Comments on: EEEE-dee-oot

By: Kristen

Kristen — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:32:54 +0000

I’m still here : )
Did you check out that site? It’s a lot to sift through, but these are the details that most people don’t consider when they’re forming their opinion about denying gay couples federal recognition of their marriages.

By: David Banks

David Banks — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:15:19 +0000

You’re back! I thought we had lost you there for a minute.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:49:07 +0000

If you go to this site, you can read the list of all 1,138

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

By: dbanks

dbanks — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:11:22 +0000

It is (or should be) a private organization though. Marriage is a completely made up thing. I think our focus should be on stopping the government from bestowing favorable treatment to these religious institutions.
PS I get that someone made a list of all the things they could think of to make 1,137, but what is a significant one other than social security?

By: Kristen

Kristen — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:49:46 +0000

That is, we’re NOT trying to belong to some private organization like the girl scouts

By: Kristen

Kristen — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:05:27 +0000

Social Security is one, and there are 1,137 more federal benefits and protections conferred upon marriage. I’m not totally following your girl scouts analogy. We are trying to get all of these benefits secured under the federal government, we’re trying to belong to some private organization like the girls scouts.

By: David Banks

David Banks — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:38:25 +0000

Social Security is the only one I can think of. Seems the issue would be equal treatment by government rather than the other route. If the government started giving favorable treatment to girl scouts and I’m not allowed to be a girl scout. I would fight against the inequitable treatment by the government rather than fighting for the girl scouts to let me in.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:26:46 +0000

Actually, once the government got involved and decided to bestow all kinds of protections and benefits on marriage, it ceased to be an exclusively religious institution. I’m not trying to partake in anyone’s religious interpretation of marriage. I’m only interested in protecting my family and being treated equally under the law. And anytime someone advocates against the legal protections of my family while enjoying those protections for himself and hurting an institution he claims I am hurting, needs to be called out.

By: David Banks

David Banks — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:39:49 +0000

PS. The issue isn’t weather it infringes on anybody elses rights its weather the right exists for you. Same as the boy scouts set up rules to become an eagle scout, and it isn’t that a girl becoming one infringes on anyone elses rights it just a queation of weather or not she has the right to become one. Smae thing as marriage. The christians set up this thing called “marriage” and set up the rules for it and it has been greatly altered and used for different things over the centuries and the issue becomes weather you have a RIGHT to do thier thing that they created not weather your doing it violates anyone elses rights.

By: David Banks

David Banks — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:35:29 +0000

Cmon Kristen, I admire your diligence in beating the drum on your issue, but why cant we just enjoy this for what it is. Yet another of the better than you ultra family men who’s spent most of his instructing the rest of us on whats best for us to believe has been completely embarrassed in the most public way. Its just another fun moment where we can all just laugh at the jackass. Lets concentrate on that.