Feds Deny Death Benefits to Gay Congressman's Spouse

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am surprised that the federal government does not have some sort of "civil union" law like many states. As polarized as the gay marriage issue is it is hard to tell if that will ever happen.
. . .

The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" passed a few years back by the federales bars recognition of gay marriage (or civil unions) under federal laws. Many states also have "Defense of Marriage" laws.

Very few states so far recognize gay marriage, civil unions or the like. The last time I checked, only Massachusetts allowed gay marriage. Vermont and Connecticut recognize civil unions and California has a domestic partnership law (read full employment for CA lawyers-it's a very unwieldy solution). There may be others, I haven't researched this issue in a few months.

Many European countries now recognize gay marriage-the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, as does South Africa. Most provinces of Canada recognize it as well.

The common practice in Europe is for all people to have two weddings, a civil ceremony performed by a governmental official which is the legal marriage and (if they desire) a traditional church ceremony. I wish the US would adopt a similar system and seperate the concept of social recognition of same sex unions from religious beliefs.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
if we admitt that gay people exist, the terrorists win.

why do you hate america, op?

And people call us on the right paranoid and full of fear.

heh. not really paranoid, I've just accepted the fact that 51% of the country would probably sleep easier if I were to get murdered tomorrow, knowing that there's one less *** on the street seeking to destroy the sacred institution of marriage, as if divorice hasn't done that already.

Obviously you have no understanding of the religious right. 99% of them would not want to see any type of harm come to you. However, they would all love to see you join their church and renounce your "heathen" ways.

Really I think a decent majority of the country doesn't care who you sleep with as long as they person is of legal age. The whole Republicans are bigots argument is just political fear mongering in order to get votes. Both sides do it and both sides are wrong.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

Hypocrticial in this way.

Foley gets caught sending icky e-mails and dirty sexual IMs to under aged pages.
He resigns the day the story comes out.
The left goes crazy!! Demands that everyone who ever knew about anything involving Foley and pages resign from Congress.

Mr Studds' has SEX with a 17 year old former page.
Story comes out and he refuses to resign and instead fights it and gets re-elected 7? times after this.
The left says NOTHING. Total silence, no calls for him to resign, no calls to investigate who knew what and when. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get it?
Republican talking dirty to page = bad
Democrat having sex with page = ok

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is just what happens when you break the law.

It is called getting fired.

I think they should throw this guy in jail.

This has nothing to do with being gay, this has to do with being fired for just cause. He resigned, but if he had not, he would have been asked to leave or arrested and taken away in handcuffs. Like a coward he ran away to an alcohol treatment facility.

I say leave this up to the courts to decide.

Uh, it will never get to the courts. Why? Because a crime wasnt committed. Solictiation is tenous at best, if they were going to charge him for it, it would have already happened. His behavior is creepy and disturbing, but it is very much a legal grey area and charges aren't likely.

Apparently though, he has had sex with several different pages, AFTER they turned 18.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

Hypocrticial in this way.

Foley gets caught sending icky e-mails and dirty sexual IMs to under aged pages.
He resigns the day the story comes out.
The left goes crazy!! Demands that everyone who ever knew about anything involving Foley and pages resign from Congress.

Mr Studds' has SEX with a 17 year old former page.
Story comes out and he refuses to resign and instead fights it and gets re-elected 7? times after this.
The left says NOTHING. Total silence, no calls for him to resign, no calls to investigate who knew what and when. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get it?
Republican talking dirty to page = bad
Democrat having sex with page = ok

QFT.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

Hypocrticial in this way.

Foley gets caught sending icky e-mails and dirty sexual IMs to under aged pages.
He resigns the day the story comes out.
The left goes crazy!! Demands that everyone who ever knew about anything involving Foley and pages resign from Congress.

Mr Studds' has SEX with a 17 year old former page.
Story comes out and he refuses to resign and instead fights it and gets re-elected 7? times after this.
The left says NOTHING. Total silence, no calls for him to resign, no calls to investigate who knew what and when. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get it?
Republican talking dirty to page = bad
Democrat having sex with page = ok

QFT.

