Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Stupid, socialist politicians in order to demonstrate their willingness to destroy decent American society attempt to gag the nation by shoving this evil legislation down our throats! Love homos and their evil, Godless methods of achieving filthy orgasms or else!

Homosexual benefits for homosexual federal workers! Congress has its priorities straight! These lunatics believe that shoving one's penus up another's anus is another normal.

1 posted on 11/27/2011 5:24:52 AM PST by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
To: IbJensen

This is crazy. The reason is because they change partners so much. I know that they tend to change partners as much as Newt does. This is not a good idea. I actually thought they did this already so I am pleased to see we can still fight this.


2 posted on 11/27/2011 5:27:57 AM PST by napscoordinator (Anybody but Romney, Newt, Perry, Huntsman, Paul. Perry and Obama are 100 percent the same!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

I find the sight of hairy male bodies with flabby bellies colliding in bed unsettling but truthfully, we straight guys have always found beautiful lesbians a turn on. Not all gays are created equal. Sorry, liberals - if you were literally truthful, it would be a hard sell.


3 posted on 11/27/2011 5:29:03 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

I’m sure the ‘best and the brightest’ will of course be homos looking for government handouts. Makes perfect sense... if you’re an idiot.


4 posted on 11/27/2011 5:29:27 AM PST by Track9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen
"must show they have a common residence (with some exceptions related to work or financial circumstances), that neither is married or in a domestic partner relationship with someone else, and that they generally share responsibility for a ‘significant measure of each other’s common welfare and financial obligations."

So a single child taking care of an elderly widowed parent would qualify? Seems like an equal protection issue if this bill discriminates against other types of "partnerships.

6 posted on 11/27/2011 5:32:59 AM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the constitution"-Obama official)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

DEFUND socialist collectives foreign and DOMESTIC.


7 posted on 11/27/2011 5:33:49 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen
"a small army of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced legislation"

...it must be a very, very small army.

9 posted on 11/27/2011 5:42:13 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen
Currently a retired federal employee can add a spouse only by giving up a part of the retired pay that would be otherwise due.

This is supposed to be actuarially sound and effectively has the individual employee paying for the benefit for the spouse.

When it comes to the gayblades their abbreviated lifespans probably make this a moot point ~ just won't be anybody around to collect.

When it comes to the lesbians it's a different story of course. They live at least as long as non-gays.

10 posted on 11/27/2011 5:42:55 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

then, i as a single person, claim discrimination. it used to be that spouses/traditional families were given special treatment to encourage family stability. if this is opened up to cover homosexuals, then why not singles? actually i’d prefer that things stay with traditional families: God knows they need the help.


15 posted on 11/27/2011 5:50:20 AM PST by avital2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

The country is beset with serious problems but many in congress would rather play in the weeds.


16 posted on 11/27/2011 5:51:31 AM PST by JPG (Hold on tight; rough road ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

See, we don’t need to worry about illegals getting benefits - the pols will find many ways to take our money and give it to those that don’t deserve it.


20 posted on 11/27/2011 5:55:06 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

Well it looks like we’ll be paying benefits for the Fudge Packers. It all about the votes people.


22 posted on 11/27/2011 6:06:23 AM PST by Rappini (Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

Unless this law provides the same options for heterosexual’s living together and not married then this law has to be unconstitutional because it gives rights to a class a people based solely on their sexual preferences.

You can not grant “rights” to one group on the basis on their sexual orientation, and in the same law deny rights to another group because of their opposite sexual orientation.

It’s got to be all or none.


23 posted on 11/27/2011 6:22:59 AM PST by msrngtp2002 (Just my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

I guess if your hetero live-in is not homosexual, they should declare themselves to be so, and become eligible for becoming a lifetime co-ward of the govt

No marriage, no divorce, imagine the court battles over partner benefits


24 posted on 11/27/2011 6:25:38 AM PST by silverleaf (common sense is not so common- voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen
Yeah. Let's increase the cost of government some more!

I have an idea. How 'bout if we figure out how much we are already paying for Federal "employee" "benefits" and if the Federal "workers" want to divide that money over some larger group then they can do so but the ones who are receiving some largess now should know that it will become a smalless as they are asked to share it with one special interest group after another.

ML/NJ

25 posted on 11/27/2011 6:26:06 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen
This administration already does extend most benefits to same sex partners.

Here

This bill will etch it into stone.

26 posted on 11/27/2011 6:31:27 AM PST by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

OK, let me get this straight: If two homosexuals decide they want to live together, they can have access to taxpayers’ money to make their cohabitation validated. What about two heterosexuals merely living together without marriage? Wouldn’t it be discriminatory against them to give homosexuals benefits without any two cohabitating partners?


27 posted on 11/27/2011 6:32:19 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

He's Baaaaack !!!!


28 posted on 11/27/2011 6:33:26 AM PST by Iron Munro (Unattended children will be towed away at the owners expense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen
recruit the best and the brightest to serve in government

Oh yeah .... what we need is more people like Barney Frank in the federal government.

32 posted on 11/27/2011 6:50:07 AM PST by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

Now we come to the point. It never was about anything else but money.


34 posted on 11/27/2011 7:10:23 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: IbJensen

That’s your and my tax money folks, going to pay for one of the unhealthiest, most expensive demographics in the world.


35 posted on 11/27/2011 7:11:13 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson