So the Justice department can make laws and give benefits? (school, party)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If whoever his replacement is tries to start discriminating again, someone with cause will simply file suit and win easily since the issue has already been decided by SCOTUS. You act like the Obama administration is acting in some autocratic fashion issuing fiats that can easily be wiped out by whoever comes along next. The reality is that this went through the court system, all the way to the Supreme Court, and your side lost.
If you're so concerned about the fiscal impact, lobby your congressman to eliminate those benefits for everyone or to raise taxes to pay for it. Those are really your only two options. "Make the gays pay for it and deny them the benefits" is not actually a viable third option, regardless of how much you want it to be.
His replacement may just say that he will respect a state's right to not acknowledge gay marriage.
That's all it will take.
I asked a question and again get a platter full of guilt and deflection and extremism.
Why not just say you don't know where the money is coming from either ?
Where does any of the money for benefits come from?
Stop pretending that this is about anything other than protecting the status quo.
Seriously, if you believe that only heterosexuals deserve to receive benefits as a condition of employment, just say so.
These attempts at covering bigotry with a blanket of so-called fiscal responsibility are so old they are practically petrified.
His replacement may just say that he will respect a state's right to not acknowledge gay marriage.
That's all it will take.
What does Holder's or any Attorney General's acknowledgement of a State's marriage right have to do with providing federal benefits to couples that qualify?
Where does any of the money for benefits come from?
Stop pretending that this is about anything other than protecting the status quo.
Seriously, if you believe that only heterosexuals deserve to receive benefits as a condition of employment, just say so.
These attempts at covering bigotry with a blanket of so-called fiscal responsibility are so old they are practically petrified.
From Congress.
US Federal agencies can't just create new spending ..well they aren't supposed to.
States have laws and Holder just stepped all over them.
And you don't seem to give a damn about that because it suits you just fine that he did it.
One day the other party will be in charge and they just may stomp on state laws for THEIR own benefit.
And it may not be in our favor either.
Just keep that in mind.
02-09-2014, 10:30 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones
What does Holder's or any Attorney General's acknowledgement of a State's marriage right have to do with providing federal benefits to couples that qualify?
Nothing, but that's not really the point. HappyTexan doesn't even seem to understand the issue. He just clings to this money argument because he's convinced himself that complaining about the cost somehow fools the rest of us into thinking his concern is purely financial and not that he just doesn't want gay people to be treated equally under the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
From Congress.
US Federal agencies can't just create new spending ..well they aren't supposed to.
Didn't congress already fund these programs? Do you think the rest of government has to go to congress and say "Jim Bob has applied for this benefit, can you pass a bill to fund it?" Do you really think that's how government works?
US Federal agencies can't just create new spending ..well they aren't supposed to.
Holder is not writing the budget, OMB and Congress will do that. Holder is not creating any new benefits, He is assuring that the Federal benefits are extended to SS couples. The OMB has to have official instruction[authorization] to do so...they just don't read the papers on day and say DOMA is overturened...time to make the doughnuts.
Last edited by Chimuelojones; 02-09-2014 at 10:40 AM..
Nothing, but that's not really the point. HappyTexan doesn't even seem to understand the issue. He just clings to this money argument because he's convinced himself that complaining about the cost somehow fools the rest of us into thinking his concern is purely financial and not that he just doesn't want gay people to be treated under the law.
Didn't congress already fund these programs? Do you think the rest of government has to go to congress and say "Jim Bob has applied for this benefit, can you pass a bill to fund it?" Do you really think that's how government works?
Because I'm looking past the fixation on "gay marriage rights" that's why.
US Federal agencies can't just create new spending ..well they aren't supposed to.
States have laws and Holder just stepped all over them.
And you don't seem to give a damn about that because it suits you just fine that he did it.
One day the other party will be in charge and they just may stomp on state laws for THEIR own benefit.
And it may not be in our favor either.
Just keep that in mind.
What states rights did he "step" on?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
