Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Politico)   Obamacare to give benefits to same sex couples' kids. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE   (politico.com) divider line 25
    More: Spiffy, obamacare, same-sex couples, domestic partners, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Office of Personnel Management, health law, personnel management, couples  
•       •       •

3211 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2012 at 6:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-20 04:30:22 PM  
3 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.


Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?
2012-07-20 04:37:20 PM  
2 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.


You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.
2012-07-20 04:28:37 PM  
2 votes:

vernonFL: As long as it doesn't cover Furries or Bronies, I'm good.


Hey!?! What's wrong with Bronies?

/you monster
2012-07-20 04:20:33 PM  
2 votes:
While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others
2012-07-21 05:51:05 AM  
1 votes:

gingerjet: themindiswatching: Solid Muldoon: The 14th Amendment says all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Gay marriage is legal.

Case closed.

I can see Scalia writing a flimsy SCOTUS ruling that would make gay marriage illegal nationwide though :(

The worse case scenario in any ruling against SSM is that its left up to the States to decide. Try reading up on the Supreme Court sometime.


However, it is pretty much guaranteed that whatever way the Supreme Court rules, Scalia WILL write an absolutely lulzy opinion. Obviously I want them to rule in favor of marriage equality for its own sake, but the inevitable Scalia rant would be the cherry on top. In fact, I think we should start taking bets now on how many times he uses the term "Gay Agenda" or "Homosexual Agenda" in with the first letter capitalized, how many paragraphs he spends ranting about the liberal, Homosexual Agenda-controlled law schools and academic elite, and how much time he devotes to proclaiming "told ya so" and quoting his own Lawrence dissent. Seriously, I'm looking forward to marriage equality just for the epic Scalia dissent, I only hope he lives long enough for it to happen.
2012-07-21 05:10:56 AM  
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA


But it's not *really* about following god, because then they would follow the rest of the Levitical laws. It's only that one rule. There are 613 laws in the torrah, where this god hates gays nonsense comes from. But that is the only one that matters. So one sixth of one percent is deathly important to follow, the rest are just too inconvenient.
2012-07-20 09:49:55 PM  
1 votes:
This is Mitt's chance to get the base back!

img29.imageshack.us
2012-07-20 09:35:26 PM  
1 votes:

Solid Muldoon: The 14th Amendment says all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Gay marriage is legal.

Case closed.


I wish it worked that way, I really did with all of my heart. It does hurt me. I love my sister a lot (she is a lesbian, I am not homosexual) and I want her to be happy. Until they grant her the same rights that hetero couples have, I will be saddened and angry at the system.
2012-07-20 09:09:34 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA

It has nothing to do with that (at least for me). Does this extend benefits to children of "opposite sex domestic partners"? (Hint: it will have to).

This is "shack up, get benefits" and invites all kinds of fraud and abuse.


So does a $1tr defense budget. There are no fraud proof government programs, nor are there any fraud proof private enterprises. STFU and quit snivelling.
2012-07-20 08:59:16 PM  
1 votes:

jjorsett: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

Really, that's your number one priority? The US labor participation rate is only 65%, Europe is going into the toilet, Iran keeps acting like it wants to set world on fire, and gay equality is at the top of your list?

Anyway, you're right that Obama is setting dangerous precedents with his bending and even breaking rules and the law. He bypassed Senate confirmation to make his appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by declaring the Senate in "recess" when it was still in session. He bypassed Congress to declare that henceforth illegal alien college students will not only not be deported, they'll be given legal status and a visa. He threw existing bankruptcy law out the window in bailing out the auto companies and screwing over their shareholders, creditors, and dealers. He's given out waivers wholesale to his own healthcare law. The man is governing by fiat, and no doubt some are just thrilled with that, but keep in mind that if he gets away with it, a Republican will be in that office eventually and the fiats will look a whole lot different. You'll miss the rule of law when the lack of it starts going against you, but it'll be too late.


Yes, this is my number 1 priority. I will not vote for anyone who does not agree with my position. This is my deal breaker for anyone. We are Americans, and we are supposed to be equal under the law, but we are not.

As for the other ones on your list, yeah I admit those are some big things. But, those take time to sort themselves out. This doesnt need any time at all.
2012-07-20 07:20:05 PM  
1 votes:

sprawl15: EZ1923: DarwiOdrade: So you're afraid of something that isn't going to happen and isn't part of ACA? The provision only allows people to buy health insurance through their employer for their partner's kid, and doesn't put any burden on taxpayers.

Isn't this the story of ACA, though? From "Death Panels" on down, this is it in a nutshell.

I just worry about the mandatory penis pumps that Obamacare distributes to middle schools. I don't think my tax dollars should go towards that kind of deviant behavior.


Right. Save the penis pumps for the elderly on Medicare.
2012-07-20 06:34:53 PM  
1 votes:
Helping children? Keeping them healthy?

Obama, you sick monster.
2012-07-20 05:45:21 PM  
1 votes:
THe only outrage is that this wasn't done before.
2012-07-20 04:57:52 PM  
1 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.


www.nastyhobbit.org
2012-07-20 04:56:09 PM  
1 votes:

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Truly, he is History's Greatest Monster.


I think that the religious right will lose their tiny little minds.
2012-07-20 04:54:12 PM  
1 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.

See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?

Why would you think "gay lover" is a slur, unless you have a problem with homosexuality?

It's up to them what they want to be called, and I know for a fact they like to be called same-sex couples. It's in my employee handbook, among other places.


There's nothing quite like a blanket generalization to make you sound reasonable and intelligent. My gay lover and I both think so.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-20 04:48:29 PM  
1 votes:

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


Anyone can change the definition of a word, or even make up a word. The defending the definition or marriage thing is one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard.
2012-07-20 04:47:37 PM  
1 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.

See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?


Why would you think "gay lover" is a slur, unless you have a problem with homosexuality?
2012-07-20 04:42:04 PM  
1 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.


And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.
2012-07-20 04:38:30 PM  
1 votes:
Wait for the GOP to introduce a bill defining "stepchild" their own way.
2012-07-20 04:33:11 PM  
1 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate same-sex couples, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require same sex couples to participate.


So you're afraid of something that isn't going to happen and isn't part of ACA? The provision only allows people to buy health insurance through their employer for their partner's kid, and doesn't put any burden on taxpayers.
2012-07-20 04:25:41 PM  
1 votes:

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


You sure type a lot for someone who can't read.
2012-07-20 04:23:43 PM  
1 votes:

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


what word is being changed? seems like he's just proposing an HR rule for federal employees.
2012-07-20 04:16:19 PM  
1 votes:
Won't somebody think of the-- oh, right.
2012-07-20 04:10:52 PM  
1 votes:
I hope this extends to states where they're actually married.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report