The Choice: His Country or His Partner?

So what about my legally immigrated wife and step daughter? She is my partner by marriage (7 years) and due to circumstances beyond our control we are in a financial bind, yet they can't even get a food stamp. I can. Most people will sacrifice for their partners. Tell Guest: Less Champagne more out of pocket insurance. No GAY in that.

THE INCEST PRACTICING CLAN
There is group!

THE INCEST PRACTICING CLAN
There is group!

I think DCHappy is more than a few fries short of a happy meal.

Boy, dchappy's ignorance is appalling. In addition to the poor grammar and poor attempts at spelling, a quick search on the web debunks dchappy's assertion that "EVEN IN THE ANIMAL WORLD HAVING SEX WITH THE SAME SEX IS NOT FOUND."

It's perfectingly acceptable to have an strong opinion the subject of homosexuality, but please expend a little effort to base the opinion on facts, not ignorance.

The irony here is that Secretary Rice is most likely g*y herself.

Note that in my 9:04am post, what was "There is absolutely NO reason why the law should neutrally recognize marriage." should read "There is absolutely NO reason why the law shouldN'T neutrally recognize marriage." Plus, I said that the law is, OR SHOULD BE, neutral. A general evaluation of laws from local all the way up to national shows an extreme inconsistancy throughout the entire legal system. No consistancy, no logical design, just simply a bad system all around. Heck, compare age limits from state to state as well as from law to law. Can't legally buy alcohol til you're 21, can't legally join the military and die in war til you're 18, and various proposed legislations to prohibit buying rated M video games til you're 17 or 18 or older. BUT, depending on the state you're in, you can legally give your consent to sexual relationships 2 or 3 years earlier than that PLUS legally buy UnCut editions of movies such as SAW or American Pie (note the difference between LAW and store POLICY (which many stores don't even regulate the sale of movies but DO regulate the sales of video games). And that's just a tiny sample. So I'm not claiming that the law IS intelligently designed and neutral, only that an intelligently design legal system WOULD BE neutral. Andrew

I have always found the lies and deceit of the "moral majority" to be evidence of worshipping, not an honorable or ethical God, but of worshipping a Demon-Pretender-To-The-Throne-Of-Heaven. Religious individuals who need to lie and deceive others to force their beliefs upon others (note the difference between forcing others to FOLLOW their beliefs versus merely ACCEPTING that someone else follows a different path (by nature or nurture)) are clearly the true immoral ones. Homosexuals are not happy? Here is a FACT: Bigots verbally, mentally, physically, and sexually abuse people who are different, notably homosexuals. Tell me oh great "morally superior" ones, if YOU were abused day in and day out BECAUSE of who YOU are, would you be happy? The FACT is that homosexuals are not, contrary to popular beliefs, unhappy merely because they are homosexual. They may actually be unhappy because of bigoted, dishonorable, unethical, corrupt guttertrash posing as "morally superior" individuals who think it's honorable and ethical to be verbally, mentally, phsyically, and/or sexually abusive to them. "Oh, they would just be happy if they became like us!" How many child abuse victims have you told "grin and bear it". How many abuse victims in schools have you told "ignore it and they'll stop" only to find out that the victim either became a life long victim of abuse or became an abuser themselves? How many domestic violence abuse victims have you told "just do what they say and they'll stop"? Politically Correct? WRONG! That's the argument of abuse enablers. There are two forms of marriage: legal and religious. While your religious organization may choose not to offer religious marriage ceremonies, does not mean that the law shouldn't. What bearing or effect do two people getting married anywhere in the US have on any one of you? If you didn't know who they were, but knew somewhere in the US a couple were getting married, how would it affect you positively or negatively? Either religiously or in ANY other way? The FACT is, it doesn't. Not identifying whether they were a heterosexual or homosexual couple, it WOULDN'T affect you any differently one way or the other. The FACT is that those opposed to gay marriage are nothing more than bigots who wish to create a Theocratic Dictatorship. There is absolutely NO reason why the law should neutrally recognize marriage. YOUR religion is YOUR religion. You DON'T have to "accept" or "tolerate" anyone of any race, other religion, gender, sexuality, or any other group in your beliefs. HOWEVER, the LAW is, or should be, neutral. Since such acts do NOT violate your Rights (and despite what anyone wants to lie and deceive others about, gay marriage do NOT violate YOUR Rights in any way, shape, or form), then there is NO reason why it shouldn't be legal. It's that simple. Andrew

In response to saa001: Sometimes people must grandstand in order for change to occur. This is an example of a reason why marriage is no longer the same institution it was centuries ago. In biblical times I'm sure that when Jesus contemplated marriage he did not consider a gay state department employee being denied equal treatment. I'm sure that the entire purpose for marriage 2000 years ago was perceived differently. There was no need for joint healthcare, survivorship benefits, healthcare proxies, etc. We don't have to call this marriage. In this situation just recognize that this person is risking his safety in order to serve the United States. He should be given the benefit of having his one chosen partner with him, and he should have the same peace of mind to know that his partner's safety is being considered. Is that too much to ask?

I'd like to make another well informed comment directed to all your naysayers, those of you believing this was some sort of choice, but after reading a lot of this thread I'm too disheartened; you're already acting just too narrow minded to have a conversation with.

To Astro56 - It sounds like the government is finally doing something right. The majority of Americans are against same sex marriage, so why should Rice, or anyone else in government, consider giving gay partners the same rights as married couples.

I know of many thousands of young men and women, who chose between their mother, father, sister, and brother, to serve for the people of the United States. Their heart's obligation was to stand up for their fellow American's future, with little regard of their own. Guest doesn't belong in government because he is gay, but because he has no solid desire to serve this country.

But, csim, if the government TOLD you, through policy, that you couldn't be Lutheran to receive the same benefits and protections as all other religious employees, would it then matter? If their policies and procedures indicated that you had to be of very specific religious backgrounds or not be eligible for the benefits of other employees, would you not consider that a violation of your Rights? Certainly, you are free to not work there or you are free to quit. But SHOULD it be of importance to anyone else other than you? Suppose they told you that you could not rise to a certain pay grade if you had a minor child living with you? Give up your child, never receive the same opportunities as others, or quit. Should that matter to anyone else, especially if the majority of citizens didn't know about such policies and procedures? Andrew

NIGHTWING - I am not "arguing". Silly comment. I am merely stating the fact that this is not news. It is a personal decison that this person is unhappy about the consequences and expects the gov't to fix for him. Great. Can they fix my home loan? Can they fix my car loan? Those are personal choices as well. I am unhappy about the consequences of those loans. FIX IT Uncle Sam - FIX IT NOW. Typical Amercian. Why should I have to "do" anything. The govt should fix it for me. I'll just sit here.

There is nothing unfair about this situation, he is just mad because he didn't get his way. Unmarried couples received the same treatment so there is no discrimination here. He is just grandstanding.