wrote:as your early emphasis showed, you were brimming with enthusiasm for unlimited right to marry ANYONE.
    Not brimming. Just stating my opinion.

    Here's a nice article for you. Why should the State be able to restrict three people being married? Why not?
    http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17953

    "...
    Libertarians stand for the separation of state and marriage. If you want to get married, that should be a decision between you, your spouse, and possibly your church (if you belong to one), and your family (if you wish to respect their opinions). The state should have nothing to do with it.
    One small detail: as a legal convenience (and nothing else), the state makes it easier for married couples to do things like transfer property upon death, or make medical decisions if a spouse is terminally ill, and so forth. Those legal conveniences can exist either in marriage, or outside of it. In a free society, one would simply grant those powers (commonly called “power of attorney”) to whomever they wish. This is also a non-issue...."


    "...
    No, they’re not. Polygamist societies across the globe have demonstrated that they can rear children just as well as monogamists. By the way, monogamy doesn’t have a lot to cheer about, in regards to raising children. Especially if you consider the US divorce rate.
    Freedom’s the answer, folks. Now what’s your question? ..."
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038269 wrote:Nowhere in the above information does it define that State sanctioning is required for a marriage to occur and obtain those benefits.
    you have been showing the information that it is necessary to obtain the benefits. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and in your case there is no cure, because when you see the truth, you will not except it.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038285 wrote:You want to destroy the pie. ..
    I want to provide freedom to all. The pie would still exist in it's entirety.
    isadore;1038285 wrote:....Gays want state sanctioned marriage and you want it abolished. You are opposed to their goal.
    There no doubt I am opposed to the goal of State sanctioned marriage. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat that. Being required to gain permission from the State is violating the rights of the people who the State won't grant that permission to is it not?
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038283 wrote:It not voting. It a personal relationship. They are not the same. The State's have no business saying who can and can't get married.
    Voting and marriages are both rights and neither is unlimited. There are certain people who can not vote for good reason and there are certain people who can not have state sanctioned marriage for good reason.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038290 wrote:I want to provide freedom to all. The pie would still exist in it's entirety.



    There no doubt I am opposed to the goal of State sanctioned marriage. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat that. Being required to gain permission from the State is violating the rights of the people who the State won't grant that permission to is it not?
    What you offer is not what they want. They want state sanctioned marriage and you want to deny them that right.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038289 wrote:you have been showing the information that it is necessary to obtain the benefits. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and in your case there is no cure, because when you see the truth, you will not except it.
    It is not necessary and that isn't the righ twe are discussion. Benefits are not rights but rather "benefits" that I should be available to all people who we as a society aggree to make them available to. The are not rights, however. Those benefits can be made available with a simple power of attorney or affidavit.

    There is no need to havethe State grant permission to be married.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038297 wrote:What you offer is not what they want. ...

    There's no doubt about that.
    isadore;1038297 wrote:...They want state sanctioned marriage and you want to deny them that right.
    State sanctioned marriage isn't a right. Marriage can exist without State permission.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1038293 wrote:Voting and marriages are both rights and neither is unlimited. There are certain people who can not vote for good reason and there are certain people who can not have state sanctioned marriage for good reason.
    Yet there is no legal mandate for State to provide permission and sanctioning for people to get married. It's not necessary.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038281 wrote:I am not an opponent of any basic right. I am opposed to gaining the State's permission to act on that right.
    Of course you are, people consider state sanctioned marriage a basic right and you want to deny it to them. If it was 1955 Birmingham Alabama and a black man wanted to use the white public restroom, you would be arguing the government just should not provide restrooms for anyone, we should all provide our own.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038290 wrote:I want to provide freedom to all. The pie would still exist in it's entirety.



    There no doubt I am opposed to the goal of State sanctioned marriage. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat that. Being required to gain permission from the State is violating the rights of the people who the State won't grant that permission to is it not?
    It is no more a denial of right than having to register in order to vote. But your solution to the marriage problem (for millions the problem is that they want the right and are denied it) is to abolish the right. Doing your best to want the most to see civil marriage abolished which makes two may groups happy polygamists and people who want to practice contractual incest.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1038304 wrote:There's no doubt about that.



    State sanctioned marriage isn't a right. Marriage can exist without State permission.
    The Supreme Court says it is, going out of its way to define marriage as a basic right and specifically saying in the Loving decision that the state of Virginia could not deprive the right to state sanctioned to mixed race couples.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1039077 wrote:It is no more a denial of right than having to register in order to vote. But your solution to the marriage problem (for millions the problem is that they want the right and are denied it) is to abolish the right. Doing your best to want the most to see civil marriage abolished which makes two may groups happy polygamists and people who want to practice contractual incest.
    It's not my solution. It does solve the problem but I don't offer it as a solution. I offer it as the right thing to do from the position of it makes marriage available to all people.

    A State sanctioning a relationship is simply ridiculous and there's no need nor requirement to have it.

    A State should not be able tell an adult who they can and can't have a contractual relationship with. There's simply no excuse for that.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1039080 wrote:The Supreme Court says it is, going out of its way to define marriage as a basic right and specifically saying in the Loving decision that the state of Virginia could not deprive the right to state sanctioned to mixed race couples.
    The Supreme Court might say that marriage is a right but it has never ruled that it must be State sanctioned.