“It is currently law, but laws can be repealed. This one needs to be, and if a shutdown is what the Democrats need in order to agree to it, then I say let the shutdown continue for as long as necessary.”
dchotrod69 on Oct 3, 2013 at 17:39:33
“It doesn't NEED to be repealed. That is just your opinion. Even so, there is a normal channel for laws to be repealed or amended...NOT through political hostage taking. In case you forgot, the man that said he'd repeal Obamacare on day 1 lost. That is very relevant here.”
“I don't enjoy venting. I do enjoy gloating. Don't hold your breath waiting for the glitches to be fixed while the federal government is shut down. Don't hold your breath waiting for the glitches to be fixed after the government reopens, because the first thing that will happen is the website will go down due to Obamacare being delayed if not repealed. Have fun with your worthless and effete health care "reform".”
murphthesurf3 on Oct 2, 2013 at 08:04:31
“I signed on as part of my work as an ACA Navigator. We were told to log in on Day One so we could mirror the experience of those we are working with. The system got a much heavier use than expected. It got better as the day went on. Delayed- a bit by the mechanics but that is only the signup. Repealed- after 2016 with a new president but I wouldn't want to be the Party that tries to sell that then. Taking away the health care that people had two years to get used to....oh yeah, that will work. Right!”
“The country is the land and its people. We don't need no stinking federal government except to defend the country and leave the people free. That's been paid for, so as far as I'm concerned the government is functioning properly at the moment.”
Gail Cerridwen on Oct 2, 2013 at 15:22:44
“Really? My guess is you're thinking only SOME of its people, the ones like you. Ever seen an undeveloped country? That's what we'll have if people like you get their way.
The fed gov oversees: law and order (necessary WITHIN the nation also), environmental security (doesn’t happen on its own), health care (includes Center for Disease Control), education (ensuring states don’t teach the Spaghetti Monster instead of evolution so our nation can remain competitive globally), transportation (want to do away with INTERstates?), law and order, business between states, fair elections . . .”
“Who wouldn't want a government offer of free money? Oh that's right, the people the government takes the money from to pay it out.”
AnthonyAfterwit on Oct 2, 2013 at 02:51:46
“When Michelle Bachman gives back her farm subsidies I'll talk. When Exxon Mobile, the richest company on earth gives back their government subsidies, I'll talk. When republicans agree that spending money on the health of it's people is as important if not more so than spending it on antiquated cold war military arms, I'll talk. Until then, talk to the hand.”
“My religious beliefs are irrelevant here. *Civil* marriage is the *legal* union of a man and a woman. Anything else is simply an oxymoron. A state cannot make two men married to each other by issuing them a marriage certificate any more than it can make a missing person dead by issuing him a death certificate.”
“No more than I got against any other "Christian" denomination that promotes Jesus as a gay-loving hippie.
And you might be aware that the Episcopal church is essentially the American arm of the Church of England, which came into existence because one particular Catholic didn't like the fact that he couldn't get divorced.”
VirginiaJeff on Oct 2, 2013 at 10:49:09
“So? As for Jesus, you'd hate Him if you met Him.”
“I didn't suggest that gays should marry. I noted that they can, and under the same conditions that are imposed on straights. The fact that they do not find those conditions appealing does not render the law discriminatory, any more than a law banning alcohol discriminates against alcholics. Equality means an equal right to the same thing, not a right to be equally satisfied by what you are given.
Luckily for you, I'm not Catholic, or I would feel morally obligated to report your heresy to the Vatican. Suffice it to say your position is contrary to that of the Church.”
Father Geoffrey Farrow on Oct 2, 2013 at 12:26:36
Again, your logic is fundamentally flawed. It would be the equivalent of defending laws that prohibited interracial marriage by saying: Everyone has a right to marriage, you just can't have a mixed race marriage.
In their landmark 1967 decision the U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virgina, ruled that marriage was a Civil Right.
Perhaps it is not your logic that is flawed, as much as you lack of empathy for the unjust suffering of other human beings.
Please, report away, I think your a little late though.
“Homosexuals have the same right to marry as similarly-situated heterosexuals do. Therefore, there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
P.S. You're obviously not Catholic.”
herewegoagain2 on Oct 2, 2013 at 15:24:28
“I find the world to be a simple and easy place to live when my brain is short circuiting too.”
BeninOakland on Oct 2, 2013 at 13:21:15
“That's just like saying that every has to attend my church. no one is being treated differently, everyone has the same rights.
And if marriage equality is the law, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry as similarly situated heterosexuals do. But wait! you don't want to marry someone of the same sex because the gender of your spouse is of enormous importance to you?
Can I marry your daughter? I am thoroughly homosexual, not a heterosexual bone in my body. I'll never lover the way a woman needs to be loved, I'll always be thinking of men. I'm sure I'll make her happy if she doesn't mind being miserable. and then, after 30 years, and unable to stand it any more, i'll dump her. I sounds like a perfect plan.”
Another Allen Walker on Oct 2, 2013 at 08:41:33
“You keep making that claim, and yet you refuse to defend it when it's pointed out that, by your own admission, current marriage laws are purely arbitrary, and allowing people of the same sex to marry doesn't harm anyone. Repeating a failed argument isn't going to make it work.”
Atwill on Oct 2, 2013 at 07:38:51
“Right. A gay man can marry a woman and then tell her he is gay , he doesnt love her and he just married her for convience and go off to his male partner. No harm in that.”
spidermom on Oct 2, 2013 at 06:10:08
“So, South Carolina now allows same sex marriage and recognizes same sex marriages preformed in other states? Since when?”
Matt Filippini on Oct 2, 2013 at 03:19:44
“Jenny can marry Peter and Matt can marry Michelle, but when you switch the genders, Jenny cannot marry Michelle and Matt cannot marry Peter. This is clear gender discrimination.”
VirginiaJeff on Oct 2, 2013 at 01:20:17
“You got something against Episcopalians? ”
Father Geoffrey Farrow on Oct 2, 2013 at 00:59:54
Your logic is flawed since it suggest that a person marry someone to whom they are not attracted. Obviously, such a marriage would end in two very unhappy people. You would thus make two victims, instead of one.
I was ordained in 1985 for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno. Google me if you wish to know more.
lovingthismoment50 on Oct 2, 2013 at 00:56:23
“You can argue that but there is CLEAR discrimination based on gender.”
“"Just because you are not a sexual person doesn't mean you are not attracted to someone or can love someone."
Great, so just because you are not a heterosexual person doesn't mean you are not attracted to someone or can love someone of the opposite sex.
While I believe equality is granted whether or not homosexuals are capable of opposite-sex attraction, you're making my point even stronger by admitting that such attraction is in fact possible.
And regardless, the Constitution simply does not demand recognition of same-sex "marriage". 3/4 of the states ban the practice, and you'll have a hard time convincing me, or a court that's not already ultra-liberal, that they ever intended to legalize it in the federal Constitution when they ratified it Incidentally, 3/4 is the precise proportion of states needed to remove the right to same-sex "marriage" even if it were there, so I wouldn't rest too easy if I were you, even if everything you say comes to pass.
How each state interprets its own constitution is its own business, of course, but it's worth noting that over 30 states include the ban on same-sex "marriage" in their constitutions, so the "state supreme court" tactic of getting it legalized isn't going to work for much longer.”
“So then hospitals are charging what taxpayers will pay. Alright, that makes a little more sense. Maybe if the taxpayer decided to pay less the hospitals and insurance companies would charge less, no?”
Daschenk on Oct 2, 2013 at 00:45:56
“pay less to save your life, hardly. Ideally when im seriously insured id like to 'shop around' for the best deal, but im not counting on being able to”