Friday April 26, 2013, 5:41 am
They do realize those marriage benefits are paid for by the marriage penalty taxation, so if they want to basically double the annual taxes. That is not to say all the benefits you don't have access to when you are married. I'm not certain that in most modern families with 2 people working and both have access to insurance is really an issue today. Many of the benefits simply requires that both names be put down as owners, and by providing the other with power of attorney status.
If only life were that easy John. They can "put down" co-owner status and if the marriage is not acknowledged by state or Federal law, that co-owner ship is fully ignored. That is just too many individual rights to ignore. I like that this video offers something more than the usual discussion about LGBTQQ, it offers up some needed education.
Friday April 26, 2013, 9:23 am
Thanks Kit for letting John know the law doesn't do what he thinks. In addition, the so-called taxation marriage penalty ceased to be and became the other way around last century.
You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last day
Friday April 26, 2013, 1:20 pm
I wonder what parents reading this think:
Have you asked yourself if your child would feel comfortable telling you that they are gay???
Have you asked yourself if you have provided an enviroment where your child would not feel ashamed to tell you that they are gay???
Have you shown through your actions and words that you do not feel that others that are homosexuals are any different than anyone else???
If you can say yes to these questions (and I do mean all of them), then there is only about a 50% chance that your child would be able to confide in you that they are gay.
If a child has no one to confide in (and no-one they can talk to about this), and they are ashamed of the feelings that they have, and they are being bullied (not for what they say or do, but who they are and nothing that they can change about themselves)...
Then it is certain that they will dispise almost every moment of their lives (no matter how much you love them)...
And suicide will seem like they only viable solution to the constant torment (from within themselves as well as being bullied) that they can see...
Loving our children may mean that we become less homo-phobic for everyone!!!
Friday April 26, 2013, 1:37 pm
Thank you for the insightful reminders of what unconditional love (which is what Christ commanded) is for parents of LGBTQ children and how very important it is for all parents to be able to provide this kind of love for their children (whether they have a faith or not) David.
Saturday April 27, 2013, 11:28 pm
She seems to be arguing that legal equality would bring cultural integration and equality. I like the sentiment and it's a smart argument in favour of homosexual marriage, but I'm worried it may have a opposite effect and prolong any integration-process a lot. I don't know if the cases are similar enough to draw a parallel, but this point was argued in Napoleanic France when Jews were considering accepting French citizenship and the story was sadly different from what Alexis seems to expect.
The side which argued the same point that Alexis (the woman in the video) did won out in the debate. The other side, which argued for "equality in truth before in law" among other points, was overruled. History shows how well that worked, so it might be a good idea to revisit the logic behind "equality in truth before in law" and see if it applies here and now.
They argued that the law could demand whatever it wanted, but people could work around it if they did not support the intent. It would be politically infeasible, and possibly unenforceable, for the law to expand to the point where it could not be circumvented. Bringing in any law before the culture was ready to abide by it would then only create a tradition of non-enforcement or cicumvention, rather than bring an actual change in behaviour. They argued that it would be better to forego the legal rights and citizenship that were offered to all people of France until the offer could be made with widespread popular support, rather than strictly as a matter of policy.
I support absolutely equal legal rights for homosexuals, but history suggests that legal equality may not help in the way that Alexis thinks. I could certainly be mistaken as situations may be far from analogous, but it seems likely to me that homosexual marriage was permitted in D.C. because the residents (and government) support equal rights, and not the other way around.