Civil Rights: Obama opposed to equal rights for consenting bi-sexuals ?

[enhanced_deficit]

Accidentally ended up watching 5 min of All American Jerry Springer show the other day. A man there was torn for living a life of lies while living with a woman and also having a boyfriend secretly. When she asked why he lied to her, he came back that he could not help it and was lying even to his child. As if he had no control ( and society was violating his civil rights - opinion comment).

Obama or (rather his puppet masters) are not discriminatory towards bi-sexuals when they frame equal rights for gays as civil rights issue but do not grant same equal rights to consenting bi-sexual Americans who are in multi-gender , multi partner relationships?
Or their contention is that bi-sexuals are not born but choose to find both genders attractive?

Same civil rights question can be raised about equal rights for consenting polygmous Americans who want to get married.

[phill4paul]

I've proposed this idea in other gay marriage posts.

From a federal standpoint. Allow one "benefit designee." Now it is automatic for traditional couples but we take that marriage "privilege" out of the game altogether.

All federal rights and benefits are transferred to whom one declares a "benefit designee." It could be anyone.

[enhanced_deficit]

Yea logically,any conseting adult Americans then should have same equal civil rights as same sex wedding. If a man can marry a man, why a man cannot marry two women using same civil rights logic as long as all parties are consenting adults? At least latter would be biologically more natural and perhaps more Biblically blessed too. But let's stick with civil rights argument in modern times.

The inside scoop apparently is that a major hollywood donor (who was while back mistakenly diagnosed with AIDS but later turned out was error) turned on Clintons after Bill failed to make same sex marriage legal in US military and instead instituted DADT. He was one of the first ones within hollywood liberal lobbies to support Obama over Hillary in Democrats primary and made major donations to Obama. Hence Obama delivered and ended DADT in US military after winning election ( even if he failed to close Gitmo or end wars).

[FrankRep]

equal civil rights as same sex wedding

The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to redefine marriage.

In fact, kick the government out of marriage.

[enhanced_deficit]

The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to redefine marriage.

In fact, kick the government out of marriage.

That is a pretty compelling argument.

[FrankRep]

That is a pretty compelling argument.

Ever heard of Ron Paul? Small Government for the Win!


Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny
Ron Paul - July 22, 2004

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

Ron Paul Supports the Defense of Marriage Act
David Kramer - January 4, 2012

Ron Paul Never Voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but here's why he would have voted for it if he had been in Congress in 1996 ...

[enhanced_deficit]

Frank I fully agree with Ron Paul on this.

The question I asked in this thread was about selective use of "civil rights" logic by Obama puppet masters. Too bad they are not here to defend it. That makes their argument somewhat bogus.

[FrankRep]

The question I asked in this thread was about selective use of "civil rights" logic by Obama puppet masters. Too bad they are not here to defend it. That makes their argument somewhat bogus.

So you're wondering why the government doesn't legalize polygamy?

[enhanced_deficit]

So you're wondering why the government doesn't legalize polygamy?

No, you're misreading it. I am saying, if goverment wants to meddle and control who marries who, logically it wouild leglalize polygamy before it legalizes gay marriage. And it would legalize bi-sexual marriage along with gay marriage. All people have equal civil rights.

[phill4paul]

One benefit designee per person solves the legality question.

[The Free Hornet]

The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to redefine marriage.

In fact, kick the government out of marriage.

If there was another word, you not only could use it, but you could let us in on the secret word that means "[gay] marriage". It can't be "civil union" because a "civil" anything is pretty much the opposite of what we want in a voluntary relationship (where "civil" denotes either state interaction or actions as a non-military person - neither having bearing on the voluntary love ceremony thing you must be talking about). Also, that's a phrase.

Seriously, tell us the secret word!

[FrankRep]

If there was another word, you not only could use it, but you could let us in on the secret word that means "[gay] marriage". It can't be "civil union" because a "civil" anything is pretty much the opposite of what we want in a voluntary relationship (where "civil" denotes either state interaction or actions as a non-military person - neither having bearing on the voluntary love ceremony thing you must be talking about). Also, that's a phrase.

Seriously, tell us the secret word!

Couldn't a gay couple just sign a contract promising to stay together for life? No one is preventing them from doing that.

[phill4paul]

Couldn't a gay couple just sign a contract promising to stay together for life? No one is preventing them from doing that.

They can. And do. They still don't receive over 1k benefits or privileges.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

[phill4paul]

Couldn't a gay couple just sign a contract promising to stay together for life? No one is preventing them from doing that.

You do realize that this is the heart of the debate. "Traditionally" married couples are afforded government benefits and privileges without anything other than a document. The fed and and states don't automatically recognize the documents of individuals.

[FrankRep]

They can. And do. They still don't receive over 1k benefits or privileges.

How are marriage "benefits" and "privileges" Constitutional?

Maybe that's all they want: The "benefits" and "privileges" and not really marriage.

[FrankRep]

You do realize that this is the heart of the debate. "Traditionally" married couples are afforded government benefits and privileges without anything other than a document. The fed and and states don't automatically recognize the documents of individuals.

You nailed the problem: Government Benefits

Stop the unconstitutional government benefits. Problem solved.

[WhistlinDave]

I think your premise is flawed because the "civil right" that was determined in Loving v. Virginia and in the Prop 8 case was the right to marry the person of your own choosing, free from restrictions placed upon you by the government or other people. It is often misconstrued as "the right to marry." That's incorrect. It is the right to decide for yourself what person you want to marry.

The key here is the word person. Nobody is saying the word "personS". So with regard to the bisexual slippery slope, for all intents and purposes this is no different from asking why not allow polygamy between consenting adults. Doesn't matter if one is bisexual or not, right now no one is fighting to make polygamy legal that I'm aware of.

From a pure Libertarian standpoint there is no good reason a polygamist marriage should be prohibited, if all parties are consenting adults.

Putting that aside for the moment, I have a much better question, since so many people are in favor of writing laws defining marriage for everyone, based on a Biblical definition of marriage.

Do you think it would be OK if, someday when there is a large enough Muslim population in America to make it possible, do you think it would be OK to write laws saying that a marriage is only valid and legal if it conforms to the definition of marriage in the Qu'Ran? In other words, all Christian and other non-Muslim marriages would be held invalid in the eyes of the law and the government. (Because the Qu'Ran is the one true word of God, according to the proponents of these laws.)

Do you think that would be OK to let Muslims define marriage for everyone based on their Holy Book?

[phill4paul]

How are marriage "benefits" and "privileges" Constitutional?

Maybe that's all they want: The "benefits" and "privileges" and not really marriage.

I didn't say they were Constitutional. But, can you deny they are here to stay? And if they are hear to stay what is the best way to deal with the situation?

Allow gays to marry? Some find that offensive. So, since the benefits are automatic, strip "marriage" from legislature and include "benefit designee."

Problem solved and we could move forward to the growing deficit caused by all "benefit designees."

[FrankRep]

I didn't say they were Constitutional. But, can you deny they are here to stay? And if they are hear to stay what is the best way to deal with the situation?

Conservatives have a hard choice to make: they can either eliminate the unconstitutional government benefits of marriage that will nullify the gay marriage's motivation or accept the inevitability of gay marriage being legalized.

[WhistlinDave]

How are marriage "benefits" and "privileges" Constitutional?

Maybe that's all they want: The "benefits" and "privileges" and not really marriage.

Nope. My wife and I attended the wedding of our friends back East last year (two guys) and I can tell you with 100% certainty they couldn't care less about benefits. They love each other and they love being married.

But I agree, ending all government benefits and special rights for married people (i.e. getting govt. out of marriage entirely) and making sure there are no laws regulating marriage is the solution to the entire problem.

[phill4paul]

Conservatives have a hard choice to make: they can either eliminate the unconstitutional government benefits of marriage that will nullify the gay marriage's motivation or accept the inevitability of gay marriage being legalized.

Or go for the middle ground of benefit designee. Honestly the Republicraps could introduce this, save face, and cone out smelling like roses.

[Xhin]

Bisexuality means you're attracted to both genders, you're not necessarily bigamous though.

[enhanced_deficit]

I think your premise is flawed because the "civil right" that was determined in Loving v. Virginia and in the Prop 8 case was the right to marry the person of your own choosing, free from restrictions placed upon you by the government or other people. It is often misconstrued as "the right to marry." That's incorrect. It is the right to decide for yourself what person you want to marry.

The key here is the word person. Nobody is saying the word "personS".

Equal rights and civil rights are not endowed by any neoconservatives or liberals appointed court master, those are endowed by divine authority without discrimination. Persons have civil rights just like person. Are you suggesting logically consenting gays and consenting bi-sexual Americans should not have equal rights?
What about equal rights for three conseting adult Americans who want to be in a child-producing marriage? Obama puppet masters seem to be discriminating against some Americans unless someone can point out why they should not have equal rights.

[Invi]

Bisexuality means you're attracted to both genders, you're not necessarily bigamous though.

This. Though I wonder if perhaps the term they were looking for is polyamorous.
We don't need "bisexual marriage."
We need consenting adults to be able to contract with whomever they desire.

[torchbearer]

um, what is a bisexual marriage? is that a heterosexual mix or a homosexual mix? or could you use the term bisexual marriage to include all marriages?

[WhistlinDave]

Equal rights and civil rights are not endowed by any neoconservatives or liberals appointed court master, those are endowed by divine authority without discrimination. Persons have civil rights just like person. Are you suggesting logically consenting gays and consenting bi-sexual Americans should not have equal rights?
What about equal rights for three conseting adult Americans who want to be in a child-producing marriage? Obama puppet masters seem to be discriminating against some Americans unless someone can point out why they should not have equal rights.

You put me at a deficit when you quoted me. If you had included a few more sentences of my post, I clearly stated that there is no good reason to prohibit polygamist marriages between consenting adults. Regarding the "equal rights" legal argument, jumping from same sex marriage to polygamist marriage is making a jump from choosing to marry whomever you want, to choosing to marry whomever you want multiple times. There's a difference legally speaking, at least in my mind.

To illustrate this further, if a gay person says, "I am not capable of being attracted to someone of the opposite sex; I'm incapable of loving them in a romantic sense. Therefore if I choose to get married, I will be miserable and living a lie, because my choice is limited to people I could never love," that person has a legitimate gripe.

If same sex marriage is illegal, and a bisexual man falls in love with a man, and wants to marry him, then perhaps he has a gripe too.

But if same sex marriage is legal, then that bisexual man could marry a man, or a woman, whichever one they choose, and they are not being denied the right to marry whomever they choose.

Claiming a "civil right" to marry more than one person at the same time is a completely separate issue. A bisexual person who wishes to enjoy polygamy is no different than a straight person who wishes to enjoy polygamy, from a legal standpoint. So in my opinion, bringing up bisexuals' "civil rights" as a slippery slope argument against legalizing same sex marriage, it fails.

I think the fact that some people are asking the question indicates that some people think sexual enjoyment is the primary reason people get married.

[Smart3]

I've never heard of a person who wanted to be married to a woman and a man. However I have no objection to this, and actually find it more acceptable than other forms of marriage equality.

I'm of the opinion though that all marriages should be recognized and respected in the law.

[FrankRep]

I've never heard of a person who wanted to be married to a woman and a man. However I have no objection to this, and actually find it more acceptable than other forms of marriage equality.

I'm of the opinion though that all marriages should be recognized and respected in the law.

Why not kick law out of marriage?

You know, the whole small government thing..

[Smart3]

Why not kick law out of marriage?

You know, the whole small government thing..

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Government getting out of controlling people's lives?

[muh_roads]

Everything the sock puppets do is for votes. The young are more open to this issue but are also the smallest voting block.

More civil liberties in this realm will grow as more of the old people set in their ways die off. Sadly it takes time.