If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   Same-sex couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are gay   (desmoinesregister.com) divider line 201
    More: Sick, health insurance, Bryan Marker, U.S. Cellular, UCLA School of Law, domestic partners, Blue Cross, school districts, Des Moines School District  
•       •       •

5828 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Apr 2012 at 4:44 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



201 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-15 10:24:16 AM
Boo freaking whoo.
 
2012-04-15 10:33:00 AM
But Marker later learned the tax was being charged only to employees in same-sex marriages, and the cost - $900 a year - was not small. Not to him.

Add this to the thousand-item list of ways that the law discriminates between gay and straight couples.
 
2012-04-15 10:34:04 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Boo freaking whoo.


Being charged $900 a year only because your married partner is the same sex, a charge that is NOT applied to any other marriage?

That's plan illegal, immoral, and these days, Christian.
 
2012-04-15 10:40:55 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Boo freaking whoo.


Try reading it like this:

Mixed race couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both white.

Or

Mixed religion couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both Protestant.
 
2012-04-15 10:45:35 AM

Joe USer: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Boo freaking whoo.

Try reading it like this:

Mixed race couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both white.

Or

Mixed religion couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both Protestant.


He may have read it as $35 a year, which while it's still illegal, immoral and Christian, is a bit less of a deal than $900/year.
 
2012-04-15 10:55:35 AM

GAT_00: Joe USer: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Boo freaking whoo.

Try reading it like this:

Mixed race couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both white.

Or

Mixed religion couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both Protestant.

He may have read it as $35 a year, which while it's still illegal, immoral and Christian, is a bit less of a deal than $900/year.


Nopes. I read it right. Instead of complaining, they need to get DOMA repealed.

BTW, Federal Law also discriminates against heterosexual couples who want to get married. Just saying that if you are going to rally for "marraige equality", then don't limit it to just one group, but every group. Where is the moral outrage on the left about incestuous marraige being illegal?

/I personally believe all spousal benifits should be taxed as income, because they are. To do othwerwise discriminates against single people.
 
2012-04-15 11:10:51 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: GAT_00: Joe USer: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Boo freaking whoo.

Try reading it like this:

Mixed race couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both white.

Or

Mixed religion couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both Protestant.

He may have read it as $35 a year, which while it's still illegal, immoral and Christian, is a bit less of a deal than $900/year.

Nopes. I read it right. Instead of complaining, they need to get DOMA repealed.

BTW, Federal Law also discriminates against heterosexual couples who want to get married. Just saying that if you are going to rally for "marraige equality", then don't limit it to just one group, but every group. Where is the moral outrage on the left about incestuous marraige being illegal?

/I personally believe all spousal benifits should be taxed as income, because they are. To do othwerwise discriminates against single people.


You have completely missed the point and actual problem here.
 
2012-04-15 11:20:11 AM

GAT_00: FlyingLizardOfDoom: GAT_00: Joe USer: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Boo freaking whoo.

Try reading it like this:

Mixed race couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both white.

Or

Mixed religion couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both Protestant.

He may have read it as $35 a year, which while it's still illegal, immoral and Christian, is a bit less of a deal than $900/year.

Nopes. I read it right. Instead of complaining, they need to get DOMA repealed.

BTW, Federal Law also discriminates against heterosexual couples who want to get married. Just saying that if you are going to rally for "marraige equality", then don't limit it to just one group, but every group. Where is the moral outrage on the left about incestuous marraige being illegal?

/I personally believe all spousal benifits should be taxed as income, because they are. To do othwerwise discriminates against single people.

You have completely missed the point and actual problem here.


More like I don't care, most likely.
 
2012-04-15 11:23:53 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: More like I don't care, most likely.


Yeah, it's so easy not to care about discrimination. After all, how else is it there?
 
2012-04-15 12:26:54 PM

GAT_00: FlyingLizardOfDoom: More like I don't care, most likely.

Yeah, it's so easy not to care about discrimination. After all, how else is it there?


Again, if the Democrats were actually interested in ending discrimination, they'd have done so already. Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010. They could have easily ended DOMA then.

It seems more likely to me that the Dems want to keep certain vestages of discrimination against gays, women, minorities, and old people so they can rail against the GOP and score political points (and earn billions of campaign contributions). As long as the outrage over discrimination by the organized left is purely for political points and brinkmanship, I choose not to care whether a particular couple in Iowa has to pay 35 dollars a month on something that cost me over 150 dollars a month.

