POLITICAL THREAD

[Willy4UK]

Point well made, but not exactly what I was getting at. That's petty and lame bickering and bitching.

What I mean is this is step one, and when a pastor chooses not to marry them and they complain about discrimination or something more along those lines. In this country there is a lot of BS miniorities get to pull because of discrimination and this will add to it.

I don't care about their relationships or affections nor do I defend the people fearing that we are losing our country! I do worry about the Pandora's box this opens to other litigation for other laws but for this particular law I think the Supreme Court got it right.

I agree with you. When it comes to religion, I hope no pastor/preacher is forced to give two gays marriage vows under god if that pastor/preacher has belief differences. I'm sure there will be plenty of gay preachers that will be more than happy to do the weddings. Hell, looks like a good way to make money....

 

[wkycatfan]

I don't like the Confederate flag in terms of its representation of slavery. But I think more is going on here, squashing the whole states rights concept is good for a goal of centralization......of more and more things.

 

[wkycatfan]

Hell, looks like a good way to make money....

And divorce lawyers......

 

[Willy4UK]

And divorce lawyers......

 

[qwesley]

I think it's very clear that Kennedy was very mindful of his legacy and quite likely was seduced by the idea of being hailed by the left and Hollywood. We have a movie about RBG being made, played by Natalie Portman. Within 2-3 years, Clooney, or some big name, will be playing Kennedy in Love Wins. They are just like pols now.

 

[AustinTXCat]

This just in from the "You Can't Make This Shit Up" Department: IRS employees can use 'password' as a password.

Wow. just wow.

The report also notes several additional cyber security failings involving our US Gov of late.

 

[qwesley]

Boehner got his first ride on AF1 yesterday. Good for him.

Chris Christie's slogan is Tellng it Like it is.....ok, you're fat and have no chance.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

They only want less government because he government is not doing things in their favor. If the government was primed to outlaw abortion and gay marriage then they'd be all for more government.

Exactly. Noone cried about "too much government" until the government stopped being in their favor.

And here is the rub. This is being done by force. It ceases to be charity at that point.

Cant exactly call it participation, when its not voluntary. Are inmates participating in the prison system?

? Why does health care have to be based on "charity"? We don't base defense, public socials, social security, or public roads on "charity". There isn't enough charity in the world to support a health care system. The mandate simple requires people to be responsible for their health care rather than being a burden on society.

Because defense, roads, and other infrastructure, etc are necessities for this nation to properly function. Free health insurance isnt.

The real bait and switch came from the hospitals. They enjoy tax exempt status in theory because they were treating people for free that couldnt afford it. ACA basically shifted that financial burden to the american taxpayer. All the while, the hospitals still keep their tax exempt status.

Dee, everything is about "boosting the economy". It ain't about you, or me, I any group of humans. It's about marketing and sales. As we continue to not make shit, and increasingly rely on sales, the government/private will continue to push more and more BS on us .

NAFTA opened that door, and most manufacturing gladly walked through it. Manufacturing and tourism are the only ways to bring wealth into an economy. Now, we're a service based economy. Which basically moves the same money from one person, to another. Wealth isnt created. Its just moved around.

 

[Bill Derington]

Bigblue, what's sad is TPP will now pass.
The nation has been distracted by the past weeks rulings and the Confederate flag uproar.
What's upsetting is all we've heard about is freedom this past week. What truly brings people freedom is a decent job that brings dignity as well as supporting a family without depending on the govt, with a little left over to do or buy things he desires.

 

[krazykats]

I agree there will be gay pastors that will be more than happy, but I also know there will be examples made out of some that choose to oppose or say no.

 

[Bill Derington]

I agree there will be gay pastors that will be more than happy, but I also know there will be examples made out of some that choose to oppose or say no.

I'm afraid you're going to be right, and that will probably also go before the Scotus.
Before this weeks rulings it would've seemed like a no brainer what the outcome would be in that scenario, but who knows now.

 

[Kaizer Sosay]

Pretty sure most gay couples will go to the court house to get married. I doubt the "pastors not marrying gay couples" will be an issue heard by Scotus.

And I agree that the big winner in all of this will probably be the divorce lawyers.

 

[Bill Derington]

Pretty sure most gay couples will go to the court house to get married. I doubt the "pastors not marrying gay couples" will be an issue heard by Scotus.

And I agree that the big winner in all of this will probably be the divorce lawyers.

I'm sure you're right, most will, and I don't think it will soon, but it will happen eventually.

 

[Willy4UK]

Pretty sure most gay couples will go to the court house to get married. I doubt the "pastors not marrying gay couples" will be an issue heard by Scotus.

And I agree that the big winner in all of this will probably be the divorce lawyers.

