Althouse: "They would be explaining what your benefits were, then all of a sudden this embarrassed look would flash across their face like, 'Oh, sorry. I guess this doesn’t apply to you.'"

January 26, 2013

"They would be explaining what your benefits were, then all of a sudden this embarrassed look would flash across their face like, 'Oh, sorry. I guess this doesn’t apply to you.'"

For the new gay members of Congress, "their freshman orientation sessions were a reminder of just how unequally the law treats them, since the entity that cuts their paychecks and provides benefits — the United States government — is barred from recognizing their relationships."

I wish members of Congress would have more opportunities to experience the embarrassment of having to live with the people their laws oppress. And I don't mean just things having to do with whether their colleagues are getting paid enough.

90 comments:

Palladian said...: I wish members of Congress would have more opportunities to experience the embarrassment of having to live with the people their laws oppress. And I don't mean just things having to do with whether their colleagues are getting paid enough.

That would require a government that represents (and is comprised of) the people, not the current one that represents itself and its interests.; 1/26/13, 12:34 PM
jr565 said...: And if a congressman in a polygamous relationship tried to have benefits recognized for his relationship he would have that same conversation. As would a bigamist congressman. As would a congressman who was in a harem. As would one married to an underage girl. As would someone married to his sister.; 1/26/13, 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh, it's not over yet.; 1/26/13, 12:37 PM
jr565 said...: If they were saying what the marriage benefits were to a congresman, and that congressman wasn't married it would similarly be awkward and non applicable.
No?; 1/26/13, 12:39 PM
Palladian said...: If they were saying what the marriage benefits were to a congresman, and that congressman wasn't married it would similarly be awkward and non applicable.
No?

Yes. That's why there should be "marriage" benefits.; 1/26/13, 12:40 PM
jr565 said...: althouse wrote:
I wish members of Congress would have more opportunities to experience the embarrassment of having to live with the people their laws oppress.

is any and all marriage restrictions also oppressions?
Or only gay marriage restrictions? because if so, then really the argument is there can be no marriage restrictions. Otherwise they are opression.; 1/26/13, 12:41 PM
jr565 said...: Palladian wrote:
Yes. That's why there should be "marriage" benefits.

But marriage doens't encompass everything. SOrry, but it doesn't. WHere it doesn't encompass everything is that opression in your mind?
Does everything not encompass all the other places where the state also restricts marriage (which is why things like incestual marriage keeps bring brought up - its part of the everything).; 1/26/13, 12:43 PM
ricpic said...: Everyone who fails to bow down to the gays oppresses them!!!; 1/26/13, 12:43 PM
jr565 said...: A bigamist is married twice. Should he not have benefits for both his marriages? why is he RESTRICTED to one marriage. OR rather, why is he oppressed so?
A bigamist polygamist has more than one plural marriage. Should he not get benefits for his wives for both marriages? Why is he oppressed so?; 1/26/13, 12:45 PM
Christopher said...: Oppression seems a bit much when describing, what is at its core, a disagreement over a definition; 1/26/13, 12:46 PM
jr565 said...: a bigamist polygamist guy who is married to one of his sisters and who has a few underage wives is "Oppressed" four fold. Should ne not get his marriage(s) recognized. What's the dealio?; 1/26/13, 12:46 PM
jr565 said...: how about a gay bigamist polygamist married to his brother and who has underage husbands?
Lets create a marriage that encompasses all the restrictions currently placed on marriage? Why is restricting THAT marriage or those marriages (since we are dealing with bigamy) not OPRESSION?; 1/26/13, 12:48 PM
Mary Beth said...: Assumes congressmen can be embarrassed. I haven't seen much evidence that they can.; 1/26/13, 12:48 PM
YoungHegelian said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/26/13, 12:50 PM
YoungHegelian said...: I'm really supposed to see this as the great evil that Congress does?

How about the fact that Congress exempts itself from all the anti-discrimination in hiring laws that every other business has to deal with.

Or the fact that the Feds exempts themselves from all the environmental regulations that every other business has to choke & gag on.

But, a gay member of Congress isn't getting his full share of the pickings -- quelle horreur!

Cry me a river, willya?; 1/26/13, 12:52 PM
Palladian said...: No one whines as much and as annoyingly about gay people's rights as those that oppose them.; 1/26/13, 12:54 PM
Patrick said...: Certainly all laws that Congress applies to business and the people ought to apply to Congress itself. Congress ought not have any benefits, wwith the possible exception of a not very generous health care insurance policy. No reason to enable establishing a political class.

You want benefits? Get a real job, moron.; 1/26/13, 12:54 PM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: Yeah, they can dry their tears on the fat pensions they can receive after serving a whole five years in office.

Boo FUCKING hoo.; 1/26/13, 12:55 PM
jr565 said...: How old do you have to be to be able to sit in Congress? HOw is that not oppressive to those who don't meet that requirement?
It would be nice if those who were too young to sit in congress could be sat next to those oppressing them, only they can't because they aren't old enough.
They can't even get a seat at the table to rub in the faces of the congressmen oppressing them how they are opresssing them. But my guess is, Althouse is ok with this (as am I).
So what is the restriction:

"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen

SO basically, anyone who is 29 years or younger is OPPRESSED! and anyone who has only been a ciizen for 8 years and 364 days is OPPRESSED! If they were to go to congress and get marriage benefits the person reading off the benefits would look at their age and say "sorry, this doesn't apply to you".
and they would then be kicked out of congress.

Is it really true that someone who can vote who can serve in the military is incapable of serving in govt as a congressman?; 1/26/13, 12:56 PM
Palladian said...: Certainly all laws that Congress applies to business and the people ought to apply to Congress itself. Congress ought not have any benefits, wwith the possible exception of a not very generous health care insurance policy. No reason to enable establishing a political class.

You want benefits? Get a real job, moron.

That's exactly what I'm advocating- no Congressional marriage benefits for anyone.; 1/26/13, 12:57 PM
Palladian said...: Congressman is not supposed to be a career.; 1/26/13, 12:58 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "is any and all marriage restrictions also oppressions?
Or only gay marriage restrictions? because if so, then really the argument is there can be no marriage restrictions. Otherwise they are opression."

The question of what counts as oppression is always in issue. I am simply saying I'd like them more exposed to the effects of the laws they make. In some cases, it might confirm their resolve to keep this impositions in place.; 1/26/13, 12:58 PM
Wince said...: Funny, I didn't hear any bitching that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage might also extend to ex-spousal claims on federal retirement benefits after divorce.; 1/26/13, 12:59 PM
bagoh20 said...: It's a cute little demonstration of a problem with Congress, but better would be if they had to go through a health insurance exchange like the millions they have forced to.; 1/26/13, 1:04 PM
effinayright said...: Hypothetical: I am a bisexual. I want to marry a man AND a woman.

Am I oppressed because I cannot?

I would insist on no sexual contact between my two spouses.

I would set each spouse up in a different household and support them equally.

As Hillary would say, "What difference does it make?"

Right?; 1/26/13, 1:10 PM
chickelit said...: wholelottasplainin' said.....
Hypothetical: I am a bisexual. I want to marry a man AND a woman.

But you're still polygaming the system. Double dipping as it were. Frowned upon; 1/26/13, 1:17 PM
chickelit said...: Politicians have become too comfy. We need to encourage more Cincinnatus-type behavior, like Palin.; 1/26/13, 1:21 PM
jr565 said...: The question of what counts as oppression is always in issue. I am simply saying I'd like them more exposed to the effects of the laws they make. In some cases, it might confirm their resolve to keep this impositions in place.

I agree that having them and govt in general be exposed to the effects of their polices and laws is a good thing. But simply because there is a deleterious effect doesn't mean that the policies should therefore be outlawed because it's oppressive.
Any law passed is oppressive to those who are in violation of it. It doesn't mean that therefore we must rescind the law because some find it oppressive.; 1/26/13, 1:21 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Why would you rig a system so that individuals don't get paid the same for doing the same job? Why is that acceptable?!

It's the single/married difference in the pay package that's unfair. The ssm issue just gets caught up in it, where one little, traditionally-discriminated-against group is disadvantaged in crossing over into the favored group because it doesn't involve getting the sex of the kind they feel drawn to.

It's absurd that has anything to do with how much an employee gets in his pay package!

It ultimately traces back to traditional gender roles and what people think women should be doing. It's a bit of a crazy structure of compensation, whatever you think of different kinds of sex and different approaches to household economics.

We're in a stupid place and we need to fix it.

Coming in here and talking about polygamy -- which happens on cue every time I raise the issue of ssm -- is not making things more rational.

Let's be smart.; 1/26/13, 1:27 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Why would you rig a system so that individuals don't get paid the same for doing the same job? Why is that acceptable?!

It's the single/married difference in the pay package that's unfair. The ssm issue just gets caught up in it, where one little, traditionally-discriminated-against group is disadvantaged in crossing over into the favored group because it doesn't involve getting the sex of the kind they feel drawn to.

It's absurd that has anything to do with how much an employee gets in his pay package!

It ultimately traces back to traditional gender roles and what people think women should be doing. It's a bit of a crazy structure of compensation, whatever you think of different kinds of sex and different approaches to household economics.

We're in a stupid place and we need to fix it.

Coming in here and talking about polygamy -- which happens on cue every time I raise the issue of ssm -- is not making things more rational.

Let's be smart.; 1/26/13, 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: A Congressperson whose job it is to make new laws and pass them, should be embarrassed to not vote once and for all to grant Americans of the same sex their civil right to marry.

To deny it for so long in our modern advanced society is shameful. Perhaps if married people felt their union to be threatened they would understand the unfairness of this long standing bigotry.

Maybe Palladian is on to something.; 1/26/13, 1:35 PM
Patrick said...: I'm not sure that's the answer, Palladian.

But I'm also not sure it is not the answer.; 1/26/13, 1:39 PM
Unknown said...: Our hostess is disinclined to discuss polygamy along with gay marriage.

I'm not sure why. Is it because there will never be pressure for the "right" to polygamous unions and therefore we need not detain ourselves with thinking about it?

The issue will arise because there are groups (certain folks calling themselves Mormons, Muslims...) who would like polygamy made legal. We all deserve our rights, you know.

And when the clamor for legalized polygamy begins, professor, how would you argue against it (assuming that you would, of course); 1/26/13, 1:40 PM
Unknown said...: I'd like to see them take an ordinary group of people around and explain the benefits that they get that regular citizens don't get as well.
Why don't we as citizens have some townhall meetings where we ask out congressmen what benefits they get that we don't. And why. They could also address their recent pay hike. And while they're at it they could explain all the exceptions to Obama care.
That's a great place to start in waking all of us up to the real inequality in America.
Perhaps a reality show in which Regular Joe taking a tour of Washington DC hears about all the little ways deals are made. Watching our politicians red faces while they say "Oh, I guess that doesn't apply to you."; 1/26/13, 1:43 PM
Kohath said...: Not getting benefits is now called "oppression". Why not just go all the way and call it a holocaust?

I hear a government worker's lesbian live-in girlfriend had to pay a co-pay for her medicine once. It's a holocaust!; 1/26/13, 1:56 PM
Bill said...: "Coming in here and talking about polygamy -- which happens on cue every time I raise the issue of ssm -- is not making things more rational."

You're the one that suggested that the laws were 'oppressive' against gays. I'd say you invited the comparisons. When SSM advocates say that sexual complementarity and procreative potential of the species should be done away with as requirements for marital recognition without offering any reasons other than 'oppression' and 'civil/human rights' and without offering any coherent system to take it's place, then it's only prudent to point out where that logic leads.

If you want make an argument for restricting Congressional benefits I'm all ears and would probably agree with you, but don't be too surprised when incendiary terms like 'oppress' start a fire.; 1/26/13, 1:58 PM
Kohath said...: How many years of preferential treatment does a group have to get before it's no longer a "traditionally-discriminated-against group"?; 1/26/13, 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Reality's a bitch.

Eliminate all tax benefits to being married except deductions for dependents and all this will evaporate.; 1/26/13, 2:00 PM
mccullough said...: How many In Congress have a spouse that works? My wife and I both work and our joint income is taxed higher than it would be if we both co-habitated and paid the individual tax rate. There's a lot of outdated laws but maybe it's just that our legislators are just outdated.; 1/26/13, 2:04 PM
bagoh20 said...: "We're in a stupid place and we need to fix it."

Yes, and I think we should try to make all relationships between government and the people be either as individuals or corporations, period.; 1/26/13, 2:05 PM
chickelit said...: I have to say that all this resentment stuff that Obama foisted on us is beginning to hit government workers pretty hard. Unintended consequence?; 1/26/13, 2:06 PM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
A Congressperson whose job it is to make new laws and pass them, should be embarrassed to not vote once and for all to grant Americans of the same sex their civil right to marry.

To deny it for so long in our modern advanced society is shameful. Perhaps if married people felt their union to be threatened they would understand the unfairness of this long standing bigotry.

Ok, what about polygamy. Polygamists were marrying in the US LONG before gays ever dreamed they had the right to marry. And yet theire marriages were deemed illegal and they had to give up the practice lest Utah not become a state.
The Supreme Court argued in Reynolds vs the US way back in 1879 "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices." when they upheld the Morril Act which prohibited plural marriages.

And then there was not one but two Manifestos terminating the abilty to be in a plural marriage.
So, I've just laid out a LOOOONGGGG history of "Opression". Why have you, members of congress or Obama not stepped forth to right this wrong? Should you not be embarassed?; 1/26/13, 2:15 PM
chickelit said...: Inga wines early in the day: Perhaps if married people felt their union to be threatened they would understand the unfairness of this long standing bigotry.

When I lived in Germany, I tried to marry my Dutch girlfriend (we actually tried earlier in Switzerland but that was pretty much a non-starter). So I know what it's like to be denied official marriage recognition. But I didn't couch my relationship in terms of official recognition and I never felt our "union was threatened." Victims do that. And love conquers all.; 1/26/13, 2:16 PM
jr565 said...: Way back in 1882
George Q. Cannon, a prominent leader in the church, was denied a non-voting seat in the House of Representatives due to his polygamous relations. One month later, the Edmunds Act was passed by Congress, amending the Morrill Act and made polygamy a felony punishable by a $500 fine and five years in prison. Unlawful cohabitation, where the prosecution did not need to prove that a marriage ceremony had taken place (only that a couple had lived together), was a misdemeanor punishable by a $300 fine and six months imprisonment

So, INga, polygamists were jailed and denied access to seats in the House because of personal behavior.
And weren't you someone who said you were against polygamy? What was that thing you said about consenting adults?
If we are all about righting wrongs, and making marriage mean whatever we want it to mean, shouldn't we address polygamists who have been wronged far worse far longer than gays, FIRST?; 1/26/13, 2:22 PM
dunce said...: The one law for me and another for you is not limited to those in high office. There are double standards in place for bureaucrats. Note that it is illegal to make a false statement to a govt. official eg. Scooter Libby, and Martha Strewart. These are high profile cases but there are thousands of cases of people that are not public figures. Fiestien is proposing new gun restrictions that will exempt government employees. Check sometime just how many people in places like the department of education are carrying weapons as part of their job.In ancient times only the nobles could own weapons, our new privileged class is now our rulers again.; 1/26/13, 2:36 PM
Malesch Morocco said...: WHy are they getting anything other than their paycheck?
Why do they need "benefits"?; 1/26/13, 3:01 PM
edutcher said...: They want all the benefits of marriage?

Fine, combine the DNA of Kerosene Maxine, Pelosi Galore, the Hildabeast, and Big Sis and clone a battleaxe spouse for every one of them.

Palladian said...

No one whines as much and as annoyingly about gay people's rights as those that oppose them.

They have the same rights as everyone else.

You're talking about privileges.

Ann Althouse said...

We're in a stupid place and we need to fix it.

Making it more stupid will not help.

Inga said...

A Congressperson whose job it is to make new laws and pass them, should be embarrassed to not vote once and for all to grant Americans of the same sex their civil right to marry.

It's a state purview, O She-Wolf of the SS.

Read the Tenth Amendment.; 1/26/13, 3:19 PM
SGT Ted said...: When Democrats can get around to acknowledging rights that have been in the USC for the past 240 years, like the 2nd Amendment, then maybe they can come and discuss how other, newer rights, like gay marriage, should be recognized.; 1/26/13, 3:24 PM
SGT Ted said...: Actaully, I am for gay marriage, as well as the other rights that Democrats like to ignore or subvert.; 1/26/13, 3:27 PM
Seeing Red said...: SAHMs can get charged more for insurance now, this is why the feds need to be in it, no separate and not equal.

-- Perhaps if married people felt their union to be threatened they would understand the unfairness of this long standing bigotry.
--

Please one of the "reasons" my uncle divorced in the 80s was because of the marriage tax, at that time he saved $3K.

Look around, Inga, married people are threatened.

It's the rise of Julia.; 1/26/13, 3:51 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: I wish members of Congress would have more opportunities to experience the embarrassment of having to live with the people their laws oppress.

Well, those jackasses aren't going to have the opportunity to live with me. Especially the sick perverted ones. Unless of course they're super hot lesbians...but unfortunately they aren't usually considered Congressional material.; 1/26/13, 4:18 PM
sinz52 said...: Althouse: "I'd like them more exposed to the effects of the laws they make."

For that to happen, the Congresspersons would have to have had similar backgrounds.

Laws affecting private industry would only affect a Congressperson who had worked in the private sector. For example, they're not personally affected by laws restricting the use of coal because they're lawyers, not former coal miners.; 1/26/13, 4:43 PM
Æthelflæd said...: " The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy" by Thomas Sowell should be read by all congresscritters as a requirement for taking office.; 1/26/13, 4:51 PM
rhhardin said...: It's a battle to preserve the word marriage for a specific thing.

Lose the word and it will be a lot easier for you.; 1/26/13, 5:01 PM
AllenS said...: Ann Althouse said...
We're in a stupid place and we need to fix it.

Let's be smart.

You know what's fucking stupid? You and this homo outrage shit. I have a good friend who's 7 years older than me, born in 1939. Sometime when he was a teenager he caught the polio virus. A 6'4" man ended up with his left leg no thicker than a small man's arm. He had to wear a brace, and his deformed right leg had to be supported with a cain. You know what? That man never complained about what life had dealt him.

Sometimes, or maybe all too often, you're just a silly complaining little bitch. How much to you make again? Oh, life is so unfair. You don't fucking know the half of it.; 1/26/13, 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow, what is with the uptick of abusive commenters? This is Althouse's blog, have a modicum of respect for the trouble she goes to to keep this place going.; 1/26/13, 5:20 PM
cubanbob said...: I would be much happier if those new congress critters would introduce a constitutional amendment that would ban any law making body from exempting itself from any laws, regulations or ordinances it passes.; 1/26/13, 5:23 PM
Paul said...: Constitution talks about EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. So how come some laws don't apply to Congress?

And why are laws allowed to be selectivly enforced? Shouldn't Equal Protection Under the Law also encompase EQUAL ENFORCEMENT?

No law made should be allowed to exempt ANYONE. Either it's good for all or it's not good at all.; 1/26/13, 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Cubanbob, it galls me to know that Congressmember's children don't have to pay back their student loans. That's infuriating.; 1/26/13, 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow, what is with the uptick of abusive commenters? This is Althouse's blog, have a modicum of respect for the trouble she goes to to keep this place going.

Yeah, AllenS is overboard, especially considering what will reign wrath down on my head when I point out that I think she is being disingenuous or just plain wrong.

But of course I am a liberal. Althouse can get away with calling me an asshole. She won't call AllenS an asshole when he is clearly being one.; 1/26/13, 5:32 PM
AllenS said...: She's deleted my comments before, mother fucker. Has she ever deleted yours you dumb fucker?; 1/26/13, 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: She's deleted my comments before, mother fucker. Has she ever deleted yours you dumb fucker?

