Interesting points by Anderson Cooper on implications of gay marriage

[emilynghiem]

Now here's something interesting:
Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview

In the news coverage following the Orlando shooting, Cooper points out that the same AG who opposed gay marriage as imposing significant harm, turned around and supported the rights of gay spouses to bury their loved ones. He says that people would not have that right without state recognition.

1. Is it really dependent on the US govt to recognize gay marriage in order to have this right? Does the US have to inject itself into Native American culture for them to have their rights to marry? If there really is a such an unacceptable conflict in beliefs, should the liberal citizens who believe in gay marriage be expected as people of any other beliefs to keep their beliefs in private, even setting up their own system of benefits so they have equal rights as others, but without imposing their beliefs publicly?

2. Is it possible for both statements to be true at the same time without contradiction. What is wrong with supporting anyone in burying their loved ones as part of their religious freedom, but without imposing gay marriage as a belief on others? I can support Christians having a Christian burial and the govt does not have to endorse the right to have a Christian, Buddhist or Muslim burial.
Why not the same with marriage? (And if benefits are the issue, why not keep those private, too. Where everyone handles their own benefits through their own groups if they can't agree.)

How much do people really "not believe" in gay marriage where it is "against their beliefs" and a violation of separation of church and state? Or is it really necessary to implement through the state before people have the right to practice their beliefs equally as other people?

Why way is it?
==================

Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview
Lisa de Moraes
.....
.....
“For the record, my interview was not filled with any anger. I was respectful before the interview, I was respectful during the interview and I was respectful after the interview,” Cooper insisted on his show.

“It’s my job to hold people accountable. And if on Sunday a politician is talking about love and embracing “our LGBT community,” I don’t think it’s unfair to look at their record and see if they have actually ever spoken that way publicly before. Which I never heard her say.

“The fact is Attorney General Bondi signed off on a 2014 federal court brief that claimed married gay people would “impose significant public harm.” Harm. She spent hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money, gay and straight taxpayer money, trying to keep gays and lesbians from getting the right to marry.”

Cooper said “good people can and do disagree on that issue” because “everyone has a right to their own opinion, thank goodness.”

But, he noted, Bondi is now championing her effort to help the gay community, including attack survivors, with “the very right which allows gay spouses to bury their dead and loved ones” which he said, is “a right that would not exist if Ms. Bondi had had her way. I think it’s fair to ask her about that. There is an irony in that.”

 

[TooTall]

Now here's something interesting:
Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview

In the news coverage following the Orlando shooting, Cooper points out that the same AG who opposed gay marriage as imposing significant harm, turned around and supported the rights of gay spouses to bury their loved ones. He says that people would not have that right without state recognition.

1. Is it really dependent on the US govt to recognize gay marriage in order to have this right? Does the US have to inject itself into Native American culture for them to have their rights to marry? If there really is a such an unacceptable conflict in beliefs, should the liberal citizens who believe in gay marriage be expected as people of any other beliefs to keep their beliefs in private, even setting up their own system of benefits so they have equal rights as others, but without imposing their beliefs publicly?

2. Is it possible for both statements to be true at the same time without contradiction. What is wrong with supporting anyone in burying their loved ones as part of their religious freedom, but without imposing gay marriage as a belief on others? I can support Christians having a Christian burial and the govt does not have to endorse the right to have a Christian, Buddhist or Muslim burial.
Why not the same with marriage? (And if benefits are the issue, why not keep those private, too. Where everyone handles their own benefits through their own groups if they can't agree.)

How much do people really "not believe" in gay marriage where it is "against their beliefs" and a violation of separation of church and state? Or is it really necessary to implement through the state before people have the right to practice their beliefs equally as other people?

Why way is it?
==================

Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview
Lisa de Moraes
.....
.....
“For the record, my interview was not filled with any anger. I was respectful before the interview, I was respectful during the interview and I was respectful after the interview,” Cooper insisted on his show.

“It’s my job to hold people accountable. And if on Sunday a politician is talking about love and embracing “our LGBT community,” I don’t think it’s unfair to look at their record and see if they have actually ever spoken that way publicly before. Which I never heard her say.

“The fact is Attorney General Bondi signed off on a 2014 federal court brief that claimed married gay people would “impose significant public harm.” Harm. She spent hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money, gay and straight taxpayer money, trying to keep gays and lesbians from getting the right to marry.”

Cooper said “good people can and do disagree on that issue” because “everyone has a right to their own opinion, thank goodness.”

But, he noted, Bondi is now championing her effort to help the gay community, including attack survivors, with “the very right which allows gay spouses to bury their dead and loved ones” which he said, is “a right that would not exist if Ms. Bondi had had her way. I think it’s fair to ask her about that. There is an irony in that.”

I didn't know that there was a requirement to be a relative to pay a funeral home for the burial of someone. I strongly suspect that I could pay for a perfect strangers burial if I were so inclined.

Can someone tell me different?

 

[defcon4]

Dear Emily,
The SCOTUS "legislated" from the bench and Bondi complies with it. Now, why is that a problem? She doesn't have to agree with the "legislation" but has to live with it. Now, she is trying to help. Well, it is interesting that some people are never satisfied.

 

[aris2chat]

Now here's something interesting:
Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview

In the news coverage following the Orlando shooting, Cooper points out that the same AG who opposed gay marriage as imposing significant harm, turned around and supported the rights of gay spouses to bury their loved ones. He says that people would not have that right without state recognition.

1. Is it really dependent on the US govt to recognize gay marriage in order to have this right? Does the US have to inject itself into Native American culture for them to have their rights to marry? If there really is a such an unacceptable conflict in beliefs, should the liberal citizens who believe in gay marriage be expected as people of any other beliefs to keep their beliefs in private, even setting up their own system of benefits so they have equal rights as others, but without imposing their beliefs publicly?

2. Is it possible for both statements to be true at the same time without contradiction. What is wrong with supporting anyone in burying their loved ones as part of their religious freedom, but without imposing gay marriage as a belief on others? I can support Christians having a Christian burial and the govt does not have to endorse the right to have a Christian, Buddhist or Muslim burial.
Why not the same with marriage? (And if benefits are the issue, why not keep those private, too. Where everyone handles their own benefits through their own groups if they can't agree.)

How much do people really "not believe" in gay marriage where it is "against their beliefs" and a violation of separation of church and state? Or is it really necessary to implement through the state before people have the right to practice their beliefs equally as other people?

Why way is it?
==================

Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview
Lisa de Moraes
.....
.....
“For the record, my interview was not filled with any anger. I was respectful before the interview, I was respectful during the interview and I was respectful after the interview,” Cooper insisted on his show.

“It’s my job to hold people accountable. And if on Sunday a politician is talking about love and embracing “our LGBT community,” I don’t think it’s unfair to look at their record and see if they have actually ever spoken that way publicly before. Which I never heard her say.

“The fact is Attorney General Bondi signed off on a 2014 federal court brief that claimed married gay people would “impose significant public harm.” Harm. She spent hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money, gay and straight taxpayer money, trying to keep gays and lesbians from getting the right to marry.”

Cooper said “good people can and do disagree on that issue” because “everyone has a right to their own opinion, thank goodness.”

But, he noted, Bondi is now championing her effort to help the gay community, including attack survivors, with “the very right which allows gay spouses to bury their dead and loved ones” which he said, is “a right that would not exist if Ms. Bondi had had her way. I think it’s fair to ask her about that. There is an irony in that.”

I didn't know that there was a requirement to be a relative to pay a funeral home for the burial of someone. I strongly suspect that I could pay for a perfect strangers burial if I were so inclined.

Can someone tell me different?

To make medical decision, even to visit them in the hospital.

 

[TooTall]

Now here's something interesting:
Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview

In the news coverage following the Orlando shooting, Cooper points out that the same AG who opposed gay marriage as imposing significant harm, turned around and supported the rights of gay spouses to bury their loved ones. He says that people would not have that right without state recognition.

1. Is it really dependent on the US govt to recognize gay marriage in order to have this right? Does the US have to inject itself into Native American culture for them to have their rights to marry? If there really is a such an unacceptable conflict in beliefs, should the liberal citizens who believe in gay marriage be expected as people of any other beliefs to keep their beliefs in private, even setting up their own system of benefits so they have equal rights as others, but without imposing their beliefs publicly?

2. Is it possible for both statements to be true at the same time without contradiction. What is wrong with supporting anyone in burying their loved ones as part of their religious freedom, but without imposing gay marriage as a belief on others? I can support Christians having a Christian burial and the govt does not have to endorse the right to have a Christian, Buddhist or Muslim burial.
Why not the same with marriage? (And if benefits are the issue, why not keep those private, too. Where everyone handles their own benefits through their own groups if they can't agree.)

How much do people really "not believe" in gay marriage where it is "against their beliefs" and a violation of separation of church and state? Or is it really necessary to implement through the state before people have the right to practice their beliefs equally as other people?

Why way is it?
==================

Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview
Lisa de Moraes
.....
.....
“For the record, my interview was not filled with any anger. I was respectful before the interview, I was respectful during the interview and I was respectful after the interview,” Cooper insisted on his show.

“It’s my job to hold people accountable. And if on Sunday a politician is talking about love and embracing “our LGBT community,” I don’t think it’s unfair to look at their record and see if they have actually ever spoken that way publicly before. Which I never heard her say.

“The fact is Attorney General Bondi signed off on a 2014 federal court brief that claimed married gay people would “impose significant public harm.” Harm. She spent hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money, gay and straight taxpayer money, trying to keep gays and lesbians from getting the right to marry.”

Cooper said “good people can and do disagree on that issue” because “everyone has a right to their own opinion, thank goodness.”

But, he noted, Bondi is now championing her effort to help the gay community, including attack survivors, with “the very right which allows gay spouses to bury their dead and loved ones” which he said, is “a right that would not exist if Ms. Bondi had had her way. I think it’s fair to ask her about that. There is an irony in that.”

I didn't know that there was a requirement to be a relative to pay a funeral home for the burial of someone. I strongly suspect that I could pay for a perfect strangers burial if I were so inclined.

Can someone tell me different?

To make medical decision, even to visit them in the hospital.

"To make medical decision, even to visit them in the hospital."

This is what Cooper was discussing, and a simple Power of Attorney would take care of the two problems you mention.

“the very right which allows gay spouses to bury their dead and loved ones” which he said, is “a right that would not exist if Ms. Bondi had had her way. I think it’s fair to ask her about that."

 

[B. Kidd]

Saw the interview. Bondi is complying with the law. Anderson was obviously having a bad day and chose to throw a 'hissy fit' over what basically was a resentment hit job. It was very womanly of Cooper to dredge up the past on something that didn't come close to having to do with the present.

 

[emilynghiem]

Now here's something interesting:
Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview

In the news coverage following the Orlando shooting, Cooper points out that the same AG who opposed gay marriage as imposing significant harm, turned around and supported the rights of gay spouses to bury their loved ones. He says that people would not have that right without state recognition.

1. Is it really dependent on the US govt to recognize gay marriage in order to have this right? Does the US have to inject itself into Native American culture for them to have their rights to marry? If there really is a such an unacceptable conflict in beliefs, should the liberal citizens who believe in gay marriage be expected as people of any other beliefs to keep their beliefs in private, even setting up their own system of benefits so they have equal rights as others, but without imposing their beliefs publicly?

2. Is it possible for both statements to be true at the same time without contradiction. What is wrong with supporting anyone in burying their loved ones as part of their religious freedom, but without imposing gay marriage as a belief on others? I can support Christians having a Christian burial and the govt does not have to endorse the right to have a Christian, Buddhist or Muslim burial.
Why not the same with marriage? (And if benefits are the issue, why not keep those private, too. Where everyone handles their own benefits through their own groups if they can't agree.)

How much do people really "not believe" in gay marriage where it is "against their beliefs" and a violation of separation of church and state? Or is it really necessary to implement through the state before people have the right to practice their beliefs equally as other people?

Why way is it?
==================

Anderson Cooper Responds After Florida Attorney General Blasts Him Over Interview
Lisa de Moraes
.....
.....
“For the record, my interview was not filled with any anger. I was respectful before the interview, I was respectful during the interview and I was respectful after the interview,” Cooper insisted on his show.

“It’s my job to hold people accountable. And if on Sunday a politician is talking about love and embracing “our LGBT community,” I don’t think it’s unfair to look at their record and see if they have actually ever spoken that way publicly before. Which I never heard her say.

“The fact is Attorney General Bondi signed off on a 2014 federal court brief that claimed married gay people would “impose significant public harm.” Harm. She spent hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money, gay and straight taxpayer money, trying to keep gays and lesbians from getting the right to marry.”

Cooper said “good people can and do disagree on that issue” because “everyone has a right to their own opinion, thank goodness.”

But, he noted, Bondi is now championing her effort to help the gay community, including attack survivors, with “the very right which allows gay spouses to bury their dead and loved ones” which he said, is “a right that would not exist if Ms. Bondi had had her way. I think it’s fair to ask her about that. There is an irony in that.”

I didn't know that there was a requirement to be a relative to pay a funeral home for the burial of someone. I strongly suspect that I could pay for a perfect strangers burial if I were so inclined.

Can someone tell me different?

To make medical decision, even to visit them in the hospital.

Dear aris2chat and TooTall
Yes and no, and here's the rub.

The LGBT complain of discrimination where even if they get POA people still refuse to recognize their marriages.
Is this grounds for changing laws and making EVERYONE recognize gay marriages? Due to unfair discrimination.

1. people who believe gay marriage is a choice of behavior and not a natural right
would argue no, beliefs about gay marriage cannot be forced on ppl by govt especially not by judiciary.
You'd have to pass state laws that people can represent themselves in matters of marriage.

2. people who believe same sex and traditional marriage are legally equal argue this is discrimination.

3. I say they are equal in terms of a faith based practice that is up to people but can't be banned by the state.
So neither bans nor endorsement are for govt to impose, but people must agree on policy in order to be
equally inclusive and not discriminate by one creed over another. And if people can't agree then it stays private
and govt should remain neutral.

As for discrimination, yo folks, this even happens with straight couples that family or others
may not recognize a couple's status.

If people make assumptions with straight married couples but require POA with gay couples,
that is similar to when there is a family dispute, and someone files a restraining order,
and the petitioning family member has to fight that legally to get visitation rights.

I agree this is state interfering with personal family relations and can get oppressive when
it is meant to be protective.

The solution is to train, assist and have agreements to resolve family and social conflicts
by mediation so nobody is discriminated against or oppressed from associating.

People of all types, both gay and straight have been oppressed by state interference in personal family relations.
People with personality conflicts or drug backgrounds have been "discriminated against" as parents or spouses
and refused to be recognized, and it isn't just gay couples who have been rejected for personal reasons.

So if gay couples want equal treatment, some of this discrimination IS equal treatment like other people face, too.

If you are going to specifically name and protect rights of gay couples
then what about the former drug addict who is denied parental rights, or the
Christian or Muslim rejected for religious conflicts that other family members refused to associate with?

"Equal protection of the laws' should apply to anyone not just naming ONE
set of beliefs, the LGBT homosexual and transgender populations, and singling out
or FAVORING that creed above others and even penalizing people of other creeds who don't agree with LGBT beliefs that are equally faith based. Conflict resolution, mediation and consensus are a better standard
that include and protect all interests and beliefs equally and don't seek to punish one side for rejecting beliefs of another.