 bookchick49 says: Reminder to self to read Sullivan happens to be on Larry King Live on CNN talking about this very idea right now. > intruding the federal government into marriage law This is not against conservative principles, nor American principles either. Who else makes federal laws but the federal government? More like closing a loophole, rather than creating more laws. You can read an excerpt from the first chapter here as well as hear a brief interview with the author. In defending what might seem a lost or losing cause, I have adopted the usual conservative posture of sadness at the pace and direction of current events. I present in this book two rival forms of conservatism. The first I have called "fundamentalism," and it represents both a form of religious faith and a new variety of politics to represent it. The second I call "conservatism," by which I simply mean conservatism as I would describe and explain it. Both have common elements -- primarily a suspicion of change and... Well said, Mr Skinner That it's come to the likes of Sullivan advising on this, may indicate that it's reached the point of irretrievability. Once upon a time conservatives had souls??? hahhahahha. BTW Skinner, thanks for referring to my life long struggle to gain full citizenship in my own country and secure legal protections for my family as a "loophole." His "loophole" reference had to do with US law, and I don't see what it has to do with what ever you're talking about, in what ever country you live. Yes, I must not have been clear. I was speaking of homosexual marriage blessed by the state. Homosexuals have full citizenship and the same legal protections as anyone else (if not more!) Yes, you were perfectly clear. Yes, I understand US law quite well, I spend a lot of time under its boot. No, giant homos like me do not have the full rights of citizenship in this country. No federal protections in housing and employment. No spousal benefits. No ability to extend benefits to non-biological children. But there I go, trying to stick my partial citizen foot through that giant gaping loophole again. Ah, The Agenda. How did I miss it? Federal protections in housing and employment: do you have less rights than anyone else? Or are you simply looking for "private law" extended to homosexuals for your own benefit? Do you feel you shouldn't have the same protections (or lack thereof) as everyone else simply because you are a homosexual? Spousal benefits: These benefits do not relate to the "rights of citizenship". You are treated by the IRS as single people, like about half of the taxpayers in the country. Benefits to non-biological children: Perfectly correct. And it's not "fair", per se. Take it up with the insurance companies. Unless you want Big Brother to step in and tell them how to do their business. My God, you people are brutal. For some reason, I don't see adamskinner making a big fuss out of "Big Brother" giving heterosexual couples its blessing, effectively extending "private law" (whatever that means) to heterosexuals for their own benefit. No need to imagine a Big Brother giving blessing, it's been in place in civilization a very long time and will remain So has slavery. Errors corrected are quite different from new error instituted. Yeah, but that's not what you were talking about, now is it? You said, or strongly implied, that heterosexual marriage is justified in getting exclusive legal privileges because it's so old, right? Again your perceptions are wrong. What you infer is consistenty not my implication. Honestly, I don't see what else you could have possibly meant by this.... it's [i.e. heterosexual marriage] been in place in civilization a very long time and will remain... if you weren't implying that its antiquity confers legitimacy. If that's not what you meant, then why allude to the age of the institution? Protection for housing and employment? Yes, I have fewer rights than other people. Federal law bans discrimination in housing and employment but not for queers. Protection for non-bio children? Yes, I have fewer rights. Heteros can cover their adopted children and step children. I cannot. I am not a single person. I deal with inlaws and christmas and the mortgage and combined finances and conflicting schedules and funerals and birthdays and every other dang'd married BS you can imagine. And I want my God-given right to a tax break. I also want meanies like you to quit calling me single. |
View the Top Clips from October 5, 2006
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||||||||||||
