Well, Hillary got government benefits when married to Bill, so it'd be a bit hypocritical to deny them of others...

/Yes, the old insinuate Hillary's a dude joke...still works almost two decades later...

gotta love the government. you can be gay and work for the state department and now your partner and family get benefits too... but if they try to serve openly in the military they get kicked out

Megain: gotta love the government. you can be gay and work for the state department and now your partner and family get benefits too... but if they try to serve openly in the military they get kicked out

One step at a time. Eventually, enough agencies will be brought kicking and screaming into the 90s that the rest of government will have to follow.

Oh great. The gheys are getting benefits? The next thing you know, we'll be extending benefits to farm animals.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Megain: gotta love the government. you can be gay and work for the state department and now your partner and family get benefits too... but if they try to serve openly in the military they get kicked out

One step at a time. Eventually, enough agencies will be brought kicking and screaming into the 90s that the rest of government will have to follow.

oh, i know. it's just that the disparity being so vast is stupid

Welcome to the 20th century people.

Stay Cool Babylon: Oh great. The gheys are getting benefits? The next thing you know, we'll be extending benefits to farm animals turtles.

ftfy

Let's see Farkers try to bash Clinton on this one

deltabourne: Let's see Farkers try to bash Clinton on this one

They won't try, they will. Whether or not the arguments are cogent, relevant, valid or sound will be left to be seen.

Stay Cool Babylon: Oh great. The gheys are getting benefits? The next thing you know, we'll be extending benefits to farm animals.

Well, in Texas and Oklahoma, sure.

she's obviously a secret lesbian

deltabourne: Let's see Farkers try to bash Clinton on this one

Well, gay people are evil. Evil right down to their cold black hearts which pump not blood like yours and mine but rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in their pea-sized brains which becomes the cause of their Nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior.

Hence, Hillary is wrong.

/Do you understand?

The gay wedge has nearly run its course.

The right needs a new wedge to generate hate and fear.

Time to play Guess That Wedgie!

A cookie to the one who first guesses the right's next social wedge. Good luck.

Megain: gotta love the government. you can be gay and work for the state department and now your partner and family get benefits too... but if they try to serve openly in the military they get kicked out

well, this is an example of something that the executive branch can act unilaterally on. don't ask don't tell is federal law, only congress can repeal or alter it (unless it was found unconstitutional by the courts).

and it's no surprise if congress moves slowly to do anything, much less something that isn't a fire right under their asses.

brainiac-dumdum: she's obviously a secret lesbian

I can hardly keep the nausea down...

Is anyone actually paying attention to the INSANITY that is taking place in Washington? Seriously, the path we are taking doesn't have a pleasant ending. Personally I don't care if you want to marry your dog or a picnic table, but the legal repercussions of this policy is beyond comprehension. What if you're into 3 or 4 way marriages or you have a huge crush on that saint bernard around the corner? Is anything off limits in the brave new Obama world? I am terrified at what this country will look like in 8 more tears.

years....or was that a Freudian slip

Notabunny: A cookie to the one who first guesses the right's next social wedge.

They can probably get another decade's use out of abortion, especially if there's a court case coming soon that doesn't overturn Roe v. Wade. But after that, I'm going to say they start becoming the pro-Kosher party and rail on the Democrats for being for mixing meat and dairy.

/that, or illegal immigrants.

Did anyone else read that as "Same sex domestic partners of State Department employees to get Clintoned"?

Because usually I have to pay good money for that sort of thing.

rjkline 2009-05-24 03:07:04 AM
Is anyone actually paying attention to the INSANITY that is taking place in Washington? Seriously, the path we are taking doesn't have a pleasant ending. Personally I don't care if you want to marry your dog or a picnic table, but the legal repercussions of this policy is beyond comprehension. What if you're into 3 or 4 way marriages or you have a huge crush on that saint bernard around the corner? Is anything off limits in the brave new Obama world? I am terrified at what this country will look like in 8 more tears.

I doubt they'd care much about the dog, as i'm sure they budget for support of a partner for everyone (since any employee could potentially marry at any time). Bet on the hammer coming down if people start claiming multiple partners (beyond dependent children), though, as they'll be hurting department funding.

Oh, wait, that was a faux-troll, i wasn't supposed to answer that seriously, was I?

rjkline: Is anyone actually paying attention to the INSANITY that is taking place in Washington? Seriously, the path we are taking doesn't have a pleasant ending. Personally I don't care if you want to marry your dog or a picnic table, but the legal repercussions of this policy is beyond comprehension. What if you're into 3 or 4 way marriages or you have a huge crush on that saint bernard around the corner? Is anything off limits in the brave new Obama world? I am terrified at what this country will look like in 8 more tears.

I don't think that this is the best outlet for discussing your beastiality fetish. Try somewhere on the showbiz tab.

Notabunny: The gay wedge has nearly run its course.

The right needs a new wedge to generate hate and fear.

Time to play Guess That Wedgie!

A cookie to the one who first guesses the right's next social wedge. Good luck.



Stopping the secret muslin socialest concentration camps, perhaps?

Notabunny: A cookie to the one who first guesses the right's next social wedge. Good luck.

They're too busy trying to prep for 2012 by coming to terms with Mitt Romney's Mormonism. Its choking hard going down.

What effect will this have on small business owners?

Has this been cleared with our overlords in ACORN?

Isn't this communist fascist socialism?

Will my taxes go up?

Shouldn't we just cut their taxes instead?

But what if terrorists think we are weak?

This is class warfare.

Minorities take the jobs of real Americans.

Trickle down economics work.

Letting gheys get married threatens the sanctity of marriage. How exactly it does that I don't know but it does.

9/11

Taxes

Socialism

Buttsex

rjkline: Is anyone actually paying attention to the INSANITY



Approves.

/you know its hot

rjkline: Is anyone actually paying attention to the INSANITY that is taking place in Washington? Seriously, the path we are taking doesn't have a pleasant ending. Personally I don't care if you want to marry your dog or a picnic table, but the legal repercussions of this policy is beyond comprehension. What if you're into 3 or 4 way marriages or you have a huge crush on that saint bernard around the corner? Is anything off limits in the brave new Obama world? I am terrified at what this country will look like in 8 more tears.

I thought your attempt was a little weak, but that final line made me grin. 6/10.

I wonder if Clinton has stronger feelings on gay rights than Obama, or just a freer hand to do something about it in her particular position. I believe that Obama cares about it, but is just being a wimp for political reasons, but I wonder if the feelings run deeper for Clinton (no lesbian jokes please). Either way, Clinton doing this puts more pressure on Obama to step up for gay rights like he promised in the campaign. I wonder if she talked it over with him first?

/go rights go
//my marriage isn't threatened by equality, why is yours?

Notabunny: A cookie to the one who first guesses the right's next social wedge.

Drugs.

deltabourne: Let's see Farkers try to bash Clinton on this one

Ummm...I did...up in the thread's boobies...

deltabourne: Let's see Farkers try to bash Clinton on this one

Clinton is easy to bash. This decision on her part? Not so much.

I, for one, don't care if you're a butt pirate, but does this mean I can get benefits for my female domestic partner?

marksman: I, for one, don't care if you're a butt pirate, but does this mean I can get benefits for my female domestic partner?

This. The argument is that if gays could marry, they necessarily would. We all know that this is no more likely than every straight couple getting married. I have had two live-in girlfriends, one for 4 years and one for 2. How were either of these any less of a partnership?
It's nitpicking an unfortunate byproduct of this policy, I know. It still stings just a bit, though.

Stay Cool Babylon: This. The argument is that if gays could marry, they necessarily would. We all know that this is no more likely than every straight couple getting married. I have had two live-in girlfriends, one for 4 years and one for 2. How were either of these any less of a partnership?
It's nitpicking an unfortunate byproduct of this policy, I know. It still stings just a bit, though.

The difference is that straight couples have the choice to get married if they want to. To be fair I do agree that this comes off as the appearance of special treatment, and the solution would be to simply make all romantic partnerships eligible for benefits regardless of what their end intentions may be.

Murkanen: Stay Cool Babylon: This. The argument is that if gays could marry, they necessarily would. We all know that this is no more likely than every straight couple getting married. I have had two live-in girlfriends, one for 4 years and one for 2. How were either of these any less of a partnership?
It's nitpicking an unfortunate byproduct of this policy, I know. It still stings just a bit, though.

The difference is that straight couples have the choice to get married if they want to. To be fair I do agree that this comes off as the appearance of special treatment, and the solution would be to simply make all romantic partnerships eligible for benefits regardless of what their end intentions may be.

Or that we get out of the business of defining marriage and just issue civil unions to every adult who wants one. Radical, I know!
Your first sentence was my whole point. The flip side is the assumption that gays would marry if able. Again, I'm not actually upset about any of this - just pointing out an inconsistency.

Stay Cool Babylon: Or that we get out of the business of defining marriage and just issue civil unions to every adult who wants one.

It gets explained to you repeatedly why this is a bad idea. Firstly, and probably most importantly, giving the bigots a win in this fight will only make them fight that much harder when the next social issue that gets their panties in a wad comes up.

Necrosis: I wonder if Clinton has stronger feelings on gay rights than Obama, or just a freer hand to do something about it in her particular position. I believe that Obama cares about it, but is just being a wimp for political reasons, but I wonder if the feelings run deeper for Clinton (no lesbian jokes please). Either way, Clinton doing this puts more pressure on Obama to step up for gay rights like he promised in the campaign. I wonder if she talked it over with him first?

/go rights go
//my marriage isn't threatened by equality, why is yours?

I think it's more what someone else already referred to - this is an action they can take completely without any Congressional activity, so it requires no negotiating / biatching by the Congressional GOP / etc. It also does a couple other things - it sends an olive branch to the gay/etc groups with a message of "we're going to do something about same-sex partnerships, it's just going to be a little slower than you might like", and it starts the government on a (difficult to undo) path to recognizing them in general.

marksman: I, for one, don't care if you're a butt pirate, but does this mean I can get benefits for my female domestic partner?

The way I read it was that all domestic partnerships, whether they be hetero or homo, would be treated the same and entitled to the same benefits.

ksdanj: The way I read it was that all domestic partnerships, whether they be hetero or homo, would be treated the same and entitled to the same benefits.

If that's the case then I fail to see what Babylon's issue with this plan could be.

Murkanen: Stay Cool Babylon: Or that we get out of the business of defining marriage and just issue civil unions to every adult who wants one.

It gets explained to you repeatedly why this is a bad idea. Firstly, and probably most importantly, giving the bigots a win in this fight will only make them fight that much harder when the next social issue that gets their panties in a wad comes up.

I'm not sure that I follow. Are you saying that the social conservatives would consider blanket coverage civil unions as a 'victory,' inasmuch as the govt. didn't actually define marriage to include gays?

/keep in mind that I'm drunk

Gdiguy: it sends an olive branch to the gay/etc groups with a message of "we're going to do something about same-sex partnerships, it's just going to be a little slower than you might like", and it starts the government on a (difficult to undo) path to recognizing them in general.

A little slower than you'd like is right.

I have no idea how the Plessy v. Faguson doctrine of separate but equal "civil unions" is still standing in a country that constantly claims to be the greatest in the world.

^^ And by that I mean that straight marriages would also be 'civil unions,' hence avoiding the entire issue of defining marriage, entirely.

PerfectlyCromulent: Notabunny: The gay wedge has nearly run its course.

The right needs a new wedge to generate hate and fear.

Time to play Guess That Wedgie!

A cookie to the one who first guesses the right's next social wedge. Good luck.



Stopping the secret muslin socialest concentration camps, perhaps?