Yes she has. And she has called me an asshole. She ever call you an asshole?; 1/26/13, 5:39 PM
dbp said...: Until very recently, no society on earth recognized anything other than heterosexual unions as marriage. If the reluctance to instantly acquiesce to this new demand is going to be called "oppression", then I think that implies a profound lack of respect. Ignoring the morality of that tactic, how many people respect those who obviously do not respect them back?; 1/26/13, 5:40 PM
AllenS said...: You see, Freder, I have tact. Do you know what tact is? Tact is having the ability to tell someone to go to hell, and have them actually look forward to going on the trip.

You ain't got it, motherfucker.; 1/26/13, 5:41 PM
Æthelflæd said...: " I would be much happier if those new congress critters would introduce a constitutional amendment that would ban any law making body from exempting itself from any laws, regulations or ordinances it passes."

One can dream, I suppose.; 1/26/13, 5:54 PM
Skyler said...: They are being treated exactly equally. They are free to marry some of the opposite sex just like anyone else is.; 1/26/13, 6:07 PM
Aridog said...: No modicum of respect here for this redundant crap topic and comment thread. "Marriage" as defined by Public Law 104-199, a.k.a "DOMA" is between one man and one woman. Period.

You want to cohabit with a tranny, gay, or lesbian partner...good for you. Have at it. The same rules apply to you as to those hetero-sexual couples who cohabit and share everything as if married, except the contract...and those benefits I see being whined about there.

My better half and I share the same paid for house, pay the same taxes, and utilize no more or less infrastructure than a married couple...and yes we pay more for health care among other things. What we don't pay is the marriage penalty, newly emphasized in the recent tax increases. We knew that going in and we know it now....after 30+ years together.

Be what you are, and they way you wish to be...and quit whining about oppression. Nobody owes you jack squat, any more than they do me.

LBGT yada yada "agenda"...is sniveling rent seeking at its finest.; 1/26/13, 6:12 PM
Cody Jarrett said...: Ha!

Inga bleating about respecting the Althouse blog.

Precious.; 1/26/13, 6:42 PM
el polacko said...: boy,all ya gotta do is mention gay folks and all the nastiness comes spurting out, doesn't it ? let's immediately jump to comparisons of illegal arrangements and activities and challenge as to why they're not equal to relationships between adult, non-related, gay citizens who have legally registered their partnerships !! ...sheesh.
full, equal marriage rights are being offered in several states and a number of countries. these gay couples are as 'married' as anyone else and yet, as this article illustrates, an employer can list all of the benefits that are available to the employee, his partner, and any children they may be raising but...ooops!...those benefits don't apply to YOU, your legal partner, nor any children that you may be raising because...well...because you're gay and we think that's kinda icky and 'non-traditional' so too bad...and THAT's called by many, including those commenting here, 'special rights' or being asked to 'bow down' to gay citizens who are maybe just a little put off by the unequal treatment they get...?? but hey, those gay folks can just be straight and marry the opposite sex if they expect equal treatment, right?...good grief.; 1/26/13, 6:44 PM
politicaltragic said...: People who want higher taxes should have to pay the rates they propose, people who write laws and delegate regulation should be forced to comply with every last one of them.; 1/26/13, 6:49 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Althouse has covered this subject a million times, so there's nothing new here.

But, I'd like to suggest that Althouse quit bullshitting by employing the "oppression" terminology.

In general, it would be helpful if Althouse would junk her nostalgia for the 60s civil rights movement, as well as the crapola extortion language associated with it.

Good luck with that.; 1/26/13, 6:59 PM
n.n said...: Since neither "traditional" morality nor evolutionary fitness are overriding concerns, we can no longer justify discrimination against men, women, and children who choose homosexual behavior, multiple partners, pedophilia, and interspecies relationships. In fact, we have already pardoned women who for reason of preserving their wealth and welfare commit premeditated murder of their children. There is certainly no legitimate reason that any of these individuals should suffer a loss of benefits.; 1/26/13, 7:32 PM
Aridog said...: el polacko [rent seeker] ...oh, boo hoo, sob, sniffle. Get the DOMA act rescinded or overturned and then come back. I really don't give a shit who is gay or straight or in between. I never have, so project your insecurities on someone else.