Also, I see little difference between the arguement that it is discriminatory to not recognize the marriage of loving, concenting homosexual adults and the arguement that it is discriminatory to not recognize the marraige of loving, concenting heterosexual adults who happen to be related to each other. If we are for "marraige equality", then end ALL forms of discrimination in the marraige laws, lets not pick and choose.
 
2012-04-15 12:33:38 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010.


And this is when I realized you don't know what you're talking about.

Hint: you can only control the Senate with a minimum of 60 people. There were 41 Republican Senators who literally filibustered every single bill.
 
2012-04-15 12:43:00 PM

GAT_00: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010.

And this is when I realized you don't know what you're talking about.

Hint: you can only control the Senate with a minimum of 60 people. There were 41 Republican Senators who literally filibustered every single bill.


Oh, he knows what he's talking about. He just has to try to find a way to blame his bigotry on the 'Dems.'
 
2012-04-15 01:49:27 PM

propasaurus: GAT_00: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010.

And this is when I realized you don't know what you're talking about.

Hint: you can only control the Senate with a minimum of 60 people. There were 41 Republican Senators who literally filibustered every single bill.

Oh, he knows what he's talking about. He just has to try to find a way to blame his bigotry on the 'Dems.'


I honestly prefer we put this behind us by allowing anyone to marry anyone. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I just want the debate to end and actual policy decsions to be made. Allow any concenting adult to marry any other and let's call it a day.
 
2012-04-15 04:47:44 PM
After I updated my ignore list, there's only one post in this thread. :D
 
2012-04-15 04:47:48 PM
It's taxed as income. Went through this a few years ago when I took a consulting gig and went on my partners health insurance plan. The amusing (and somewhat sad) part of this that we had to sign a fark'n statement that we weren't roommates among other documents.

/marrying my lesbian next door neighbor would of required less paperwork and would of been cheaper.
 
2012-04-15 04:48:26 PM
A 900 dollar extra charge only on same sex couples health insurance?

That is so gay!

/S'rsly, is this legal? WTF?
 
2012-04-15 04:48:46 PM
I'm surprised that none of the gay-bashing orgs. have tried the avenue of "if you let gays get married, your health care dollars will dwindle to help their partners AIDS treatments" or some such other BS.

I mean really, that sounds scarier than "Jesus said so."
 
2012-04-15 04:50:29 PM

James F. Campbell: After I updated my ignore list, there's only one post in this thread. :D


Well, now there's zero on mine!

/:D
 
2012-04-15 04:50:43 PM

Guidette Frankentits: I'm surprised that none of the gay-bashing orgs. have tried the avenue of "if you let gays get married, your health care dollars will dwindle to help their partners AIDS treatments" or some such other BS.



^^^^^^And it's completely untrue, therefore ripe for christian orgs to jump on and use a propaganda^^^^^




/replying to myself
 
2012-04-15 04:50:43 PM

James F. Campbell: After I updated my ignore list, there's only one post in this thread. :D


Five, here.
 
2012-04-15 04:52:04 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Again, if the Democrats were actually interested in ending discrimination, they'd have done so already. Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010. They could have easily ended DOMA then.


OMGIKNOW! They had, like, a whole farking YEAR to get EVERYTHING done that they promised and they DIDN'T! Farking lazy asses!

/you know how I know you're a farking idiot?
 
2012-04-15 04:52:19 PM

quatchi: /S'rsly, is this legal? WTF?


Sadly it looks like it: Link (new window)

The tax paid by Marker derives from the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. The act was passed when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage.

In essence, Marker and his husband are being taxed because the federal government does not recognize gay marriage. The fair-market value of the spouse's health coverage is income that must be declared to the IRS.


/Fark DOMA and the people who support that POS right in the ass
 
2012-04-15 04:52:45 PM

Guidette Frankentits: I'm surprised that none of the gay-bashing orgs. have tried the avenue of "if you let gays get married, your health care dollars will dwindle to help their partners AIDS treatments" or some such other BS.

I mean really, that sounds scarier than "Jesus said so."


No - that has been one of their main arguments for some time. They also biatch about the money we spend on HIV research since only the "gheys can get it."

/and by "gheys" I mean gay men since gay women apperently don't exist in their worldview.
 
2012-04-15 04:52:48 PM

IlGreven: James F. Campbell: After I updated my ignore list, there's only one post in this thread. :D

Well, now there's zero on mine!

/:D


i270.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-15 04:53:45 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: GAT_00: FlyingLizardOfDoom:

Again, if the Democrats were actually interested in ending discrimination, they'd have done so already. Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010. They could have easily ended DOMA then.


I always laugh when my facebook friends try to use this line. They seem to think that since dems had majorities for a short period that they could have done *anything*, never mind the constant, pervasive filibusters even on things that WEREN'T controversial or pet issues for the hateful.
 
2012-04-15 04:55:06 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Nopes. I read it right. Instead of complaining, they need to get DOMA repealed.


So, how are they supposed to garner the support they need in order to repeal DOMA if they aren't allowed to complain? Telepathy? Mind control rays? Interpretive dance?
 
2012-04-15 04:57:06 PM

gingerjet: No - that has been one of their main arguments for some time.


I follow all this gay stuff pretty closely and I've never heard one peep from them about it.
 
2012-04-15 04:59:37 PM

Joe USer: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Boo freaking whoo.

Try reading it like this:

Mixed race couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both white.

Or

Mixed religion couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both Protestant.


If they are a lesbian doctor, that is 4 primary doctors while a male couple would only have 2.
 
2012-04-15 05:03:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: quatchi: /S'rsly, is this legal? WTF?

Sadly it looks like it: Link (new window)

The tax paid by Marker derives from the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. The act was passed when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage.

In essence, Marker and his husband are being taxed because the federal government does not recognize gay marriage. The fair-market value of the spouse's health coverage is income that must be declared to the IRS.


Oh, FFS. It's farking DOMA again.

/Fark DOMA and the people who support that POS right in the ass

Bears, repeatedly.

/Farking them in the ass, that is.
 
2012-04-15 05:04:57 PM

Guidette Frankentits: gingerjet: No - that has been one of their main arguments for some time.

I follow all this gay stuff pretty closely and I've never heard one peep from them about it.


Stop following the "gay stuff" and start following the "wingnut stuff" - specifically the AFA, Concerned Women of America, Matt Barber, or National Organization for Marriage. Which spend almost all their waking hours obsessing the "gay stuff".
 
2012-04-15 05:06:34 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: GAT_00: FlyingLizardOfDoom: More like I don't care, most likely.

Yeah, it's so easy not to care about discrimination. After all, how else is it there?

Again, if the Democrats were actually interested in ending discrimination, they'd have done so already. Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010. They could have easily ended DOMA then.

It seems more likely to me that the Dems want to keep certain vestages of discrimination against gays, women, minorities, and old people so they can rail against the GOP and score political points (and earn billions of campaign contributions). As long as the outrage over discrimination by the organized left is purely for political points and brinkmanship, I choose not to care whether a particular couple in Iowa has to pay 35 dollars a month on something that cost me over 150 dollars a month.

Also, I see little difference between the arguement that it is discriminatory to not recognize the marriage of loving, concenting homosexual adults and the arguement that it is discriminatory to not recognize the marraige of loving, concenting heterosexual adults who happen to be related to each other. If we are for "marraige equality", then end ALL forms of discrimination in the marraige laws, lets not pick and choose.


You're either lying or stupid. The Democrats may have had majorities in both houses of Congress, but you know damn well that the Republicans filibuster everything of significance.
 
2012-04-15 05:12:18 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Also, I see little difference between the arguement that it is discriminatory to not recognize the marriage of loving, concenting homosexual adults and the arguement that it is discriminatory to not recognize the marraige of loving, concenting heterosexual adults who happen to be related to each other. If we are for "marraige equality", then end ALL forms of discrimination in the marraige laws, lets not pick and choose.


Interesting point, except for the fact that it is not the argument at hand and isn't related to it.
 
2012-04-15 05:13:36 PM
wait, why is a gay man working in a public school?
 
2012-04-15 05:14:41 PM

GAT_00: Hint: you can only control the Senate with a minimum of 60 people. There were 41 Republican Senators who literally filibustered every single bill.


Last time I checked 41 was less than 60.
 
2012-04-15 05:16:45 PM
dam gheys are NEVER satisfied
 
2012-04-15 05:18:44 PM

gingerjet: Stop following the "gay stuff" and start following the "wingnut stuff" - specifically the AFA, Concerned Women of America, Matt Barber, or National Organization for Marriage. Which spend almost all their waking hours obsessing the "gay stuff".


That may be the case in their internal organizations but their legal arguments usually say "gay marriage is bad because..." and then they spout something off that hinges on a poorly understood sociological concept that contains a lot of "family values" rhetoric and religiously based buzz words. It's funny because they think they're talking on what they think is a plane where "liberal activist" judge logic resides

Such like:
"Gay marriage is bad because a man can defendstand his ground against a great-flood whereas two women can't."
or
"Gay marriage is bad because lesbians don't like guns and can't protect children against a child molester like a strong man could"
or
"Gay marriage is bad because this scientific poll shows god controls the economy and god doesn't like gay marriage"
or
"Gay marriage is bad because two dudes raising a girl child can't teach her about her reproductive rights"

or sometimes they use court cases in a non-sequitur fashion and go on long ass rants that make no sense in order to prove their point

"Gay marriage is bad because in Brown V Board of Education, the Warren court had an understanding that their ruling would only apply to situations where men married women, not men marrying men or women marrying women. They couldn't understand the implications that gay marriage would impose on society. If you allow gay marriage, every single court case would now have to be reviewed under the new assumption that gays can get married. Therefore, if you allow gay marriage, adopted black children of gay married couples will be subject to segregation because Brown v Board of Education didn't take gay marriage into account in their ruling. Why do you hate black children?"

bolded sections imply they believe they are appealing to what the "liberal activist" judge wants to hear
 
2012-04-15 05:19:26 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: I honestly prefer we put this behind us by allowing anyone to marry anyone.


But first, let's rush into a Fark thread and ridicule victims of discrimination for being victims of discrimination.
 
2012-04-15 05:20:43 PM

E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: dam gheys are NEVER satisfied


It's not your fault, size doesn't matter. I promise.
 
2012-04-15 05:26:34 PM

moothemagiccow: GAT_00: Hint: you can only control the Senate with a minimum of 60 people. There were 41 Republican Senators who literally filibustered every single bill.

Last time I checked 41 was less than 60.


lolwut?
 
2012-04-15 05:27:10 PM

fritton: I always laugh when my facebook friends try to use this line. They seem to think that since dems had majorities for a short period that they could have done *anything*, never mind the constant, pervasive filibusters even on things that WEREN'T controversial or pet issues for the hateful.


I'm more amused by how their outrage works out in that issue. They spend more time and energy being angier at the group that didn't 100% stop the bad issue while almost giving a pass to the group that is proud to stand by and do everything to continue that bad issue.
 
2012-04-15 05:27:29 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: GAT_00: Joe USer: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Boo freaking whoo.

Try reading it like this:

Mixed race couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both white.

Or

Mixed religion couple now on the same health insurance plan through a school district upset that they have to pay $35 in taxes for said insurance out of every check because they are not both Protestant.

He may have read it as $35 a year, which while it's still illegal, immoral and Christian, is a bit less of a deal than $900/year.

Nopes. I read it right. Instead of complaining, they need to get DOMA repealed.

BTW, Federal Law also discriminates against heterosexual couples who want to get married. Just saying that if you are going to rally for "marraige equality", then don't limit it to just one group, but every group. Where is the moral outrage on the left about incestuous marraige being illegal?

/I personally believe all spousal benifits should be taxed as income, because they are. To do othwerwise discriminates against single people.


There are 34 states that will either issue or recognize marriage licenses between first cousins, and AFAIK, those marriages are also recognized by the federal government.
 
2012-04-15 05:28:27 PM
Not long after his marriage, Marker noticed a $35 tax coming out of his teacher's associate wages every two weeks. "The only reason we discovered it is because I make such a small amount of money," he said.

www.carazed.com

"Small? Yes, but those smaller coins can be useful at self-service fuelling stations."
 
2012-04-15 05:29:49 PM

moothemagiccow: GAT_00: Hint: you can only control the Senate with a minimum of 60 people. There were 41 Republican Senators who literally filibustered every single bill.

Last time I checked 41 was less than 60.


Indeed. But that also means that 59 is less than sixty. Meaning no one had real control. Meaning Dems didn't have control of it.
 
2012-04-15 05:31:46 PM

Guidette Frankentits: That may be the case in their internal organizations but their legal arguments usually say "gay marriage is bad because..." and then they spout something off that hinges on a poorly understood sociological concept that contains a lot of "family values" rhetoric and religiously based buzz words. It's funny because they think they're talking on what they think is a plane where "liberal activist" judge logic resides


Who mentioned legal arguments? This war is being fought in the legislatures, the courts, and public opinion. Increasing health care costs was one of the reasons used to help push through the marriage amendment in Minnesota and various organizations warned of rampant HIV outbreaks in the military if DADT was repealed (yes they have that little respect for our military). And much of the rhetoric that these organizations spout off do end up in court cases - just look at transcripts for the Prop 8 trial. Lawyers won't use it (for obvious reasons) but witnesses will - because they actually believe what their pastors or the internets tells them.
 
2012-04-15 05:34:17 PM

Guidette Frankentits: gingerjet: Stop following the "gay stuff" and start following the "wingnut stuff" - specifically the AFA, Concerned Women of America, Matt Barber, or National Organization for Marriage. Which spend almost all their waking hours obsessing the "gay stuff".