Yep- a marriage under a preacher doesn't make it legal until it gets signed at the court house. Of course with a nominal fee payable to state. Or whoever is getting that money.

 

[Bill Derington]

I'm saying people will do it just to set up confrontation. That in their eyes it will be some sort of discrimination. That's all I meant.
And to say it isn't possible is the same as someone 20 years ago thinking the Scotus would make gay marriage legal nationwide. Most would have thought you were insane to even consider that a possibility.

 

[Willy4UK]

So now that corporations are considered a "person" under SCOTUS. What happens when gay corporations start wanting rights???

 

[jamo0001]

I'm saying people will do it just to set up confrontation. That in their eyes it will be some sort of discrimination. That's all I meant.
And to say it isn't possible is the same as someone 20 years ago thinking the Scotus would make gay marriage legal nationwide. Most would have thought you were insane to even consider that a possibility.

how does the SCOTUS ruling change *any* of that? The outrage machine has been churning for years regardless of what the courts have said. you're just as likely to have your church boycotted today as you were a year ago.

the US doesn't have hate speech laws like Europe does. It's next to impossible for the US government to slap "hate speech" penalties on people.

 

[wkycatfan]

I'm saying people will do it just to set up confrontation. That in their eyes it will be some sort of discrimination.

Truth.

 

[Bill Derington]

how does the SCOTUS ruling change *any* of that? The outrage machine has been churning for years regardless of what the courts have said. you're just as likely to have your church boycotted today as you were a year ago.

the US doesn't have hate speech laws like Europe does. It's next to impossible for the US government to slap "hate speech" penalties on people.

We're getting awfully close to having those laws. Especially if the states decide not to remove confederate flags from state buildings and parks.
What I meant was that someone, and you can't rest assure it will be tried, will try to get married by a pastor that they know won't do it.

 

[jamo0001]

We're getting awfully close to having those laws. Especially if the states decide not to remove confederate flags from state buildings and parks.
What I meant was that someone, and you can't rest assure it will be tried, will try to get married by a pastor that they know won't do it.

Westboro Baptist...

 

[Bill Derington]

Westboro Baptist...

Good point

 

[GrandePdre]

So the White House is lit up as a rainbow. That happened. In real life.

James Buchanan would be proud.

 

[jamo0001]

Texas attorney general telling county clerks that they don't have to issue marriage licenses if they feel like doing so would violate their religious convictions.

I wonder if they'll be screening applicants to see whether they're violating 2 Corinthians 6:14

 

[From-the-stands]

If it's that bad those county clerks who have a problem with this should find another job, one where their bias doesn't interfere with their work.

 

[krazykats]

Why?

 

[Bill Derington]

I read that several states were considering abolishing marriage license.
I assume if they do that then the state no longer has any hand in marriages therefore the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply to them. Although I would think marriages from other states would still have to be recognized.

 

[vhcat70]

I read that several states were considering abolishing marriage license.
I assume if they do that then the state no longer has any hand in marriages therefore the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply to them. Although I would think marriages from other states would still have to be recognized.

I've thought that myself. Just do away with the legal concept of marriage & let those that want it as a religious practice do as they please. Not sure how a state that doesn't have marriage needs to even recognize the concept. What would it mean?

 

[vhcat70]

Yep- a marriage under a preacher doesn't make it legal until it gets signed at the court house. Of course with a nominal fee payable to state. Or whoever is getting that money.

When we married many moons ago, we got license, handed to the priest, and dang if I know what he did with it as we never took it to county clerk or mailed it in. Hell, maybe we're not married.

 

[wkycatfan]

So the White House is lit up as a rainbow. That happened. In real life.

Hard to fathom. This implies that this ruling was more than just letting people live and let live.

 

[vhcat70]

Bill - the facts just don't support your statement:

As of March 2015 HHS reported a total of 16.4 million covered due to the ACA between the Marketplace, Medicaid expansion, young adults staying on their parents plan, and other coverage provisions. According to Gallup that translates to an uninsured rate of 11.9% down from a high of 18% in 2013.

http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/

That fact of the matter is there are millions of folks now that heretofore had no access to routine or preventive medical care, and many are alive today becasue of this law. You would be hard pressed to convince them that this law isn't helping anyone.

The cost of health care coverage has actually not gone up as rapidly since the ACA become law as before. Health care costs, including the cost of insurance is escalating all the time due to the cost of medical services and drugs which is escalating by a factor of about 4x the inflation rate.

Yes the cost of health care to the overall population is shared in the form of insurance premiums and taxes, but it was before the ACA as well as the costs of expensive trips to the ERs had to be passed on to the public. Now less expensive options are available under health care policies.

Yes it's true that the health insurers played a big part in passing this law and it's no surprise that when their customer base numbers expand, their revenues increase and their stock prices go up, but just becasue health insurers are doing well it doesn't mean it was a bad deal for those that were able to secure insurance with them.

Of those 16M, 6M got insurance & 10M got Medicaid expansion. The 10M on Medicaid are today getting better care than without it, but it's subpar to those insured.

"Many alive today" could be 8 or 10. Many are alive today because of a lot of things - police & fire depts., car safety improvements, etc. Are they each worth their costs?

Medical costs were coming down before the ACA. Net, not proof ACA did anything to lower rate of increase of costs.

"Now less expensive options are available under health care policies" Less expensive to whom? Perhaps those with the insurance but not overall.

Health insurance companies are doing OK. They've become like electric utilities matching providers with users but their profits are regulated. Big winners are hospitals. They have less uninsured to subsidize.

 

[Bill Cosby]

The American left really is just insane. That's all there is to it. Every position they take have the logic and reasoning of a 4 year old walking through a toy store.

Seriously, what sort of adult, let alone the leader of a country with 300 million people, thinks it is a good idea to light the POTUS' residence up like a rainbow over an issue as divisive to the country as gay marriage. Just completely assinine.

I feel like 90% of what Obama does is solely intended to troll the people who don't agree with his radical opinions.

Honestly I still haven't seen pictures of the White House lit up like a rainbow, and still am hoping my disappointment in the petulant child leading our country is really just because of an Onion article.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Bigblue, what's sad is TPP will now pass.
The nation has been distracted by the past weeks rulings and the Confederate flag uproar.
What's upsetting is all we've heard about is freedom this past week. What truly brings people freedom is a decent job that brings dignity as well as supporting a family without depending on the govt, with a little left over to do or buy things he desires.

Yep. While everyone is fighting over flags, etc; the nation will hand over a large chunk of its power to one man. But it looks like that was on its way to passing anyway.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Health insurance companies are doing OK. They've become like electric utilities matching providers with users but their profits are regulated. Big winners are hospitals. They have less uninsured to subsidize.

Yep. And they keep their tax exempt status, all without having to treat uninsured. They made out like bandits.

They need their tax exempt status revoked. That probably needed to happen even before ACA.

 

[CATS1945]

The American left really is just insane. That's all there is to it. Every position they take have the logic and reasoning of a 4 year old walking through a toy store.

Seriously, what sort of adult, let alone the leader of a country with 300 million people, thinks it is a good idea to light the POTUS' residence up like a rainbow over an issue as divisive to the country as gay marriage. Just completely assinine.

I feel like 90% of what Obama does is solely intended to troll the people who don't agree with his radical opinions.

Honestly I still haven't seen pictures of the White House lit up like a rainbow, and still am hoping my disappointment in the petulant child leading our country is really just because of an Onion article.

I saw a picture all lit up like a rainbow. The fact of the matter is not Obama's house to do what he wants - it is the People's House - he seems to forget that

 

[-LEK-]

Someone explain this argument to me. A law is passed, outlawing discrimination, then the people who are discriminating, say they are being discriminated against, because they no longer have the right to discriminate.

Seriously, I dont get it.

 

[wkycatfan]

Honestly I still haven't seen pictures of the White House lit up like a rainbow, and still am hoping my disappointment in the petulant child leading our country is really just because of an Onion article.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/white-house-buildings-across-the-country-light-up-122601444526.html

 

[Bill Cosby]

Someone explain this argument to me. A law is passed, outlawing discrimination, then the people who are discriminating, say they are being discriminated against, because they no longer have the right to discriminate.

Seriously, I dont get it.

I guess you'd have to find someone that's making that argument first, then ask them to explain.

 

[-LEK-]

I guess you'd have to find someone that's making that argument first, then ask them to explain.

Here is one.

Also, pretty much every person who is saying that it infringes upon their rights to not marry homosexuals.

 

[Deeeefense]

I've thought that myself. Just do away with the legal concept of marriage & let those that want it as a religious practice do as they please. Not sure how a state that doesn't have marriage needs to even recognize the concept. What would it mean?

That would open up a host of issues for any unmarried couples such as who is the legal next of kin? what is your filing status on federal and state tax returns? qualification for family health care plans? adoption qualification? etc.

 

[vhcat70]

That would open up a host of issues for any unmarried couples such as who is the legal next of kin? what is your filing status on federal and state tax returns? qualification for family health care plans? adoption qualification? etc.

Yes it would. Easily resolved though. I mean we just went through this the other direction with unmarried partners qualifying for benefits on the other's records. The state could say any two people can file a joint return. There's no reason to pay Fed taxes based on marital status even though it does, often to the detriment of the married couple.