Prop 8

[Medusa]

Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

Powerful, powerful stuff... They should broadcast this all over the world. People everywhere should get over themselves and end inequality.

 

[Wrlmy]

x 1000000000000000000

I still can get over the passage of prop 8 even though I had never been invested on this issue. Gay marriage supporters have been asking these very questions Kieth Olbermann addresses for ages only to face strong and violent opposition without any basis besides 'because God says so' which itself is merely one, yet popular, controvertial interpretation of bible. I know it's a horrible thing to say, but the day when those who say 'because God says so' all die will be the day gay marriage will be accepted like heterosexual marriage.

 

[Ptichka]

I believe the state should just eliminate the term "marriage". Leave "marriage" for ministers, rabbis, etc. Let all unions that the state conducts be called "civil unions", whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Not "husband and wife", or "wife and wife", or "husband and husband", but just "partner and partner". This way the reasonable conservative won't feel like "marriage" is getting redefined, yet everyone would be treated equal.

 

[Tonichelle]

^^^ that's actually what a lot of the conservatives are asking for, I know some voters wouldn't that wouldn't have a problem voting in a civil union deal... and something I agree with as well - marriage is more of a religious term than anything else anyway.

I haven't been following the whole thing all that much, I don't like it when the states come in and tell Alaska how to vote on our issues, so I try to not speak out in other states' battles.

 

[dorispulaski]

I've been taking the H&R Block Tax Course

The really stupid thing is that religious marriage is available to gay couples, if the church wants to perform the wedding.

Locally, several of the United Church of Crist churches (of which there are many all over New England) and several of the Unitarian churches will marry gay couples.

What gay couples can't get is the goodies/deductions embedded in the US federal tax code for married couples. These have become more and more numerous over the years.

When a politician says he's giving tax breaks for "hard working American families", what that breaks down to is:

1. Married filing joint (Head of household isn't too bad)
2. preferably with dependent children, or qualified relatives
3. Who are all US citizens
4. and almost all of whose income is from, as line 7 on the 1040 says, "Wages, salary, and tips"

All benefits are written with different income caps, but all the income caps are much lower or even unavailable if you are single. If you make a lot of money, or you and your partner make approximately the same amount of money, this is less of an issue, however, particularly for the free money scheme which is the "Earned Income Tax Credit" implications can be substantial.

It annoys me that our tax code is being used as an engine of discrimination.

And it annoys me that those whose income are not from "wages, salary or tips"

such as
1. Retirees living on investments
2. People living off rents
3. People living off commission checks
4. People who are small business owners and trades people, including single proprietors
5 People living on pensions
6. Foreigners living full time in the US and paying taxes on full time jobs

are all out of a lot of the goodies to varying degrees.

It offends me that my son doesn't get deductions for his children some years, as a way of upping his tax rate. I'd rather they just upped his tax rate, rather than saying my grandkids are somehow not worthy. Of course, he's practicial and it doesn't bother him. It offends him more as a person who sells capital equipment to manufacturing firms that his income stream is very bumpy. Some years he is making very little money and some years he gets a huge check. Methods for year to year balancing are not good unless you're a big corporation.

The last thing the US tax code is is fair or straight forward in any way.

 

[Medusa]

I believe the state should just eliminate the term "marriage". Leave "marriage" for ministers, rabbis, etc. Let all unions that the state conducts be called "civil unions", whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Not "husband and wife", or "wife and wife", or "husband and husband", but just "partner and partner". This way the reasonable conservative won't feel like "marriage" is getting redefined, yet everyone would be treated equal.

That's acutually my very favourite solution, too. And I can't understand why this isn't done, is it in the US or here in Europe. E.g. France has civil unions for gay and straight couples alike - but they still have marriage only for men and women (because the Code Civil says so! Why do they listen to the Code Civil? That thing is 200 years old and the author turned out to be a despotic, though well-principled and broad-minded, dictator!). France is one of the most laical countries in the world, but even they couldn't find a decent solution, after more than 200 years of laicism! And their southern neighbour Spain, historically deeply nondemocratic, one of the major b***** of the Pope and the Catholic Church - offers gay marrriage! Oh, the shame...

I don't even want to start with Germany, the churches are so deeply linked with our politics (mandatory religious education for everyone, the government collects the taxes for the churches...) that probably even Italy or Poland will have a better solution at some time long before we will have one.

^^^ that's actually what a lot of the conservatives are asking for, I know some voters wouldn't that wouldn't have a problem voting in a civil union deal... and something I agree with as well - marriage is more of a religious term than anything else anyway.

You must know lots of nice conservative people - because the way I understood it lots of those "so-called conservative" people in the US are actually afraid of the country becoming more secular. And deleting the word "marriage" from the constitution etc. because of its religious meaning - is definitely a very laical solution.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I see the problem as the state of mind of the American people. As one combat soldier said, "they gave me a medal for killing men, and later I got a dishonorable discharged for kissing a man".

Americans are god fearing more than civil fearing and they believe catastrophes are caused by god's vengence.

If we allow such marriages to be legal, we will be punished by god.

 

[Ptichka]

I don't even want to start with Germany, the churches are so deeply linked with our politics (mandatory religious education for everyone, the government collects the taxes for the churches...)

I know! My husband's cousin lives in Regensburg. All public preschools are affiliated with religious institutions, and Regensburg's Jewish community is not large enough to sustain a separate daycare. So, she had to send her son to a Lutheran preschool. They are actually happy with it and all, but then they noticed that he was mumbling something before every meal; they listened carefully, and realize he was saying "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". This is a Jewish family! They are now trying to figure out what to do... Of course, we here in the US do not have any public preschools, so I guess I shouldn't throw stones...

 

[jennylovskt]

On this topic, I am a total right wing conservative. I am actually glad for the state of Califoria this time that the people voted against gay marriage. I have a friend and her family originally from Russia and came from Califoria about 10 years ago, said that here (I am in Texas) is the place to raise children but not in Califoria. She refered to the wide ranged gay talks and activities even in schools in San Francisco.

 

[Mathman]

I know! My husband's cousin lives in Regensburg. All public preschools are affiliated with religious institutions, and Regensburg's Jewish community is not large enough to sustain a separate daycare. So, she had to send her son to a Lutheran preschool...

I was surprised, years ago when I did a postdoc at the University of Bonn as a single father with two pre-schoolers in tow. All they asked was, Catholische oder Evangelishe? and away they went.

But yeah, free preschool was a godsend to me (having no money -- but another great thing about Germany is that if you are at the University they let you overspend your bank account every month ). I can't say that my two sons were any the worse for whatever religious instruction they were exposed to -- plus they learned to speak German naturally.

She refered to the wide ranged gay talks and activities even in schools in San Francisco.

I do not see any cause for alarm in "wide ranged talks and activities," gay or otherwise. Lots of people talk and do things.

 

[museksk8r]

Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

Powerful, powerful stuff... They should broadcast this all over the world. People everywhere should get over themselves and end inequality.

Yes, I <333 Keith Olbermann and saw that on MSNBC when it first aired and I was really moved by his passionate message. I totally agree with your sentiments!

 

[dorispulaski]

Public preschool is awesome!

When my 2 boys were little in Vermont, even kindergarten was not public.

Keith Olbermann has been getting on my nerves this last year, but his Prop 8 talk was excellent. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Ptichka]

I can't say that my two sons were any the worse for whatever religious instruction they were exposed to -- plus they learned to speak German naturally.

It's just really tough for Jewish families. I think I'd have a heart attack if my son started saying the Christian grace... But yeah, the fact that we don't have public preschools here is a travesty. Most civilized countries (including Mexico!) have universal pre-K. I think, though, that we are moving in that direction. I'd give it another decade before 3- and 4- year olds all have an option of a decent public day care. Now, the arrangements for toddlers, let alone infants, are a very different story...

 

[Tonichelle]

.... we have public schools with preschool in them in Alaska... or did when I was little... not sure if they still have the program.

 

[jennylovskt]

Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

Powerful, powerful stuff... They should broadcast this all over the world. People everywhere should get over themselves and end inequality.

Sorry, so what's next? Should you expand that "love" to accept one man and two women, or two men and one woman marriage, and so on and on?! Why only one man and one woman?! It's endless, but it's simply wrong! It's a confused, twisted love that this video is asking for.

I can accept gays and respect them, but to ask to legally validate that is totally wrong. It's against nature. If nature is the God we are talking about, yes, it's against God.

 

[museksk8r]

Sorry, so what's next? Should you expand that "love" to accept one man and two women, or two men and one woman marriage, and so on and on?! Why only one man and one woman?! It's endless, but it's simply wrong! It's a confused, twisted love that this video is asking for.

I can accept gays and respect them, but to ask to legally validate that is totally wrong. It's against nature. If nature is the God we are talking about, yes, it's against God.

"Against nature"? :disagree: Gee, you make it sound like homosexuals are subhuman, as if we are less than heterosexuals, or you make it sound like humans are going to want to marry goats or monkeys next. The way I see it, your reaction to this video shows that in reality you do not accept or respect gay people. So you "accept and respect" us, but we shouldn't be able to declare our love if we wish to or have the same rights as you? Hmmm.:disapp: For you to claim that consenting and devoted gay love between 2 committed adults is "confused" and "twisted" is a tremendous insult!

 

[decker]

What museksk8er said.

Also, I don't care what deity anybody worships, what holy book they believe, etc. In my country (the US), our Constitution says we each have a right to decide those things for ourselves. What we don't have is the right to decide for others.

Don't believe in gay marriage? Fine. Prop 8 nor any other law would force you to enter into one or mandate that your church perform ceremonies. Only to mind your own business where other people's private relationships are concerned.

Susan

 

[psycho]

Sorry, so what's next? Should you expand that "love" to accept one man and two women, or two men and one woman marriage, and so on and on?! Why only one man and one woman?! It's endless, but it's simply wrong! It's a confused, twisted love that this video is asking for.

I can accept gays and respect them, but to ask to legally validate that is totally wrong. It's against nature. If nature is the God we are talking about, yes, it's against God.

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, I suggest you open a biology book and learn all about what is against nature and what isn't. You will be very surprised.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, I suggest you open a biology book and learn all about what is against nature and what isn't. You will be very surprised.

To read a biology book especially on certain scientific topics would be going against the laws of a supreme being. :scratch: That is if you believe in supreme beings.

 

[psycho]

To read a biology book especially on certain scientific topics would be going against the laws of a supreme being. :scratch: That is if you believe in supreme beings.

No, you're absolutely right. Let's just all collectively fester in a cesspool of ignorance...