David Vitter Apolgizes For Serious Sin

cant we all just be life partners?

 

I've already given you several examples of how this affects people in practical terms. There is no more I can do. Martin has spoken, and so it doth cometh to pass. Amen and amen.

 

I've heard that plans are already underway for his new movie, "An Inconvenient Lisp".

 

right, most of them were not government issues. if you cant make your health insurance cover your gay lover, then too bad. get different insurance. family leave, nursing homes, what does this have to do with the government? stop trying to make the government manage everyone. if i run a business and i do not want to give a homo family leave, too bad. none of your business.

this is clearly made up. you must have gotten this from a gay rights website. if you make points like this you lose credibility. if i own a nursing home, clearly i can let anyone die together there. you are apparently in favor of the government forcing your will on nursing homes.

some of the other issues, the tax breaks for example, are silly and married people shouldnt really get these benefits either. equal treatment, yunno?

 

Everything I've mentioned has to do with the government, more specifically programs using federal funding like Medicare and Social Security.

The nursing homes I'm talking about are Federally financed by Medicaid, not posh retirement communities in Boca Raton. If a gay couple uses for this benefit via Medicare, they have no rights to stay together like married people do. Boo Hoo I know, but how devastating would it be to an 80 year old gay couple to basically have to be seperated by the govt in their final years?

But we are diverging into two different topics: whether these benefits should exist for anyone in the first place, and whether these benefits should extend to "civil unions". Like you, I question the need for half of the things I've listed, but if they are going to provide these rights and services to straights, I do not think that it is fair to withhold these things based on sexual preference.

 

All of the issues you raise can be fixed without re-defining marraige.

 

That would be fine with me. Call it a "Federal Civil Union" or something, transfer the equal rights, and let the churches decide their own stance on marrying gays. To me that would be the best outcome, and a fair compromise.

 

It happened in 2001, and before that in the late 90s. For his sake I hope there are not more revelations coming out.