GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

All appealing to those far right wingers.

Trump, Santorum, Gingrich, Pawlenty Remind Iowans They Oppose Gay Rights | On Top Magazine :: Gay & Lesbian News, Entertainment, Commentary & Travel

The voters just ousted all of the State Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage this past election. I imagine that is the reason for the focus in this particular state.

And I highly doubt that the majority of Iowa is made up of far right wingers. The political history of this state doesn't show that at all.

 

[konradv]

Democrats I would think you would want to make your political party in favor of gay marriage before you start worrying about the other party.

Btw I agree with you, anyone of legal age should be able to get married irregardless of sex, personally I want government out of ALL marriages. But look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.

No you don't or at least you haven't thought it through. The reason government is involved in marriage is to sort out the legal and financial issues when there's sickness, death or divorce. Keeping government out would open a whole can of worms in those instances.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Democrats I would think you would want to make your political party in favor of gay marriage before you start worrying about the other party.

Btw I agree with you, anyone of legal age should be able to get married irregardless of sex, personally I want government out of ALL marriages. But look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.

No you don't or at least you haven't thought it through. The reason government is involved in marriage is to sort out the legal and financial issues when there's sickness, death or divorce. Keeping government out would open a whole can of worms in those instances.

Why do those things have to be associated with marriage? Why couldn't I give my girlfriend those rights?

Don't assume just because someone has a different opinion than you that they "haven't thought it through." Just because an opinion is radically different doesn't mean it doesn't include thought.

If insurance companies, churches, banks want to attach certain things to married couples and rights so be it. Keep government completely out of it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The voters just ousted all of the State Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage this past election.

Actually there are 7 Iowa Supreme Court Justices and all 7 voted in favor of Same-sex Civil Marriage, 3 where not retained after the Judicial Election cycle, the other 4 are still on the bench. So 4 of 7 are still on the bench.

[DISCLAIMER: I think only those 3 were up for re-confirmation by vote this cycle.]


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And DOMA has been ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court more than once.

Edit: Comment removed, QW addressed it in a later post.

By the way, the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that the government has the power to define marriage however they want, and that that power actually trumps the Bill of Rights. If the right to practice a religion does not trump the power of the government to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, the right to get married is not going to cut it.

So explain how Virginia Law concerning marriage was found unconstitutional in the Loving v. Virginia Case.

I mean if States can "define marriage however they want", then that law should have been upheld right?



>>>>

 

[konradv]

Democrats I would think you would want to make your political party in favor of gay marriage before you start worrying about the other party.

Btw I agree with you, anyone of legal age should be able to get married irregardless of sex, personally I want government out of ALL marriages. But look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.

No you don't or at least you haven't thought it through. The reason government is involved in marriage is to sort out the legal and financial issues when there's sickness, death or divorce. Keeping government out would open a whole can of worms in those instances.

Why do those things have to be associated with marriage? Why couldn't I give my girlfriend those rights?

Don't assume just because someone has a different opinion than you that they "haven't thought it through." Just because an opinion is radically different doesn't mean it doesn't include thought.

If insurance companies, churches, banks want to attach certain things to married couples and rights so be it. Keep government completely out of it.

I'm not assuming anything and you STILL haven't thought it through. Answer the question. What happens in the situations I mentioned, if you leave the government out? Don't get all huffy just because your libertarian "principles" don't have a good answer for that. The devil is in the details and it's not uncommon for libertarians not to have thought things out. Like Marxism, the only way the philosophy works is, if there's a basic change in human nature. Until that happens, government in all sorts of aspects of our lives, is a given.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Democrats I would think you would want to make your political party in favor of gay marriage before you start worrying about the other party.

Btw I agree with you, anyone of legal age should be able to get married irregardless of sex, personally I want government out of ALL marriages. But look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.

No you don't or at least you haven't thought it through. The reason government is involved in marriage is to sort out the legal and financial issues when there's sickness, death or divorce. Keeping government out would open a whole can of worms in those instances.

Why do those things have to be associated with marriage? Why couldn't I give my girlfriend those rights?

Don't assume just because someone has a different opinion than you that they "haven't thought it through." Just because an opinion is radically different doesn't mean it doesn't include thought.

If insurance companies, churches, banks want to attach certain things to married couples and rights so be it. Keep government completely out of it.

Actually quite a few people that talk about "keeping government completely out of it" (not saying you personally - just a general reference) haven't really thought it through. If they had they would see that the legal recognition of a spouse as a non-blood family member has become tied to many aspects of interaction with the government. To the point that (a) most heterosexuals would not support their removal, or (b) removal would cause chaos.

There are 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. That doesn't includes hundreds more that exist within each state. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense because it's twice the single deduction. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.

Governments are also involved with divorce in determining division of property and whether the income earner is required to provide continuing (permanent or temporary) support for the ex-spouse.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

No you don't or at least you haven't thought it through. The reason government is involved in marriage is to sort out the legal and financial issues when there's sickness, death or divorce. Keeping government out would open a whole can of worms in those instances.

Why do those things have to be associated with marriage? Why couldn't I give my girlfriend those rights?

Don't assume just because someone has a different opinion than you that they "haven't thought it through." Just because an opinion is radically different doesn't mean it doesn't include thought.

If insurance companies, churches, banks want to attach certain things to married couples and rights so be it. Keep government completely out of it.

Actually quite a few people that talk about "keeping government completely out of it" (not saying you personally - just a general reference) haven't really thought it through. If they had they would see that the legal recognition of a spouse as a non-blood family member has become tied to many aspects of interaction with the government. To the point that (a) most heterosexuals would not support their removal, or (b) removal would cause chaos.

There are 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. That doesn't includes hundreds more that exist within each state. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense because it's twice the single deduction. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.

Governments are also involved with divorce in determining division of property and whether the income earner is required to provide continuing (permanent or temporary) support for the ex-spouse.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

There has been a petition campaign to get the word "marriage" removed from all government documentation in CA....that petition has not gotten very far...nor has a petition trying to make divorce much more difficult if not impossible.

 

[gekaap]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

It's opposition to at least one right.

 

[gekaap]

Oh... I am all for gay couples having the same exact governmental 'rights' as married couples... joint filing for taxation, inheritance rights, power of attorney for emergencies, etc.... just not the government being involved in marriage or setting a definition of what it is from the liberal mindset

So then, you oppose the government defining marriage as one man and one woman? You oppose the need to obtain a marriage license? You oppose the recognition of marital status for taxation purposes?

 

[gekaap]

I'm all for same sex marriage. If people are really stupid enough to enter into a contract that's essentially economic slavery, more power to them.

BUT...

I am AGAINST a special, protected class. You should NOT have to be Gay or have to SAY you're Gay to marry a same sex partner. Heteros should also be able to marry same sex partners.

Tomato/tomahto.

 

[gekaap]

They have "RIGHTS".....The same as every other american.

Not the right to get married. Or are you saying that the right to marriage doesn't exist?

 

[gekaap]

Marriage is not a civil right, neither is making a contract of any type.

When you put it that way, not much different than saying that sitting in the front of the bus is not a civil right.

Marriage is controlled by the states. In Iowa, the right to marriage exists, as was recognized by their Supreme Court.

BTW, why are so many conservatives so quick to invoke the 10th amendment so often, but when it comes to marriage they stop in their tracks?

 

[gekaap]

No one can stop a gay man from marrying someone in this nation. He simply has to comply with the law concerning marriage, like everyone else.

You should read the Iowa Supreme Court's decision that affirmed the right to same sex marriage under their constitution. It did an excellent job of destroying your line of reasoning.

 

[gekaap]

Exactly!.....If marriage were a "RIGHT" there would be no reasons for states to deny a marriage license for ANY reason.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right. But there are reasons the government can deny you the opportunity to say certain things, or when you'll have the opportunity to say them.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No you don't or at least you haven't thought it through. The reason government is involved in marriage is to sort out the legal and financial issues when there's sickness, death or divorce. Keeping government out would open a whole can of worms in those instances.

Why do those things have to be associated with marriage? Why couldn't I give my girlfriend those rights?

Don't assume just because someone has a different opinion than you that they "haven't thought it through." Just because an opinion is radically different doesn't mean it doesn't include thought.

If insurance companies, churches, banks want to attach certain things to married couples and rights so be it. Keep government completely out of it.

Actually quite a few people that talk about "keeping government completely out of it" (not saying you personally - just a general reference) haven't really thought it through. If they had they would see that the legal recognition of a spouse as a non-blood family member has become tied to many aspects of interaction with the government. To the point that (a) most heterosexuals would not support their removal, or (b) removal would cause chaos.

There are 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. That doesn't includes hundreds more that exist within each state. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense because it's twice the single deduction. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.

Governments are also involved with divorce in determining division of property and whether the income earner is required to provide continuing (permanent or temporary) support for the ex-spouse.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

I'll go number by number to address these.

1.) A military member is a government employee, his wife gets government insurance, the exact same thing I'm advocating for. Insurance recognizing marriages, not government. If their government insurance didn't want to cover her if he died than he should have the right to try and purchase private insurance that would.

2.) I want social security done away with.

3.) These same benefits should be given to someone if they're a girlfriend or brother or sister, whomever the owner deems necessary.

4.) Same rights should be given to whomever the homeowner wants to put into place.

5.) If government has such regulations on it's cemetaries and the veteran thinks it's more important to be buried next to his wife than he can choose another cemetary.

6.) This, again, can be provided in private insurance companies or the companies the person works for. These things are choices.

7.) Anyone who's financially dependent on one person in case of a wrongful death should be able to sue if they can make the connection.

8.) I don't see how this is a good thing, if a husband kills someone his wife should testify against him or be punished.

9.) I'm mostly pro-amnesty, marriage isn't important here either.

10.) Again, this can be done within private insurance.

11.) If government doesn't recognize marriage they won't have to recognize divorce. If the couple is worried about potential divorce they should get a pre-nup and government can then be called upon to enforce a contract.

12.) See #11.

Well that was easy, seems like you didn't "think those ones through", I could say that, or I could act like a grown up and say you have a different opinion.

You have a different thought out opinion than my thought out opinion, we just disagree, I'm a small government fiscal conservative so our idealogies likely are very different.

 

[FreedomAli]

"GOP Hopefuls Remind Iowans They Oppose Gay Rights"

And, they will keep small minds arguing over such things as they head to the bank with all of our money and Americans are too stupid to figure it out.

Piety is no substitute for economic understanding.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You have a different thought out opinion than my thought out opinion, we just disagree, I'm a small government fiscal conservative so our idealogies likely are very different.

Probably not that different, I'm a small government fiscal conservative also. However I recognize the difference between what I "want to be" and "what reality is".


Start telling people that the government is going to take even MORE of their money and property through taxes, and you will get very little support. And yes it is MORE money to the government because a husband and wife pay into Social Security, if you cut off the ability to get a return on that money then the government is taking but not giving back. Same with property transfer and Estate taxes, cutting off recognition of the spouse will simply mean bigger government by not letting a family keep what it's earned.


>>>>

 

[konradv]

Why do those things have to be associated with marriage? Why couldn't I give my girlfriend those rights?

Don't assume just because someone has a different opinion than you that they "haven't thought it through." Just because an opinion is radically different doesn't mean it doesn't include thought.

If insurance companies, churches, banks want to attach certain things to married couples and rights so be it. Keep government completely out of it.

Actually quite a few people that talk about "keeping government completely out of it" (not saying you personally - just a general reference) haven't really thought it through. If they had they would see that the legal recognition of a spouse as a non-blood family member has become tied to many aspects of interaction with the government. To the point that (a) most heterosexuals would not support their removal, or (b) removal would cause chaos.

There are 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. That doesn't includes hundreds more that exist within each state. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense because it's twice the single deduction. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.

Governments are also involved with divorce in determining division of property and whether the income earner is required to provide continuing (permanent or temporary) support for the ex-spouse.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

I'll go number by number to address these.

1.) A military member is a government employee, his wife gets government insurance, the exact same thing I'm advocating for. Insurance recognizing marriages, not government. If their government insurance didn't want to cover her if he died than he should have the right to try and purchase private insurance that would.

2.) I want social security done away with.

3.) These same benefits should be given to someone if they're a girlfriend or brother or sister, whomever the owner deems necessary.

4.) Same rights should be given to whomever the homeowner wants to put into place.

5.) If government has such regulations on it's cemetaries and the veteran thinks it's more important to be buried next to his wife than he can choose another cemetary.

6.) This, again, can be provided in private insurance companies or the companies the person works for. These things are choices.

7.) Anyone who's financially dependent on one person in case of a wrongful death should be able to sue if they can make the connection.

8.) I don't see how this is a good thing, if a husband kills someone his wife should testify against him or be punished.

9.) I'm mostly pro-amnesty, marriage isn't important here either.

10.) Again, this can be done within private insurance.

11.) If government doesn't recognize marriage they won't have to recognize divorce. If the couple is worried about potential divorce they should get a pre-nup and government can then be called upon to enforce a contract.

12.) See #11.

Well that was easy, seems like you didn't "think those ones through", I could say that, or I could act like a grown up and say you have a different opinion.

You have a different thought out opinion than my thought out opinion, we just disagree, I'm a small government fiscal conservative so our idealogies likely are very different.

You're talking about rights? I thought you wanted the giovernment out of marriage? Who guarantees rights, anyway? Without government there are no rights, except those that I wish to grant you, if I'm stronger. Once again, we have a libertarian not thinking things through.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Actually quite a few people that talk about "keeping government completely out of it" (not saying you personally - just a general reference) haven't really thought it through. If they had they would see that the legal recognition of a spouse as a non-blood family member has become tied to many aspects of interaction with the government. To the point that (a) most heterosexuals would not support their removal, or (b) removal would cause chaos.

There are 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. That doesn't includes hundreds more that exist within each state. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense because it's twice the single deduction. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.

Governments are also involved with divorce in determining division of property and whether the income earner is required to provide continuing (permanent or temporary) support for the ex-spouse.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

I'll go number by number to address these.

1.) A military member is a government employee, his wife gets government insurance, the exact same thing I'm advocating for. Insurance recognizing marriages, not government. If their government insurance didn't want to cover her if he died than he should have the right to try and purchase private insurance that would.

2.) I want social security done away with.

3.) These same benefits should be given to someone if they're a girlfriend or brother or sister, whomever the owner deems necessary.

4.) Same rights should be given to whomever the homeowner wants to put into place.

5.) If government has such regulations on it's cemetaries and the veteran thinks it's more important to be buried next to his wife than he can choose another cemetary.

6.) This, again, can be provided in private insurance companies or the companies the person works for. These things are choices.

7.) Anyone who's financially dependent on one person in case of a wrongful death should be able to sue if they can make the connection.

8.) I don't see how this is a good thing, if a husband kills someone his wife should testify against him or be punished.

9.) I'm mostly pro-amnesty, marriage isn't important here either.

10.) Again, this can be done within private insurance.

11.) If government doesn't recognize marriage they won't have to recognize divorce. If the couple is worried about potential divorce they should get a pre-nup and government can then be called upon to enforce a contract.

12.) See #11.

Well that was easy, seems like you didn't "think those ones through", I could say that, or I could act like a grown up and say you have a different opinion.

You have a different thought out opinion than my thought out opinion, we just disagree, I'm a small government fiscal conservative so our idealogies likely are very different.

You're talking about rights? I thought you wanted the giovernment out of marriage? Who guarantees rights, anyway? Without government there are no rights, except those that I wish to grant you, if I'm stronger. Once again, we have a libertarian not thinking things through.

Government guarantees rights, guaranteeing rights has NOTHING to do with marriage or inventing "marriage rights" that the Constitution (thankfully) doesn't waste one word on.

You're down 2-0 in the count here, gonna bring another curveball or the heater this time?