That may be the case in their internal organizations but their legal arguments usually say "gay marriage is bad because..." and then they spout something off that hinges on a poorly understood sociological concept that contains a lot of "family values" rhetoric and religiously based buzz words. It's funny because they think they're talking on what they think is a plane where "liberal activist" judge logic resides

Such like:
"Gay marriage is bad because a man can defendstand his ground against a great-flood whereas two women can't."
or
"Gay marriage is bad because lesbians don't like guns and can't protect children against a child molester like a strong man could"
or
"Gay marriage is bad because this scientific poll shows god controls the economy and god doesn't like gay marriage"
or
"Gay marriage is bad because two dudes raising a girl child can't teach her about her reproductive rights"

or sometimes they use court cases in a non-sequitur fashion and go on long ass rants that make no sense in order to prove their point

"Gay marriage is bad because in Brown V Board of Education, the Warren court had an understanding that their ruling would only apply to situations where men married women, not men marrying men or women marrying women. They couldn't understand the implications that gay marriage would impose on society. If you allow gay marriage, every single court case would now have to be reviewed under the new assumption that gays can get married. Therefore, if you allow gay marriage, adopted black children of gay married couples will be subject to segregation because Brown v Board of Education didn't take gay marriage into account in their ruling. Why do you hate black children?"

bolded sections imply they ...


I will never be able to understand skinnyhead "logic". There's no logic to those statements at all. Why don't they just admit they hate gays because of Jesus instead of trying to find "logical" reasons for hating gays?
 
2012-04-15 05:40:12 PM

fritton: FlyingLizardOfDoom: GAT_00: FlyingLizardOfDoom:

Again, if the Democrats were actually interested in ending discrimination, they'd have done so already. Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010. They could have easily ended DOMA then.

I always laugh when my facebook friends try to use this line. They seem to think that since dems had majorities for a short period that they could have done *anything*, never mind the constant, pervasive filibusters even on things that WEREN'T controversial or pet issues for the hateful.


I always laugh when people try to pretend that Bernie Sanders and Joesph Lieberman don't both have longstanding pro gay-rights voting records.

When the Democratic party had the votes to actually keep their longstanding promises to their gay constituents, they failed to act. The excuse at the time was that if they kept their oft repeated promises, people would criticize them for it.

They never even attempted to repeal DOMA.
 
2012-04-15 05:41:12 PM

rebelyell2006: Why don't they just admit they hate gays because of Jesus instead of trying to find "logical" reasons for hating gays?


And Jesus went out of his way to be with the outcasts of the time, shunning the ones who were vocally super religious.

If jesus returned, the right-wingers who claim to love Jesus the most (but not what he said) would be the first ones in line to crucify him again.
 
2012-04-15 05:43:57 PM

BullBearMS: fritton: FlyingLizardOfDoom: GAT_00: FlyingLizardOfDoom:

Again, if the Democrats were actually interested in ending discrimination, they'd have done so already. Dems controlled both chambers on congress and the presidency in 2009-2010. They could have easily ended DOMA then.

I always laugh when my facebook friends try to use this line. They seem to think that since dems had majorities for a short period that they could have done *anything*, never mind the constant, pervasive filibusters even on things that WEREN'T controversial or pet issues for the hateful.

I always laugh when people try to pretend that Bernie Sanders and Joesph Lieberman don't both have longstanding pro gay-rights voting records.

When the Democratic party had the votes to actually keep their longstanding promises to their gay constituents, they failed to act. The excuse at the time was that if they kept their oft repeated promises, people would criticize them for it.

They never even attempted to repeal DOMA.


That is in part because the Red and Blue teams do not represent absolute lockstep standards, and just because a large number of Democrats support gay rights doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of bigots in the Democratic party as well. The same reason why there are some supporters of gay rights amongst Republicans.
 
2012-04-15 05:48:00 PM

BullBearMS: When the Democratic party had the votes to actually keep their longstanding promises to their gay constituents, they failed to act. The excuse at the time was that if they kept their oft repeated promises, people would criticize them for it.

They never even attempted to repeal DOMA.


Clearly the solution is to vote for the Republicans and especially Ron Paul. He would never support a piece of legislation like DOMA (except for the time that he did).

Ron Paul should be pissed about the effect DOMA has had on states like Iowa if he was really for small government.
 
2012-04-15 05:48:48 PM
Defense of Marriage Act of 1996??

This biatch should be put in prison!!

www.moviespad.com
 
Displayed 50 of 201 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report