In response to Jennifer Roback Morse’s remarks to the Minnesota house I have asked them the following questions. I post a screen shot of them here since NOM and the Ruth Institute are generally not interested in open civil debate. I don’t expect them to provide any answers to them.
Gay and Lesbian people exist. We always have and always will. Regardless of what NOM, the Ruth Institute, or any of the other discriminatory organizations that continue to turn our own government against us hope to achieve. Sometimes I truly wonder what their goal really is. Is it to try and somehow cure us and eliminate us? I don’t think that there really is a clear answer to that question and frankly if that is the goal, it’s a fool’s goal because it can never be achieved. More Gay and Lesbian Americans are born everyday. Trying to rid America of us makes about as much sense as trying to get rid of everyone with red hair.
So if we aren’t going away what sort of protections do we deserve if not marriage? The reality of the mater is that we do fall in love. We do have children. We do build lives and families together. We buy homes together. We go on vacations together. We worry about paying the bills together just like any other family. Is it right that when one of us dies we have no say over burial or that we have to pay gift taxes on the things we bought together as a couple? If one of us becomes sick do we not have a right to visit our partner? Should we not have any rights to the children we may have spent years raising together simply because the state won’t allow us to adopt our partner’s biological child?
These are questions that can’t be answered by a simple contract other than that of civil marriage. Contracts other than marriage can be and often are challenged in court by family members that may not approve of the same sex relationship.
Without marriage are we just supposed to live a life without love, in solitude, and unhappiness? If you deny us marriage, then what will you allow?
There is an appropriate federal role in incidents like this.
Obviously, the problem is that people in Virginia don’t have earthquake insurance.
All of us know that the federal government is busy spending money it doesn’t have.
While suggesting that any disaster relief be offset with spending cuts elsewhere.
There are very few things that I agree with Cantor on, DADT, DOMA, ENDA, just to name a few; my gut instinct here is to agree with him. Now, Think Progress makes it seem in their commentary as if Cantor doesn’t want to provide any federal aid to folks in Virginia who suffered property damage from the quake, which isn’t what he said as you can see in the quote above, but even if he had I’d have a hard time not agreeing with that as well.
I truly don’t believe that our Federal government should come running with it’s credit card out every time there Mother Nature has a hissy fit. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand that there are times where it’s necessary for the Fed to lend a hand in a disaster. The impending hurricane Irene being a good example. Having the National Guard help fill sandbags and even provide them in a flood is another example of good government help. Rescuing people stuck in New Orleans during Katrina is another one.
But if your home gets flattened by twister and you were dumb enough not have insurance or know if your policy covered twisters then I’m sorry for your loss but the government has no business bailing you out. If your Virginia business takes a hit because of an earthquake and you didn’t have earthquake insurance, you’re on your own.
Now the flip side of that of course is that I would be ok if the government were to say provide you with a low or no interest loan to help you rebuild, but to expect a handout from Uncle Sam for every disaster is part of the crap thinking that landed us with national debt that would make the Great Wall of China look like a speed bump.