Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 178

Thread: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Now this won't be rife with fraud.
    Explain. The article doesn't say what the parameters are.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by NDNdancer View Post
    Just for the record. Obama has a very long way to go before even approaching Bush's record on EO's (284). Everyone joked that he ruled by EO rather then governed.

    I'm assuming that that's the exact reason Obama doesn't change don't ask don't tell, or DOMA, he's waiting for congress to do it.
    Who needs EO's when you can assign 24 various "Czars" to usurp the constitution? What's next, everyone will start calling each other "comrade" in the COUSA (Community Organization of the United States of America)??

    Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.

    "They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege," Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

    "The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said.


    By the way, what about them 5,000,000 NEW jobs? When is that supposed to happen? We are spending the nation into a BIG HOLE and now we are creating a vast new bureaucracy for Universal health care and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

    With jobs continuing to disappear, who is paying for all this largess? What happened to pay-go? How are you going to get to pay-go? Why are Americans not outraged by this vast usurpation of power and spending?
    Last edited by Truth Detector; 06-17-09 at 01:22 PM.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by NDNdancer View Post
    After the DOJ defended DOMA last week and his refusal to reverse don't ask don't tell, he totally infuriated the gay rights activists, so, he throws them a bone. I guess it's progress.

    Obama Intends to Extend Federal Benefits to Unmarried Partners | 44 | washingtonpost.com
    Just another chip taken off of marriage.

    Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Just another chip taken off of marriage.

    Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
    Again, the article doesn't give any specific parameters.

    If you have information the rest of us don't , please share it.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Just another chip taken off of marriage.

    Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
    More of that slippery slope as we march to the beat of rationalization.

  6. #26
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Just another chip taken off of marriage.

    Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
    It's none of your business how others choose to form partnerships or how they wish to raise their families. They're deserving of tax supported benefits just as much as married couples are.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Again, the article doesn't give any specific parameters.

    If you have information the rest of us don't , please share it.
    No specific parameters....exactly...what's there to point out?

    If you give it to unmarried same-sex couples then you have to give to unmarried opposite-sex couples, and I would hazard the guess that there are far more of those than gay couples.

    If you're not married, **** you, you don't get the buffs.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    It's none of your business how others choose to form partnerships or how they wish to raise their families. They're deserving of tax supported benefits just as much as married couples are.
    By you own logic, rather they are or not is non of your business

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Just another chip taken off of marriage.

    Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
    What evidence is this you speak of?

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    re: Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    More of that slippery slope as we march to the beat of rationalization.
    You may want to check falicyfiles.com for proper instruction on exposing a slippery-slope. One of the first things the site will tell you is that simply declaring a fallacy does nothing. Come back when you have something

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •