• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds to expand legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages

AGENT J

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Feds to expand legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages - CNN.com
Feds to expand legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages



(CNN) -- In a major milestone for gay rights, the United States government plans to expand recognition of same-sex marriages in federal legal matters, including bankruptcies, prison visits and survivor benefits.Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages "to the greatest extent possible under the law." The federal expansion will include 34 states where same-sex marriage isn't legal, but the new federal benefits being extended to those states will apply only where the U.S. government has jurisdiction, Holder said. For example, a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts can now have their federal bankruptcy proceeding recognized in Alabama, even though it doesn't allow same-sex marriages.

"This means that, in every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States -- they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder said of his initiative. Under the new policy, the Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases should have the same legal rights as all other married couples -- including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouses. Also, the government won't contest same-sex married couples their rights in states where previously prosecutors could argue that the marriage is not recognized in the state where the couple lives, Holder said.. In the past, the U.S. government could challenge the couple's joint bankruptcy because Alabama doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Another victory for equal rights and equality!

WHile it was already clarified before that same sex marriages in states that dont have equal rights already have the FED factually recognizing them and they are legal this is an expansion. THis was also true regardless of whether that state was granting equality or not.

Now they are clarifying even further and expanding even further making everything as equal as possible, federally.

This is just another stepping stone in the road to national equal rights!



#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!


back up links:
Same-Sex Spouses Get New Federal Rights, Holder Says - WSJ.com
Justice Department to give married same-sex couples sweeping equal protection - The Washington Post
Federal Government Expands Legal Rights to Same-Sex Marriages | FOX17online.com
Federal government to expand recognition of same-sex marriage - latimes.com
 
AGENT J said:
Feds to expand legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages - CNN.com


Another victory for equal rights and equality!

WHile it was already clarified before that same sex marriages in states that dont have equal rights already have the FED factually recognizing them and they are legal this is an expansion. THis was also true regardless of whether that state was granting equality or not.

Now they are clarifying even further and expanding even further making everything as equal as possible, federally.

This is just another stepping stone in the road to national equal rights!



#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!


back up links:
Same-Sex Spouses Get New Federal Rights, Holder Says - WSJ.com
Justice Department to give married same-sex couples sweeping equal protection - The Washington Post
Federal Government Expands Legal Rights to Same-Sex Marriages | FOX17online.com
Federal government to expand recognition of same-sex marriage - latimes.com
Click to expand...

Too bad they ignored the law to get there. Kinda cheapens the victory.
 
apdst said:
The Federal law that prohibits the VA from providing benefits to gays.

Obama administration won't enforce VA ban on same-sex benefits - CNN.com

Breaking the law, to help people, isn't helping anyone. It's a sad day in this country when the president circumvents the law to suit his agenda.
Click to expand...

weird the your link disagrees with your "opinion" what makes your opinion fact over DOMA being struck down and the process they went though?

also whats september 4th have to do with this topic and this info coming out today and it being done legally?

The Justice Department has been reviewing federal rules and regulations to see what it can legally change on its own without legislation from Congress.
Click to expand...

so again, what law are you talking about, factually
 
AGENT J said:
weird the your link disagrees with your "opinion" what makes your opinion fact over DOMA being struck down and the process they went though?

also whats september 4th have to do with this topic and this info coming out today and it being done legally?



so again, what law are you talking about, factually
Click to expand...

OK, let's try this one...

"While the Supreme Court's ruling in the Windsor case last summer required the federal government to recognize such unions in states which also recognize them, the Court was conspicuously silent on the status of such couples when they reside in a state which considers them unmarried," Perkins pointed out. "The Obama administrations haste to nevertheless recognize such unions in every state actually runs counter to the Windsor decisions emphasis on the federal government's obligation to defer to state definitions of marriage."

Justice Department to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples in All US States
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
OK, let's try this one...
Click to expand...

what are we trying?
are you trying to move from YOUR opinion to now the opinion of Tony Perkins?

the president of Family Research Council???

just based on your posts here (we'll let that speak for itself) your opinion is better than his LMAO , nobody honest takes the FRC seriously they are a hate group.

so try again, i ask what law are you talking about, factually?

and let it be known if there is a law FACTUALLY being broken i will agree thats not the way to go
 
Uh oh, this is going to upset jesus, who will now start punishing us with hurricanes and snow storms.

And who gives a flying rat's ass about violating a law that specifically denied equal rights to certain citizens? If there were a law that black people didn't have voting rights, I wouldn't be upset if that law were broken either.

As far as I'm concerned, any law that is applied unequally and unjustly isn't a law at all.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Uh oh, this is going to upset jesus, who will now start punishing us with hurricanes and snow storms.

And who gives a flying rat's ass about violating a law that specifically denied equal rights to certain citizens? If there were a law that black people didn't have voting rights, I wouldn't be upset if that law were broken either.

As far as I'm concerned, any law that is applied unequally and unjustly isn't a law at all.
Click to expand...

LOL well the jesus "extremists" were already upset when they learned that FED already recognized marriage "federally" so they will get over it

also while i do agree in principle about laws violating rights I would prefer its done the right way but, theres no factual evidence of it being the wrong way. Its just a way people dont like. Well . . . oh well :)
 
AGENT J said:
LOL well the jesus "extremists" were already upset when they learned that FED already recognized marriage "federally" so they will get over it

also while i do agree in principle about laws violating rights I would prefer its done the right way but, theres no factual evidence of it being the wrong way. Its just a way people dont like. Well . . . oh well :)
Click to expand...