As per the FBI investigation, Foley had sex with several different former pages after they turned 18.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
As per the FBI investigation, Foley had sex with several different former pages after they turned 18.

umm so? What does that have to do with anything? Studds had sex with his page after he turned 18 too. In fact they had a 7? year relationship or something like that.

If Foley wants to fall in love with a former page and spend the rest of his life with him than good for them. Just don't do it as a member of congress.

We should hold our members of congress to a higher level of standards than we do ourselves. We wound not accept it if a boss at any company was sending e-mails and IMs to 16 year old and then having sex with them after the left the company and turned 18. And we should not allow members of congress to do the same.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Wreckem
As per the FBI investigation, Foley had sex with several different former pages after they turned 18.

umm so? What does that have to do with anything? Studds had sex with his page after he turned 18 too. In fact they had a 7? year relationship or something like that.

If Foley wants to fall in love with a former page and spend the rest of his life with him than good for them. Just don't do it as a member of congress.

We should hold our members of congress to a higher level of standards than we do ourselves. We wound not accept it if a boss at any company was sending e-mails and IMs to 16 year old and then having sex with them after the left the company and turned 18. And we should not allow members of congress to do the same.

I think you took what I said the wrong way. I was pointing out that Foley did have sex with former pages. I was pointing out the fact that he did more than just send dirty ims.

Foley's resignation was the right thing to do. Hastert, and anyone else that knew about it should resign as well.

Studds should have resigned as well. But one could argue, if he was elected so many times after it was the peoples will.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

Hypocrticial in this way.

Foley gets caught sending icky e-mails and dirty sexual IMs to under aged pages.
He resigns the day the story comes out.
The left goes crazy!! Demands that everyone who ever knew about anything involving Foley and pages resign from Congress.

Mr Studds' has SEX with a 17 year old former page.
Story comes out and he refuses to resign and instead fights it and gets re-elected 7? times after this.
The left says NOTHING. Total silence, no calls for him to resign, no calls to investigate who knew what and when. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get it?
Republican talking dirty to page = bad
Democrat having sex with 17 year-old page = ok

QFT.

As per the FBI investigation, Foley had sex with several different former pages after they turned 18.

is that a crime? over 18? I editted and bolded the important part.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

Hypocrticial in this way.

Foley gets caught sending icky e-mails and dirty sexual IMs to under aged pages.
He resigns the day the story comes out.
The left goes crazy!! Demands that everyone who ever knew about anything involving Foley and pages resign from Congress.

Mr Studds' has SEX with a 17 year old former page.
Story comes out and he refuses to resign and instead fights it and gets re-elected 7? times after this.
The left says NOTHING. Total silence, no calls for him to resign, no calls to investigate who knew what and when. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get it?
Republican talking dirty to page = bad
Democrat having sex with page = ok

QFT.

Where are you getting the idea democrats forced foly to resign?

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

Hypocrticial in this way.

Foley gets caught sending icky e-mails and dirty sexual IMs to under aged pages.
He resigns the day the story comes out.
The left goes crazy!! Demands that everyone who ever knew about anything involving Foley and pages resign from Congress.

Mr Studds' has SEX with a 17 year old former page.
Story comes out and he refuses to resign and instead fights it and gets re-elected 7? times after this.
The left says NOTHING. Total silence, no calls for him to resign, no calls to investigate who knew what and when. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get it?
Republican talking dirty to page = bad
Democrat having sex with page = ok

Hypocrticial is to keep bringing up the name Gerry Studds and not bring up Dan Crane in the same subject....

But that would take the air out of the weak argument that the op and others in this thread have offered...

Dan Crane and Gerry Studds and the 1983 Page Scandal..

Intellectual dishonesty is not something to aspire to....

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

Hypocrticial in this way.

Foley gets caught sending icky e-mails and dirty sexual IMs to under aged pages.
He resigns the day the story comes out.
The left goes crazy!! Demands that everyone who ever knew about anything involving Foley and pages resign from Congress.

Mr Studds' has SEX with a 17 year old former page.
Story comes out and he refuses to resign and instead fights it and gets re-elected 7? times after this.
The left says NOTHING. Total silence, no calls for him to resign, no calls to investigate who knew what and when. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get it?
Republican talking dirty to page = bad
Democrat having sex with page = ok

QFT.

you realize that was thirty three years ago, right?

it came to light 23 years ago... I was 2 years old at the time. rofl.

how many members currently in the house were also there in 1973?

edit: the whole studds thing was also totally consenual as I understand it, while Foley's actions seemed a lot closer to sexual harrassment.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, I'll stipulate that Gary Studds probably should have resigned over the whole thing.

Yes, isn't it terrible when gay adults actually have sex. Especially when it is entirely consensual, and both parties would prefer that busy-bodies mind their own business.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Not necessarily, I just find it amusing that the same people playing down the Foley situation jump up and down when it comes to Studds.

Studds had a consensual/ consenting relationship withthe 17 year old. Whereas Foley basically forced his attentions on pages who may or may not have wanted the attention. One of the pages who received Foley's messages described them as "sick" so presumably he wasn't an entirely willing participant. Foley was sexually harrassing pages.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
The Page story was merely interesting... but hypocritical of the left.

Please explain

Hypocrticial in this way.

Foley gets caught sending icky e-mails and dirty sexual IMs to under aged pages.
He resigns the day the story comes out.
The left goes crazy!! Demands that everyone who ever knew about anything involving Foley and pages resign from Congress.

Mr Studds' has SEX with a 17 year old former page.
Story comes out and he refuses to resign and instead fights it and gets re-elected 7? times after this.
The left says NOTHING. Total silence, no calls for him to resign, no calls to investigate who knew what and when. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get it?
Republican talking dirty to page = bad
Democrat having sex with 17 year-old page = ok

QFT.

As per the FBI investigation, Foley had sex with several different former pages after they turned 18.

is that a crime? over 18? I editted and bolded the important part.

Based on todays laws, Studds didnt break any crimes either. At the time, yeah he did, the age of consent was 16(still is), however the age of consent for sodomy at the time was 18(now 16).

Still lurring/seducing/sexually harassing 15, 16, and 17 year olds and waiting till they turn 18 to screw them is morally unethical.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Not necessarily, I just find it amusing that the same people playing down the Foley situation jump up and down when it comes to Studds.

Studds had a consensual/ consenting relationship withthe 17 year old. Whereas Foley basically forced his attentions on pages who may or may not have wanted the attention. One of the pages who received Foley's messages described them as "sick" so presumably he wasn't an entirely willing participant. Foley was sexually harrassing pages.

Well actually the age of consent was 18 for sodomy at the time. He technically should have been charged with statutory rape.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CPA
But you don't find it amusing that every lib on this site was calling for Foley's head (when all he did was send some text messages), but none of them will recognize that their own party made the mistake of continuing to vote Studds into office, even after it was revealed he had sex with an underage page? They are awfully quiet right now.

I think that Foley's indiscretions were fairly minor, in the grand scheme of things. His behavior was unprofessional, and it is appropriate that he resigned. End of story. The guy isn't a monster or pedophile. Just a sad old lech who should have come out of the closet 40 years ago.

As for Studds, I don't have much of a problem with his behavior. I like the fact he turned his back on the house as the censure was being read. One issue here is people can't stand the thought that gay teenagers are sexually active, and sometimes want to have sex with an older man. (At the time of his relationship with the page, Studds was around 35 years old).

 

[hellokeith]

Homosexuality is a morally offensive behavior, just like unwed living together arrangements, polygamy, pornography, and pedophilia. The surviving participants should not be rewarded by receiving any type of benefits or unspecified estate property. Marriage is between one husband (male) and one wife (female). States really need to clamp down on this and send the message to our children that we 1) value traditional marriage and 2) do not reward gay behaviors and man-boy lust.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Homosexuality is a morally offensive behavior

nonsense. Homosexuality is morally neutral, just like heterosexuality.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Homosexuality is a morally offensive behavior, just like unwed living together arrangements, polygamy, pornography, and pedophilia. The surviving participants should not be rewarded by receiving any type of benefits or unspecified estate property. Marriage is between one husband (male) and one wife (female). States really need to clamp down on this and send the message to our children that we 1) value traditional marriage and 2) do not reward gay behaviors and man-boy lust.

hahahaha..... I see your other post about angry forum libs, then you post tripe like this......

 

[JD50]

What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children? If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term partnerships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father. Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.