Don't expect me to seek for you as special that you'd turn right around and deny me and mine. Real simple...you will never give to me what you seek for you. So fuck off.; 1/26/13, 7:37 PM
chickelit said...: Freder Frederson was never called an asshole...not in New York.; 1/26/13, 7:37 PM
Aridog said...: ST said ...

In general, it would be helpful if Althouse would junk her nostalgia for the 60s civil rights movement

Althouse wasn't involved in the 60's civil rights movements, didn't even hit college until the 70's, and I suspect neither you nor her have a clue about what it all was about in the 60's. You both listen to too many records and read too many bullshit books.

One thing it damn sure wasn't about is the current LGBT agenda of rent seeking cloaked as "rights". Pure horse shit.; 1/26/13, 7:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Love is the basis of my marriage, and I'm sure most people's but the state's interest in marriage is different.

We started out in caves with Alpha males dominating the females, and Beta males waiting for the Alpha to falter. Fight. New Alpha. Rinse and repeat. That's our species' default setting. It was cyclical and tragic.

The Jewish/Christian project elevated marriage as a reflection of the unity which we apprehend as an element of the divine. That's what religion sees in marriage.

The state has an interest in capturing the rogue testosterone of beta males and in ending the recurrent struggle to become the harem-owning alpha, and an interest in seeing children conceived and raised in the best setting for them.

Gay marriage doesn't further any of these ends. I will hazard that sexual fidelity is not a celebrated or common aspect of gay couples, married or not, and I believe only a minority of gay couples seek to raise children (and in many of those cases, the child is separated from its mother, not a natural or desirable outcome).

Worst of all, this redefinition of marriage to include gay couples saps the morale of heterosexual couples, who set for themselves the truly arduous struggle of being faithful and of raising children, only to see couples who lack this seriousness of purpose claim equal dignity.

I'm sure gay couples love each other, and I'd like them to feel fully included in society. But if they want to marry, let them do what Shakespeare, Vincent Minelli, and Cole Porter did, and marry a woman.; 1/26/13, 8:31 PM
Lawyer Mom said...: Living with the people their laws oppress? How about BEING the very people their laws oppress?

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Boehner finds out his health insurance premiums will double under Obamacare -- the smoker's penalty. Oh, wait. Not applicable. Congress & their family and staff are exempt from O-care.

Wonder if he needs another staffer . . . Beam me up, Boehner!

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/obamacare-2013-penalty-could-keep-smokers-out-of-obamacare; 1/26/13, 8:47 PM
Michael Haz said...: Why would you rig a system so that individuals don't get paid the same for doing the same job? Why is that acceptable?!

Ask Obama. He pays his female staffers less than his male staffers who do the same work. Same thing happened with his campaign.

Or does Beloved Leader get a pass, because, you know, b/c pills.; 1/26/13, 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Coming in here and talking about polygamy -- which happens on cue every time I raise the issue of ssm -- is not making things more rational.

Ann: Sounds like "shaming" to me.

I have yet to hear an SSM proponent make a rational argument as to how the same arguments for SSM don't apply equally well to polygamy.

Instead you complain that the issue is brought up at all and consign the effort to irrationality.

Fail.

As far as I can see, the SSM agenda will inevitably bear the fruit of legalized polygamy and polyandry.; 1/26/13, 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...: And really, bring me the world's smallest violin that I may play for the sad, sad plight of gay/bi congresscritters whose aristocratic benefits aren't quite as good as their straight counterparts, while the rest of us peasants scrabble for crumbs on the street.; 1/26/13, 11:13 PM
effinayright said...: chickelit said...

wholelottasplainin' said.....
Hypothetical: I am a bisexual. I want to marry a man AND a woman.

But you're still polygaming the system. Double dipping as it were. Frowned upon

1/26/13, 1:17 PM

*****

Wha?

WHY is polygamy "frowned upon"?? Give an argument, please.

How are marriages between a man and a woman , and between the same man and a man (or vice versa) "frowned upon" in the same way, and for the same reasons, as one man with two spouses of different sexes?

WTF? You call than an argument??; 1/26/13, 11:24 PM
Anonymous said...: wholelottasplainin': I believe chickelit is making a joke, not an argument.

Double dipping, however, is frowned upon. See the Gospel of Seinfeld, Season 4, Episode 19.; 1/26/13, 11:29 PM
stlcdr said...: Kohath said...
Not getting benefits is now called "oppression".

This is the new society, it seems.

But the mystery is why companies are in the business of handing out healthcare to employees. I don't and never will; too much paperwork - I'm simply sick and tired of government bureaucracy demanding more and more.

Wouldn't eliminating the tie between healthcare benefits and ones job be a more sensible approach? Hasn't this been a problem for people: loose your job, loose your healthcare? New job, new 'healthcare provider', and all the shenanegans that go along with it?

Pay an employee an extra $300, or whatever, a month to go to their own healthcare of choice. If they are 'traditionally married', doesn't matter. Single straight woman: no problem. Partner with 10 adopted kids: not an issue.

As long as you turn up to work when you are supposed to, put the time in, and perform the job you are required, you will get paid. Outside of that, everything is on the employee.

The solves a whole bunch of problems: particularly with ones partner of choice, number of kids, etc. If a company is required to pay healthcare for not just the employee, but their family, then the employer is going to have a say in what that family actually 'is'.; 1/27/13, 5:22 AM
Aridog said...: Why would you rig a system so that individuals don't get paid the same for doing the same job? Why is that acceptable?!

Why would you rig a system that pays one employee more if married with children than it pays the single man or woman?

In short, I am a single guy and I get health coverage for just me. Right next to me, doing exactly the same work, is married guy who gets coverage for 4 people or more ... e.g., he is being paid more for the same work.

Come talk to me when I, the single guy, is paid the same benefit amount, in tax exempt dollars, as the married guy, whose coverage costs double or more my single coverage...I am doing the same work and deserve the same overall pay, married or single.

OMG! Not fair! Boo hoo, snivel & sob. As I said this whole issue is a sack of horse shit.; 1/27/13, 8:08 AM
Known Unknown said...: I agree with Palladian ... Congress was never supposed to be a career. No benefits. No pension.

No problems, then.; 1/27/13, 9:10 AM
Known Unknown said...: In short, I am a single guy and I get health coverage for just me. Right next to me, doing exactly the same work, is married guy who gets coverage for 4 people or more ... e.g., he is being paid more for the same work.

This is why health coverage should not be tied to employers, and should be portable.

But I'm just a crazy libertarian with my wild ideas about how to simplify things.; 1/27/13, 9:11 AM
Aridog said...: EMD said ...

This is why health coverage should not be tied to employers, and should be portable.

I'd say health insurance should be portable regardless of employment or residence location within the United States.

Not sure what I am, except "crazy"...that fits.; 1/27/13, 11:34 AM
Amartel said...: Not just a First World problem, but a First World Elite problem.

Do. Not. Care.

Also, gov officials should be required to have Obamacare, no special gold-plated coverage. Live like the rest of us.; 1/27/13, 2:13 PM
jr565 said...: A Congressperson whose job it is to make new laws and pass them, should be embarrassed to not vote once and for all to grant Americans of the same sex their civil right to marry.

they can, so long as they abide by the rules.gay men have exactly the same rights as straight men in this regard.
What if this were a gay man asking for his right to marry in a polygamous relationship? Should we not have to cave and allow for polygamy because he's a gay man. And because he wants his marriage to be polygamous and we should all have the civil right to marry. Ah, but
You would argue that he could t have a polygamous marriage because for one, that's not how
We define marriage.

So then all your civil right claptrap goes out the window when it comes to any restricted marriage other than the politically popular and cliquish one you stand for because its politically popular and cliqueish.; 1/27/13, 5:47 PM
jr565 said...: But I watched Big Love with bill and barb and Marsha. Why are they not entitled to their civil rights? Have you not gone with the program yet Inga? We're talking about a show that's been on HBO. Surely you can't deny that they shouldn't be denied their civil right to be married.

Here's a clue, if you have to change the rules to allow for the right, it was never a right you actually had to begin with.
And that goes for polygamy AND gay marriage.

Note, this doesn't stop polygamists or gay people
From living their lives in any way they see fit. If they dont get govt involved they can have any relationship they want.; 1/27/13, 5:58 PM