If the dumbass congress makes laws that discriminate, it is every American's duty to completely ignore them.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If the dumbass congress makes laws that discriminate, it is every American's duty to completely ignore them.
Click to expand...

thats to much chaos and anarchy for my taste but i like your fire
 
AGENT J said:
thats to much chaos and anarchy for my taste but i like your fire
Click to expand...

Ok, so, if the congress made a law saying that African Americans can't marry, going completely contrary to the will of the people, you'd respect that because "It's the law."? I suspect not. The government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and we don't have to simply accept everything they do.

The supreme court has already ruled 13 times that marriage is a fundamental human right, so this shouldn't even be a discussion. The discriminatory law is illegal.
 
apdst said:
OK, let's try this one...
Click to expand...

That is a stretch. The Justice Department is only extending federal benefits to married same sex couples. It is not obligating states that do not recognize same sex marriage into granting any benefits or recognizing those unions in any way. His argument is because SCOTUS did not explicitly state one way or the other whether same sex couples in states that do not recognize marriage are entitled to federal benefits, that they are not. It is the man's opinion, not the law.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
1.)Ok, so, if the congress made a law saying that African Americans can't marry, going completely contrary to the will of the people, you'd respect that because "It's the law."? I suspect not.
2.)The government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and we don't have to simply accept everything they do.

3.)The supreme court has already ruled 13 times that marriage is a fundamental human right, so this shouldn't even be a discussion. The discriminatory law is illegal.
Click to expand...

1.) respecting the law and wanting it properly changed are two different things, theres laws right now i dont "respect" but i dont want them broken or the rules of the government broken
2.) again on the surface and for this topic thats to much chaos and anarchy for my taste
3.) 14 actually, the law is discriminatory i agree
 
AGENT J said:
1.) respecting the law and wanting it properly changed are two different things, theres laws right now i dont "respect" but i dont want them broken or the rules of the government broken
2.) again on the surface and for this topic thats to much chaos and anarchy for my taste
3.) 14 actually, the law is discriminatory i agree
Click to expand...

I can understand your view, I don't necessarily agree with it. However, with that said I'm of the thought that if you feel a law is bad and you don't want to follow it, just expect to pay the consequences when your caught breaking the law.

I used to speed quite a bit, but I knew that if I were caught it was MY fault and I would have to pay the consequences for it. In fact, I racked up about 3 very hefty tickets doing it. I never blamed the officer that gave me the ticket.
 
TheNextEra said:
1.)I can understand your view, I don't necessarily agree with it. However, with that said I'm of the thought that if you feel a law is bad and you don't want to follow it, just expect to pay the consequences when your caught breaking the law.

I used to speed quite a bit, but I knew that if I were caught it was MY fault and I would have to pay the consequences for it. In fact, I racked up about 3 very hefty tickets doing it. I never blamed the officer that gave me the ticket.
Click to expand...

but in some cases its impossible, like this topic. Gays just cant break the law and be LEGALLY married
 
CriticalThought said:
That is a stretch. The Justice Department is only extending federal benefits to married same sex couples. It is not obligating states that do not recognize same sex marriage into granting any benefits or recognizing those unions in any way. His argument is because SCOTUS did not explicitly state one way or the other whether same sex couples in states that do not recognize marriage are entitled to federal benefits, that they are not. It is the man's opinion, not the law.
Click to expand...

Correct states rights are fully intact
 
TheNextEra said:
I can understand your view, I don't necessarily agree with it. However, with that said I'm of the thought that if you feel a law is bad and you don't want to follow it, just expect to pay the consequences when your caught breaking the law.

I used to speed quite a bit, but I knew that if I were caught it was MY fault and I would have to pay the consequences for it. In fact, I racked up about 3 very hefty tickets doing it. I never blamed the officer that gave me the ticket.
Click to expand...

This is not equatable to a speeding violation.
 
Deuce said:
This is not equatable to a speeding violation.
Click to expand...

yeah not quite the same


unfortunately some laws are easily breakable or you can break them in protest or find legal ways around them just to do or in protest and its easier to fight.

FOr instance being married were its legal then moving to where its not. Its not a crime but they dont recognize it and its easy to fight for ones rights under those circumstances.


but for example gun laws.

I can very well open carry where i want or even worse conceal carry where i want because that could be a felony lol changes things dramatically because if it wasnt like that i would gladly carry in protest. :)

anyway back on topic its nice that at least the federal side is working hard to grant equal rights for federal benefits

sooner or later though it will be national state too.
 
Yes, one more step closer to recognizing the civil rights of gays!

As I've written in the past, I dont want to be part of the generation, that when it comes to our treatment of gays, history looks back on like we look back at those that resisted civil rights for blacks and women....where 'ignorant' is the kindest thing we can say.
 
apdst said:
The Federal law that prohibits the VA from providing benefits to gays.

Obama administration won't enforce VA ban on same-sex benefits - CNN.com

Breaking the law, to help people, isn't helping anyone. It's a sad day in this country when the president circumvents the law to suit his agenda.
Click to expand...

Just because something is lawful doesn't mean it's morally right. It's a fine line, but I have no problem with an unjust law being circumvented, especially if authoritarian policies keep that law in place
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom