Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

DOMA Had Nothing To Do With Love

July 11, 2013

To The Reader’s Forum: The writer in Friday’s (June 28) Reader’s Forum letter made it a point to state that overturning DOMA had everything to do with allowing people to love each other without fear......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(27)

50s4ever

Jul-14-13 9:25 AM

Is ironyyap your alternate Monkey? Cant stand being called what he calls others. But that's the way you people are.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-13-13 11:22 PM

Even more incorrect assumptions, Seadog. Keep it up, you;re battin' a thousand!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-13-13 6:54 PM

It seems Seadog is laboring under a number of misconceptions too.

"He" wrote, "Our Federal representatives don't have to go under Obamacare." Well yeah. We agree on this one. It stinks that the Congress can exempt itself from its own laws. How many times have the Republicans in the House of Reps voted against this? Not as many times as the wasted votes against Obamacare, I'll bet.

"He" also writes, "Our Hispanic brothers and sisters can cross the border ILLEGALLY, and are allowed to stay." Where are you living, Seadog? Are you unaware that Obama's administration has deported ore illegal immigrants than any other before?

"Millions don't have to work and get free food, rent, heat, and all the other goodies." I'm guessing Seadog has never been on any kind of public assistance. "His" arrogance and "his" obviously unearned and unexamined sense of privilege is written all over t"his" sentence.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PhD1960

Jul-12-13 9:42 PM

Seadog, it's called "selective equality". It is applied when convenient to the progressive/liberal cause. You will NEVER see it in favor of a conservative cause. NEVER.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-12-13 6:38 PM

Who" You and the wahwah that pulled my post, fool.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-12-13 6:37 PM

I didn't claim YOU said "gender identity is fluid" if the post wasn't removed by some wus, you could read it again and see that Em. But that wouldn't work for you, would it? Better to make up stuff as you go along.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-12-13 12:57 PM

You have me confused with the government. They have to treat you like you're equal. As a private citizen on a personal basis I don't. That really irks you, and I'm glad.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PleaseWakeUp

Jul-12-13 9:17 AM

Here we go again!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PleaseWakeUp

Jul-12-13 9:17 AM

Here we go again!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Coppergoat

Jul-12-13 8:34 AM

Except all you did was display your own ignorance, dog. As usual.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-12-13 12:17 AM

". . .concerning the effect of the law on married people versus single people."

I guess they can tell the difference between single people and married gay couples, Seadog.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-12-13 12:14 AM

yep, seems that 50s4ever really is going off the deep end. Sorry that LGBT people bug you so much, 50s4ever. Maybe if you went and lived in a cave somewhere of the middle of the desert perhaps, you wouldn't have to deal with people like me and vice versa. Win/win!

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Coppergoat

Jul-11-13 7:48 PM

The GAO identified 1,138 federal benefits provided to married couples in its "Defense of Marriage Act: An Update to Prior Report", General Accounting Office, 2004. I expect the thumbs down came because it's common knowledge that married couples receive substantial benefits under federal law, tax and otherwise, and your question seemed lazy at best, snide and snotty at worst.

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-11-13 5:52 PM

So you don't think gender identity is fluid, eh em? Where's the cut off? Pun intended.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-11-13 5:29 PM

Spoke twice, Censored twice. Throw a hissy fit because I think you're creeps and should stay in the closet. I could care less what you think. You're nothing. Unable to grasp the most basic facts of life. The "fluid" came from one of your common websites. Obviously Jamestown has fallen far enough to give you all a home.

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-11-13 2:02 PM

It boils down to *equal* money and benefits, *equal* distribution of over 1,000 special rights and benefits given to married couples.

Mr Krasinski seems to be laboring under another misconception. He seems to think that LGBT people should not be granted equal status to cisgender heterosexuals. The Supreme Court disagrees, I'd like to note.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-11-13 1:59 PM

oops, should have been, "It's also quite abusive to call people "freaks" and "defectives."

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-11-13 1:58 PM

No, 50s4ever, I have *never* said that gender is fluid. It's also quite abusive to call people "freaks" and "deviants." It looks more and more like you;re going off the deep end. Maybe you should step back for awhile? Regain your sense of equilibrium?

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-11-13 1:47 PM

Mr Krasinski seems to be laboring under a number of misconceptions. He asks, "Since when was loving someone illegal or discriminatory?" The answer is that it was illegal in many states before 2002, when the Lawrence v Texas case in the Supreme Court ruled anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. If you want to have your love and commitment legally recognized and you're gay or lesbian, then anti-marriage equality laws are indeed discriminatory.

He then asks, "How about being honest and admitting that the primary effect of the ruling is a raid on the U.S. Treasury and the hard-working taxpayers of this country." Apparently he's forgotten that LGBT people also work hard and pay taxes. Why should they have subsidized the special rights the government gave to heterosexuals only when they married? If Mr Krasinski was so concerned about the high cost of these special rights and privileges then why hasn't he come out in favor of abolishing them for ALL married people?

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nonfiction

Jul-11-13 1:19 PM

Seadog

Yes it does. Which if those things weren't important why would any marriage have to be official?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nonfiction

Jul-11-13 1:17 PM

I wouldn't call it a raid? I would say it has more to do with equal rights. A married gay couple deserves the same martial benefits as heterosexual marriage. Claiming that DOMA was passed to prevent a "raid" on the treasury is crazy. The gay population is roughly 6%, how many of those will be in marriages where a large lump sum is being passed to partner? Very few. I bet if you took all the estate tax revenue gathered from gay couples (if still had to pay) in a given year it wouldn't amount to very much, a few million? If that.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Coppergoat

Jul-11-13 8:40 AM

The estate tax angle is what gave the plaintiff legal standing to challenge DOMA. "Standing" is a complicated legal issue not amenable to sound bite politics as practiced by the media, but basically the plaintiff had to show financial harm in order to be allowed in the courtroom. To argue against legal equality on economic grounds (We can't give gays equal rights as taxpayers because that's "raiding the Treasury") is really just subhuman.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Howard

Jul-11-13 8:38 AM

Unbelievable.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

duckster

Jul-11-13 8:35 AM

Man.. look at these comments.. where is that beacon of clear thinking (the latent homosexual) Rev. Mel when we need him?

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KingWahWah

Jul-11-13 6:39 AM

Say huh? And 50s who the*****are you calling defective? Are you going to call people with developmental disabilities or people who can't have children at all defectives too? Another comment from the idiot box.

10 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 27 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web