Dedicated to talking about GLBT issues and bringing a bit of my truth to Saipan. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Farewell; my blessing season this in thee!" -- William Shakespeare
FYI: Section 3 of DOMA is the part that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the federal government and "spouse" as a married person of the opposite sex. Hillary Clinton wants to make it possible for married people in Massachusetts to file their taxes jointly and to pass on their Social Security benefits to their partners, but not for that couple to move to another state and have the same benefits.
Ridiculous. Marriage should be available to all. Now, I don't think that churches should be forced to perform the ceremony if they don't agree. They are like big ol' private clubs. At least for health benefits and tax reasons there shouldn't be a problem at all. I think that people in congress are worried that they'll be branded as pro-gay instead of pro-people.Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not like they have to be know as the champions of gay rights if they don't want to turn off their supporters from the right (who are off base).They'd just be sticking up for their constituents.
i realized it now. hmmm...could it be...possibly?seriously, marriage should available to all who is into marriage. sand isn't im sure, but glad that he supports this.
realized what?
It agree, your idea is brilliant
Post a Comment
5 comments:
FYI: Section 3 of DOMA is the part that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the federal government and "spouse" as a married person of the opposite sex. Hillary Clinton wants to make it possible for married people in Massachusetts to file their taxes jointly and to pass on their Social Security benefits to their partners, but not for that couple to move to another state and have the same benefits.
Ridiculous. Marriage should be available to all. Now, I don't think that churches should be forced to perform the ceremony if they don't agree. They are like big ol' private clubs.
At least for health benefits and tax reasons there shouldn't be a problem at all.
I think that people in congress are worried that they'll be branded as pro-gay instead of pro-people.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not like they have to be know as the champions of gay rights if they don't want to turn off their supporters from the right (who are off base).
They'd just be sticking up for their constituents.
i realized it now. hmmm...could it be...possibly?
seriously, marriage should available to all who is into marriage. sand isn't im sure, but glad that he supports this.
realized what?
It agree, your idea is brilliant
Post a Comment