Homosexual right to marry? not in our democracy

townhall.com ^ | 2/24/04 | Armstrong Williams

[CSM]

"Hard to come to any other conclusion when you continue to attack my observation."

I didn't attack your observation, you attacked mine. I made a proposal that the gay community would be better served spending their energy on privatizing SS. You attack me by saying that you would get sued for not providing benefits to certain employees.

Your point isn't even related to the original post that I made. What the intent of my posting is that the Federal Government does not need to be involved in this issue at all. It needs to remain at the State/Local level. The only "benefit" the feds are involved in is SS. The only action that is necessary is for the Fed to give back the power of a state to decide if they want to recognize marriage liscenses of other states. A constitutional ammendment is unnecessary.

What warranted you asking me if I was a homo? (BTW, asking the question was really a back door way of calling me a homo, I realize that.)

[Protagoras]

I am only making the point that all the screaming about benefits has already been resolved in the private sector.

This statement has been demonstrated to be incorrect.

[CSM]

If you can't practice your own policies, you should remove them from your profile.

[TexasCajun]

The majority doesn't rule in the country, where's this guy been? It takes a super-majority to even get a vote on judicial nominee and liberal judges alone make law.

[CSM]

No, it hasn't. Anyone can search for an employer that gives them the benefits they desire. They are free to apply for employment, they are free to leave their current job to take that employment. If they want health coverage they should find a company that offers that benefit and attempt to get employment at that company.

You are not the only employer and not all employers offer the same benefits package. Therefore, these "benefits" are being addressed in the private sector, maybe not by you, but by other employers.

[Protagoras]

all of the supposed benefits of marriage could be provided to them in the private sector, just like they are for a married couple today!

That is what I said was wrong. That is where it all started.

You attack me by saying that you would get sued for not providing benefits to certain employees.

Saying I would get sued and what the consequences of that were is not an attack on you despite what you say.

The only action that is necessary is for the Fed to give back the power of a state to decide if they want to recognize marriage liscenses of other states. A constitutional ammendment is unnecessary.

You obviously don't have an understanding of the constitution. What you propose is not an option under the current constitution.

[Protagoras]

This post shows you to be obtuse. I'm guessing purposely so.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[CSM]

"That is what I said was wrong. That is where it all started."

Reread my statement, COULD does not equal MUST. Could is voluntary, just as it is today. Would you support mandating that all employers must provide health coverage to legally married persons spouses? (Assume that legally married is just as it is today.)

"Saying I would get sued and what the consequences of that were is not an attack on you despite what you say."

Go back and read your posts to me. You are attacking.

"You obviously don't have an understanding of the constitution. What you propose is not an option under the current constitution."

How so. What part of the constitution forces states to recognize the marriage liscense of other states?

[CSM]

What is untrue in my post? How about dropping the name calling, or should I just start to return the favor?

[Protagoras]

Could is voluntary, just as it is today.

Amazing. I have explained to you umpteen times how it will not be and can not be voluntary under a new definition. It will be all or none, as I also explained umpteen times.

Would you support mandating that all employers must provide health coverage to legally married persons spouses?

Amazing.

How so. What part of the constitution forces states to recognize the marriage liscense of other states?

Article four.

[Spaminator]

Are we still alowed to recite the pledge in this country?

[CSM]

Do you think that every employer offers the same benefits package?

My point is that the issues are meritless for the gay community. They are screaming about "benefits" that they can already get. The only one that they can't currently get is SS inheritence. If we privatize SS that would eliminate any excuse for them. If we eliminate any "benefit" to scream about, then the actions would clearly be made more visible for the agenda that they really are pushing.

We are on the same side of the issue, I don't want to see gay marriage become legal either. I just don't like constitutional ammendments. I don't know why you want to continue to attack me.

You continue to attack me on the word voluntary. Would you agree that as things stand today, each employee and employer voluntarily enter into an agreement to exchange labor(time) for compensation? If so, then would you agree that they each acknowledge their desires and voluntarily chose to accept the terms? The employer is able to freely chose to offer certain benefits or not. They can offer a miriade of choices and the employee can chose to accept them all or they can chose to accept none.

Some employers today offer health coverage for same sex partners, some only offer it to legally married spouses, some employers do not offer health coverage. Regardless of what is offered by an employer, the employee still enters a relationship with a health care provider. The funding is the matter that we consider the benefit.

If the gay community is successful in this push, what will really happen to the above situation. One of the choices will be different, the legally identified spouse will be different. You will still have the ability to voluntarily chose to offer spousal coverage or to voluntarily not offer it. You clearly stated that you will not offer it. That is a voluntary decision and it is your right to do so.

