Best political irony of the week

[Anonymous]

From The Carpetbagger Report:

The Federal Marriage Amendment is back — with Vitter’s and Craig’s support
Posted June 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Just this week, a group of Republican senators re-introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which, as we know, would ban gay marriage.

And once again, the language is pretty straightforward:

Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.

This isn’t especially surprising. Republicans are looking at the political landscape, and they’re feeling awfully discouraged. The polls look bad, the base looks depressed, and fundraising looks iffy. Rallying the far-right troops with an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution — even though it has no chance at even getting so much as a hearing — might be helpful to the conservative movement.

But the funny part is looking over the list of the 10 original sponsors. Most of the names are predictable — Brownback and Inhofe, for example — but there are two others whose names stand out: Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho).

Yes, two of the principal sponsors of a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage include one far-right Republican who hired prostitutes and another far-right Republican who was arrested for soliciting gay sex an airport men’s room. . . .

[Anonymous]

I don't know -- here's another irony -- Obama doesn't have as many well paid senior women on his staff as McCain does:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080630a.html

[Anonymous]

The marriage thing is a bummer since most republicans care more about taxes than this issue--the only thing that mobilizes me are people stealing my hard earned money--who someone chooses to spend their nights with is the least of my concerns and or my business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know -- here's another irony -- Obama doesn't have as many well paid senior women on his staff as McCain does:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080630a.html

OP here. Yes, and Obama only started adding them very recently. His campaign has been almost exclusively run by white men.

[Anonymous]

What about the Jesse Jackson comment-I love the "hot mike" ..as if!!! answer which is like a robber saying he is so sorry that he got caught. My favorite was watching Al Sharpton squirm as he was trying to find a way for the comments not to look so bad. Whatever-I actually thought Obama's remarks ..even if true..were the sort of thing I would want a president calling out unless he is going to talk about everyone and I think there is a problem with men not taking responsibility in general and it isn't simply a "black" thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The marriage thing is a bummer since most republicans care more about taxes than this issue--the only thing that mobilizes me are people stealing my hard earned money--who someone chooses to spend their nights with is the least of my concerns and or my business.

Although I appreciate the gist of your sentiment, reducing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples to "who someone chooses to spend their nights with" is ignorant and minimizing of the commitments involved in ALL marriages. There are more than 1000 legal rights that are not available to my family as a result of our inability to obtain a legal marriage - and one in particular that is recognized at a Federal level (which NONE of the individual state marriages or domestic partnerships are).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The marriage thing is a bummer since most republicans care more about taxes than this issue--the only thing that mobilizes me are people stealing my hard earned money--who someone chooses to spend their nights with is the least of my concerns and or my business.

Although I appreciate the gist of your sentiment, reducing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples to "who someone chooses to spend their nights with" is ignorant and minimizing of the commitments involved in ALL marriages. There are more than 1000 legal rights that are not available to my family as a result of our inability to obtain a legal marriage - and one in particular that is recognized at a Federal level (which NONE of the individual state marriages or domestic partnerships are).

My mother is a hardened 76 year old right wing Christian republican, and she Wholeheartedly supports gay marriage. She told me, in a whisper so that my father wouldn't hear her, that it is just a "darn shame" that people aren't able to legally commit to the person that they love, and that the government has no right to legislate morality. I almost dropped my drink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The marriage thing is a bummer since most republicans care more about taxes than this issue--the only thing that mobilizes me are people stealing my hard earned money--who someone chooses to spend their nights with is the least of my concerns and or my business.

Although I appreciate the gist of your sentiment, reducing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples to "who someone chooses to spend their nights with" is ignorant and minimizing of the commitments involved in ALL marriages. There are more than 1000 legal rights that are not available to my family as a result of our inability to obtain a legal marriage - and one in particular that is recognized at a Federal level (which NONE of the individual state marriages or domestic partnerships are).

My mother is a hardened 76 year old right wing Christian republican, and she Wholeheartedly supports gay marriage. She told me, in a whisper so that my father wouldn't hear her, that it is just a "darn shame" that people aren't able to legally commit to the person that they love, and that the government has no right to legislate morality. I almost dropped my drink.

Good to hear it - she gets it. It's a horrible thing not to be able to protect those you love.

[Anonymous]

I wrote the marriage is a bummer post. My point is that I am a conservative who has no problem with Gay marriage. While I will be honest and say that watching two people of same sex walk down the isle in my church would make me feel a bit uncomfortable, I think that is my problem and my church's problem (Catholic)-- a lot to do with me only hearing about gays through the "gay pride" parade which tends to have some kooks and not really knowing any gays as personal friends.... and that the government shouldn't get involved in the private lives of individuals. But...I would not vote just on that issue--I am voting on taxes plain and simple because I am sick of getting overtaxed and then having people saying that I should pay more. But..if I were gay, I would at this point vote republican. Why? Because Republicans want to abolish the inheritance tax and this affects gay people even more than straight. Why--right now if my hubby died or I died-we would just continue on without inheritance tax issues--problems would arise if both died at same time and then our children would see half of our wealth that we paid taxes for and saved just confiscated. Unbelievable. But..if I were gay and died my partner would have to pay an inheritance tax of up to 50% of our net worth. Now imagine if you owned a business together that had worth but wasn't liquid--then you would have to sell just to pay taxes. I realize some people would say-Oh you don't have to pay up to 50% unless your estate was worth 2 mil--but ..in DC area how many houses that are pretty average are over 1 mil and then you throw in investments and savings and maybe a business and walaaaa your whole livlihood has been stolen just because you worked hard to build wealth. I think that is unfair for anyone and I certainly think it would be scary for a same sex couple so until there was some sort of break in making gay marriage legal and I still think we are years from that. I would protect my partner/family by pushing to get his tax overturned and the best way of doing that is voting republican even if you don't agree with all their views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wrote the marriage is a bummer post. My point is that I am a conservative who has no problem with Gay marriage. While I will be honest and say that watching two people of same sex walk down the isle in my church would make me feel a bit uncomfortable, I think that is my problem and my church's problem (Catholic)-- a lot to do with me only hearing about gays through the "gay pride" parade which tends to have some kooks and not really knowing any gays as personal friends.... and that the government shouldn't get involved in the private lives of individuals. But...I would not vote just on that issue--I am voting on taxes plain and simple because I am sick of getting overtaxed and then having people saying that I should pay more. But..if I were gay, I would at this point vote republican. Why? Because Republicans want to abolish the inheritance tax and this affects gay people even more than straight. Why--right now if my hubby died or I died-we would just continue on without inheritance tax issues--problems would arise if both died at same time and then our children would see half of our wealth that we paid taxes for and saved just confiscated. Unbelievable. But..if I were gay and died my partner would have to pay an inheritance tax of up to 50% of our net worth. Now imagine if you owned a business together that had worth but wasn't liquid--then you would have to sell just to pay taxes. I realize some people would say-Oh you don't have to pay up to 50% unless your estate was worth 2 mil--but ..in DC area how many houses that are pretty average are over 1 mil and then you throw in investments and savings and maybe a business and walaaaa your whole livlihood has been stolen just because you worked hard to build wealth. I think that is unfair for anyone and I certainly think it would be scary for a same sex couple so until there was some sort of break in making gay marriage legal and I still think we are years from that. I would protect my partner/family by pushing to get his tax overturned and the best way of doing that is voting republican even if you don't agree with all their views.

Same-sex relationships are not recognized as being valid for inheritance purposes. Inheritances are taxed as income. So it's even worse than what you describe. This includes property that is owned jointly. And we are not eligible to receive our partner's Social Security OR pension benefits AT ALL. So, because I am staying at home with our child at this point in our lives, I am in the vulnerable position of having these years and my contribution to our family be WORTH NOTHING AT ALL in terms of my retirement years.

[Anonymous]

I definitely think that is awful--if two people make a committment to be there for each other and share expenses the government should stay out of it. The thing that is funny is that there are a lot of conservatives who may feel a bit funny about the gay issue in terms of what makes a marriage but who acknowledge that the government should not be confiscating someone's wealth as a form of fiscal renumeration no matter what their relationship is. For some reason this issue gets no press other than idiots like Warren Buffet who has now in his later years decided that the government should get everyone's stuff--of course he personally got to decide where his money is going since it is going to charity but that is personal control and every person should be able to decide how their tax paid funds should go without having it just taken away basically because they were responsible and lived under their means. On this issue beyond myself I do really feel for gay families because it affects them even more than people like me--esp. for the stay at home parent who might be thrown in a position to have to reenter workforce after years of taking care of kids because they and their parnter's funds were stolen.

[Anonymous]

Just curious -- what if three people want to make a commitment to each other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious -- what if three people want to make a commitment to each other?

Ask the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious -- what if three people want to make a commitment to each other?

Polygamy has nothing to do with marriage rights for same-sex couples. What's your point?

[Anonymous]

I've thought about the "three people" comment before but the reality is that we are addressing something that has reached critical mass in society --the fact of the matter are that gay people are here and they deserve the same pursuit of happiness. You don't have to agree with their lifestyle-that's your choice but the government shouldn't impede their rights and stealing from their wealth via inheritance tax or any other taxes that they are forced on because they can't be legally married is wrong. Again--I am someone who is not really comfortable with the idea of two men or two women getting married but our country is about freedom to live your life without the government getting involved.