I like to think I've seen some shiat, both on the Internet and in real life. But that sign made me stop and say, "Wait, what?" Kudos to you, sir.

Stay Cool Babylon: I'm not sure that I follow. Are you saying that the social conservatives would consider blanket coverage civil unions as a 'victory,' inasmuch as the govt. didn't actually define marriage to include gays?

Since their entire goal is to prevent same-sex couples from having governmentally recognized marriages, yes it would be a victory for their agenda. In their eyes it is better that everyone lose ground than to have same-sex couples be lifted up to the same level that heterosexual couples have now.

Given that the state department is staffed by the most underappreciated, poorly motivated, bureaucratically-constricted, violently pressured, crushingly conformist civil servants in the whole of Washington, its probably a good thing that they have this going for them.

/well, at least that's what I read.

My guess for next social wedge:

STONERS(mind you..not progressive and productive marijuana smokers, but STONERS)

With all the hype about ending prohibition to save money...the repubs and religious right will do most anything to curb that.

/don't forget Dupont
//

Rug Doctor: PerfectlyCromulent: Notabunny: The gay wedge has nearly run its course.

The right needs a new wedge to generate hate and fear.

Time to play Guess That Wedgie!

A cookie to the one who first guesses the right's next social wedge. Good luck.



Stopping the secret muslin socialest concentration camps, perhaps?

I like to think I've seen some shiat, both on the Internet and in real life. But that sign made me stop and say, "Wait, what?" Kudos to you, sir.

Pfft. Everyone knows that the next wedge issue among the fundie wing of the party is basic liberties. As in being against them while simultaneously showering spittle about "freedom." Oh wait...

Since their entire goal is to prevent same-sex couples from having governmentally recognized marriages, yes it would be a victory for their agenda. In their eyes it is better that everyone lose ground than to have same-sex couples be lifted up to the same level that heterosexual couples have now.

I respectfully submit that you're reaching. At least in your prediction that the wedge champions would fight even harder in the next round of morality, after having viewed their 'marriages' relegated to 'civil unions' as a victory. Many of those people are clearly insane, but nah.

Loving Judas: With all the hype about ending prohibition to save money...the repubs and religious right will do most anything to curb that.

I believe that they will fail at that, as we have finally found what makes people sit up and take the idea of legalization seriously: Money. It has ceased to be an issue of personal liberty and more about taxation and, to a lesser extent, saved revenue from decreased strain on courts and corrections.
The tired and often debunked emotive arguments that would come from the fundie sect would naturally appeal to the already faithful, but not go too far with moderates who are weighing the whaargarble vs. the tangible benefits of legalization...particularly if we stay in this economic shiatstorm.

One of the biggest opponents of legalization will be the developers of private prisons (because we thought that was somehow a good idea). To those people, mandatory minimums are a goddamned cash register.

burndtdan: well, this is an example of something that the executive branch can act unilaterally on. don't ask don't tell is federal law, only congress can repeal or alter it (unless it was found unconstitutional by the courts).

and it's no surprise if congress moves slowly to do anything, much less something that isn't a fire right under their asses.

Not that I agree with the use of it, but doesn't Obama have the power to re-instate anyone who was fired under Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

I read an in-depth analysis of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and seriously, both in letter and in practice, it is the single dumbest piece of regulation I have ever seen.

Anyway, good on you Hillary. Like Frank Rich says, change is not coming fast enough for gay Americans and their supporters, but at least it's coming.

rjkline: Is anyone actually paying attention to the INSANITY that is taking place in Washington? Seriously, the path we are taking doesn't have a pleasant ending. Personally I don't care if you want to marry your dog or a picnic table, but the legal repercussions of this policy is beyond comprehension. What if you're into 3 or 4 way marriages or you have a huge crush on that saint bernard around the corner? Is anything off limits in the brave new Obama world? I am terrified at what this country will look like in 8 more tears.

If the Saint Bernard has a social security number and can sign its name on a marriage certificate, I don't have a problem if someone wants to marry it.