You and your employees will still be able to voluntarily agree upon compensation packages. That isn't going away. What is happening is that you are left with one of the options that you morally object to. A despicable option is available, but it is despicable.

As it stands today, a gay employee that is dissatisfied with the exclusion of his "partner" from his health care coverage is free to find an employer that offers to fund the health care of the "partner". This issue is already being addressed in the private sector.

Any person can be named as the inheritor of assets, any person is allowed to live with them, any other "benefit" is addressed today in the private sector. SS inheritance is the only one that is not. My point is that let's privatize this "benefit" and every one of the gay person's desired "benefits" are available without legalizing gay marriage.

Now, I will ask again, what in my posting warranted the question asking me if I am a homo?

Thanks for the direction to Article 4. I say we just abolish government sanctioned marriage and get back to the church sanctioning marriage. Then it is no longer a state judicial issue that requires reciprocity.

[SevenDaysInMay]

"Communists" learned that ideology fails.

All communism functions with the risk of OWNERSHIP accountabiblity when their command economy will fail. Fail the USSR did.

Fascism, aka criminally corrupt socialism, works because the elites by any means command effective control of the leading factors of production (land, labor, management, capital) in the leading industries without direct ownership.

Third Reich NAZIS were mostly slaving thieves. Fascist (the source of the term) Italy was run by stupid socialists mopstly on the take, like mafia with which they were in competition in southern Italy and Sicily.

"Fascists" enjoy a cut of the action of the cash flow and returns to equity, living rich in effective control of the social order by taking bribes, kickbacks, IPOs, sitting on boards, consulting, selling protection aka government's indulgences and selective law enforcement, being fixers around the world for international businesses, to name a few.

Sound familiar?

The Clintonazis were unincumbered by the Rule of Law, often making their own and wielding law enforcement (Killing Branch Davidians announcing their new police power) and taxation to threaten ruination of political opponents(the hounding tax audits of one conservative organization after another for year after year). Bill and Hillary were protected from law enforcement as they committed felonies andabused their possitions as they ruled with unConstiututional executive orders and intimidation (FBI files ring a bell?); corrupt Congress fixed the Impeacement's Senate Trial. To me, all senaate Dem proved themselves fascist that day, including rabbi LIEberman. Conspiring blackrobes mock and rule to nullify our ratified Constitution as they falsely enjoy "lifetime" positions of judicial tyranny, often without basis in our Constitutional law. Blackrobes create their self-serving doctrines with no basis in our Constitutional law, see "compelling State interest" and "sovereign immunity".

The current DNC is in lockstep with the worldwide post-communism "socialist" movement, simply ruling elites talking a party line while getting filthy rich through shakedowns of private industy and taxation, often cooperating to buy access and protection, "costs of doing business". See ARafat and N.K.'s Dear Leader, and unindicted publically felony violator Bill Clinton with his presidential library tens of millions of slush funds beyond audit, under law passed by Congress and signed by our President.

The UN is openly corrupt, in the billion$/year. China is fascist, not communist. IMHO, the Clintons envy China's form of government wherein some 5,000 families control the wealth of nearly 1.5 billion people. Across this planet, families have stolen national economies' annual billion$, all "socialist" to one degree or another because "mixed economies produce far more wealth than the alternatives.

Some degree of socialism sells a promise to enough of the population bought with bread and circuses and some "opiate of the masses". Fascism in muslim countries is allah's will, under penalty of death.

We are facing the open destruction of our ratified Constitutional Republic to enshrine fascism in this USSA. This homo front is butt the lastest assault on our rule of law which has become myth. Fascism can only thrive in "fixed" law enforcement. Like Clinton's Senate Impeachment Trial, "the fix" is in.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping -

I really like what Armstrong Williams says whenever I get the chance to read his articles. I admit I haven't read this one yet - trying to get all the pings out.

Let me know if want on/off this list!

[SevenDaysInMay]

Now you're being silly. Homo's have rights, but the lawlessness and judicial tyranny to pervert the definition of "marriage" is no right. It is abuse of power without basis in law, outlaw.

Only about 400 years ago in Europe, homos were strung upside down and swaed in half, or at least from the crotch to their ribs.

You've come a long way, Baby.

I believe that Americans should use the ancient Greeks 5 catagories of sex to clarify this homo cum fascist agenda debate.

[Coleus]

a lynch mob is a democracy.
The correct term is ochlocracy. >>

what a mouthful.

[Protagoras]

They are screaming about "benefits" that they can already get.

Incorrect, any homosexual that works for me could not get free medical insurance for his or her gay lover.