Despite the National Organization for Marriage making clear that Carrie Prejean does not speak for them (outside of that “No Offense” ad), Miss California continues her media tour. Her latest stop? Greta Van Susteran’s show on Fox News, where she subjected viewers to a rambling interview about something — we’re now absolutely confident — she does not understand at all. Listen to Prejean, who calls her stance on marriage “not hateful, it’s not discriminatory,” declare herself “not a politician,” which is the excuse she uses for not knowing where she stands on civil unions. Or gays adopting. Just traditional marriage, which is the only thing she believes she’s a qualified expert on.
VAN SUSTEREN: What is your thought on civil unions?
PREJEAN: My thought on civil unions? You know what, Greta? I don’t have the answers to everything. I’m not running for political office. I don’t have the answers to everything, you know, in the world out there.
But I think that there should be rights for people, you know, especially in California. I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
But I would like to be more educated on that, so when I do have a better answer for you, I will get back to you on that one.
But so far I just support traditional marriage, and that’s my main focus.
VAN SUSTEREN: What about adoption?
PREJEAN: Greta, I am focusing on marriage right now, not adoption, not civil unions, just traditional marriage, and I’m going to do whatever it takes to promote that.
VAN SUSTEREN: I understand, and I understand your position on traditional marriage. I’m just sort of trying to figure out where you draw the line in terms of what kind of rights that you think that a man and woman should have that maybe two men, two women, shouldn’t have.
And that’s why I was asking the question on civil unions and adoptions. I was just trying to sort it out for myself what you think.
PREJEAN: Well, I’m not a politician, so I can’t give you an answer to that.
Tony
Thanks Perez, you gave this dimwit the opportunity to extend her fifteen minutes. Yikes.
Bruno
Thanks, Greta, for asking the questions. I was afraid that Fox would only put her on the more salacious shows like Hannity, but we got a reasonably hard interview out of Greta.
amazingpenis
I don’t mean to sound, as most people have said Perez was, too emotional and speaking without thinking, but… What a moron. She’ll speak with confidence against the gays but she doesn’t know shit about what even she thinks about it.
D-Sun
Is she secretly a fictional character created by Sacha Baron Cohen? I’m starting to wonder.
Brad
I love how she feels the need to stand up for something that she believes in so strongly, without having taken the time to fully develop her position on the issue. What an absolute moron.
Roy Pyatt
No offense to stumps but Carrie Prejean is as dumb as a stump.
Nickadoo
“But I would like to be more educated on that, so when I do have a better answer for you, I will get back to you on that one.”
Where have I heard that before?
“I’ll try to find some and I’ll bring ’em to ya.”
InExile
Dumb as a door knob which is a good thing. People will get tired of listening to her one sentence views of the perfect Christian world.
dvlaries
VAN SUSTEREN: I understand, and I understand your position on traditional marriage. I’m just sort of trying to figure out where you draw the line in terms of what kind of rights that you think that a man and woman should have that maybe two men, two women, shouldn’t have.
And that’s why I was asking the question on civil unions and adoptions. I was just trying to sort it out for myself what you think.
PREJEAN: Well, I’m not a politician, so I can’t give you an answer to that.
” I really don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, but things I don’t understand seem to threaten me, so I’m against them, whatever they are. Where’s my hairbrush….?”
The Gay Numbers
One of the reasons I don’t like referendums or voting for issues through ballot iniatives is precisely because people like her do not understand the issues involved. They are voting strictly based on emotions. This is why I thought it was funny that some people in CA did not realize voting for prop 8 would impact more people than just gays. These are not issues that should be decided based on emotions, but based on understanding what the law says. I understand she cherishes the fact she’s a know-nothing, but democracies can not last with this type of person voting on other people’s rights. If she can’t tell you why she thinks the way she does, that should be her first warning. But I don’t sense that she does realize that her ignorance is precisely why she shouldn’t get to decide my rights.
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
Plus human rights should never be decided by a majority vote.
Sapphocrat
I’d say she’s a dumb as a bag of hammers, but I like hammers — hammers are actually *useful* for something.
Mark
I’ll say it again.
The last time a beauty queen was asked for her opinion, Sarah Palin lost an election.
Is it okay now to let this blond bimbo go now? She’s had her 15 minutes and we all know now she’s a moron.
Jim
You guys are making a fatal mistake – you are crediting her with actually thinking. Something that seems far beyond her plastic mind and body.
alan brickman
dig it deeper girl…you should have tea with shirly tan instead and explain to a gay lesbian couple having their family torn apart by the “biblically correct”…..
geoff
So, I was just watching this Law and Order rerun about white supremists who swore up and down they don’t support violence, they are only trying to “support” the white race. I know, bullshit, right? And then I looked at this post that has the caption under Carrie Prejean saying she has joined the campaign to “promote” traditional marriage and well, am I crazy or is anyone connecting the same two dots? That this “promoting traditional marriage” thing is scarily close to those groups (and I haven’t just seen it on L&O) who are “only trying to promote and support the white race”. I think it might be interesting to look into how many of the same people are allied and affiliated with both types of organizations. Just sayin’.
Percival
I’d just like to point out the “do the doodies that I need to do” at 5:44 on that YouTube video. Apparently, I’m still in 3rd grade.
Sceth
“I do not want to raise my children in a world where this view (of marriage) is considered hateful or discriminatory.”
She shouldn’t have kids.
Jim
@Sceth: in the Bimbo’s own words – AMEN
TANK
Next anita bryant, only she’s not going to sink as low (or be as “influential”) because public opinion isn’t going to carry her, nor the bigoted organizations who are operating on the periphery of accetable behavior, losing. Predictable trajectory from this into trailer park obscurity. But, you never know. Maybe she’ll bag some rich prick who wants her as an accessory. In any event, her five minutes were up the moment her empty little mind decided on bigotry. From minor celebrity to embarrassing bigot…she’ll be going on tour with stephen baldwin.
Landon Bryce
This is, of course, why her initial comments were offensive. Not because she expressed a view on gay marriage that I disagree with but because she expressed a view on gay marriage that contradicted the facts and made no sense. That she has not since bothered filling in the blanks and coming to actually understand the issue that prevented a losing beauty pageant from lapsing properly into obscurity means that she is a genuinely awful person.
jjm16
Wow, she sounds so dumb. Makes me think of two women, a pageant girl from sc and a politician-someone who appeals for influence to advocate his/her stance on very political issues- from alaska. But, don’t ya know, actually those gays “especially in california” really should have “hospital rights” and stuff, especially since they’re so many of them and, ya know, they’re all in the hospital, i think. right? i’ll get back to you on all that other stuff I think when I learn more about it.
Mickey's Mouse
What prejean fails to understand is that we’re not saying heterosexual marriage is discriminatory. It’s only when men and women say that it should exclusively be men and women is when it’s discriminatory…She is a cunt, she is not intelligent enough to know what she’s talking about…And hopefully her 15 minutes of fame will end up with a stint at the betty….
Virilene
Whoa…someone got over-scheduled a bit perhaps? Can’t believe that Greta actually imPalinized her like that by asking real questions.
Let her 15 minutes keep going, the more she talks the stupider she shows herself to be, with the added benefit that she’s a lot easier to look at than Maggie Gallagher.
Hell, she’s hot even–I’d do her from behind AND from in front. She wouldn’t say so many stupid things if she had her mouth full.
Mr Saturn
We should have SOME rights?
SOME?
God this woman is stupid… I don’t even have the words…
The Lesbian Mafia
Ya know, at first I felt that she shouldn’t be chastised for being just as vocal as our president or any one of hundreds of openly homophobes in the media but now she has clearly put wheels on that trailer and is wanting to become famous at any cost. Pretty sad. She could always get a job as a stripper.
Slave owners “stood up for what they believed in” too … when they wouldn’t allow black ppl to marry each other and certainly no one white heaven forbid, they used their bibles to make that argument then too.
sal
apparently gays(or women) cant judge pageants..so says uncle pat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoeExgqHqWs
strumpetwindsock
Have we had enough stories about this woman yet?
You realize of course that at this point you’re just part of her P.R. machine.
Please, anything…. I’d even rather hear what Michael Lucas is up to this week, or stick needles in my eyes than see this sad old story again.
Has she actually said or done anything new and newsworthy to merit this attention?
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
You’re so self loathing. It’d be sad if you were…a person.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
“Sad, old” also applies to your stale putdowns.
I am simply saying to give her press when and if she actually does something – not everytime she sucks on a microphone.
I doubt many reasonable people are even paying attention to her. It’s just the fundies and easily offended people in our community.
And I am sure NOM and Fox are only tolerating her because of her ability to make some of us foam at the mouth and spin in circles.
But if she keeps getting stories written about her everytime she runs to the bathroom somebody is going to get the brilliant idea to groom her as the next pitbull with lipstick.
obey wan
I’m concerned that Social Security benefits will be extended to widows of gay spouses and this will further erode and possible bankrupt social security. The function of social security has always been that the next generation of children pay for the retirement of their parents. There is a real logistical problem in promoting childless gay marriage, when there are no children left to pay for the retirement of those gay spouses! The most likely answer will be that social security benefits will be eliminated for everyone to make it “fair and equal” and unemployed housewives will only resort to having their children pay for their golden years, which might not be that bad.
Social Security was set up with a mindset of the unemployed housewife relying on the husband’s paycheck to support her and her kids. Childless gay couples are more likely to have both spouses working and may not even need social security! Gay couples do not need to pay for children and will be better off financially. Another way to get around this would be to allow for widow benefits only in the event of children, that way it ensures that there are actually children out there willing to pay taxes for their parent’s retirement.
Gay couples can pay into retirement plans or obtain life insurance to compensate for the lack of Social Security. Gay couples should also enforce their legal union by obtaining a nuptial agreement between the spouses outlining the financial commitments of both parties.
TANK
Then lesbians and gays shouldn’t have to pay social security taxes. But lesbians and gays do have children in many cases, and further, if childless heterosexual couples are entitled, that’s just discrimination. Your concern is foolish.
I, however, think that social security taxes should be abolished altogether. Milton Friedman was right…it’s state sponsored robbery. And social security? It’s doomed anyway.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Let them. Let them make her a phenomenon of bigotry. It did wonders for Anita Bryant…where is she nowadays, anyway? Never tolerate it or give it a pass, whoever is behind it.
strumpetwindsock
@obey wan:
Bullshit.
There are plenty of single and childless straight people.
If you want to point a finger you may as well point it at the straights, who have had declining birthrates for years in all developed nations (and of course, blame the fact we live longer).
The real solution – more immigration to make up for our aging population, for one thing.
Social security is to make sure all of us have adequate care when we are old; it has nothing to do with replacing a family structure, or whatever you are getting at.
It’s a universal program and we all deserve access to it.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Why?
Wealthy people have their retirement taken care of anyway, and as for middle income and poorer if there’s no universal system in place you’ll wind up paying anyway when people wind up on the welfare rolls.
Better to have at least some system in place.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Because universal healthcare is more important than social security. Further, it’s almost a rule of physics…that people spend their money more efficiently than other people spend other people’s money on other people. The employer doesn’t care if he gives that money to his employee or the government…it’s doesn’t matter. I say give it to the employee to invest, or take that money and use it to fund universal healthcare. It won’t be made up in welfare in the long run, because social security is unsavable and fundamentally unstable.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
You’re right about universal healthcare being a higher priority (if we were talking hypothetically), but you’re not likely to just do away with the one and have the other materialize from the air.
And really, you deserve both. It’s not insurance for the worker so much as for the rest of us taxpayers. Ideally someone should save and invest, but some people have a habit of making bad choices, having disasters happen, and… having bad habits.
We have a two-tiered system up here – Canada Pension Plan, which is deducted with taxes, and you (and your spouse) get it back based on how much you have earned.
There is also Old Age Pension, which comes out of general revenus, and everyone gets.
Of course anyone with sense saves money above and beyond these plans.
But as for what Obey Wan said, it makes no sense to tie it to children.
TANK
You don’t understand social security, being a foreigner. This is america. Your models wouldn’t work here. “we deserve both” doesn’t seem comprehend the flaws of social security, and how it is unstable, and untenable.
TANK
And those bad spending habits will occur anyway. But it will create incentive to be more aware of where one’s money is invested and about investing in general–and it’s not like it really does provide such a safety net anyway. But the central cost is healthcare, and if that’s taken care of, that should be significant enough to balance such “poor spending habits” of a minority of people.
TANK
The reality is, however, that talking about what a wasteful and needless social welfare program social security is will remain political suicide until those who currently hold all of the cards (baby boom) are dead and buried. They’ll bankrup the system, anyway.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Don’t be so sure about what I don’t understand.
Pension and income insurance programs don’t differ that much ; we also have the same pressures and dire predictions for our system here.
You have a medical system down there in which everyone should be insured through their employers or earning enough to take care of themselves.
Look at what your reality is.
Now translate those same assumptions to social security and what do you think will happen? The whole bag will fall on your welfare system, and you’ll wind up getting taxed for it anyway.
TANK
That’s rubbish, and is contingent on a vast majority of those investing poorly and having bad spending habits enough to warrant welfare in old age. This is unwarranted, too. What you fail to comprehend is that the increase in investment will enable them to invest more and, given the trend of a ten per cent increase in return for the past seventy years (excluding this decade and probably a good portion of the next–but that’s obviously not when this would be relevant…not for well past the next decade, and two more), make more.
TANK
I’m quite sure of what you don’t understand, and that extends to just about every u.s. policy extant that you criticize.
TANK
IF healthcare were taken care of (as it is), however, the bulk of the majority of retirees expenses would be mitigated. Add that to the capital freed up through abolishing social security taxes, and yes, you are left with some people who, in their old age, require government assistance…as opposed to everyone now.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
@TANK:
I don’t know how you can paint such an idealized picture given the current financial crisis and poor investment climate in your country, as well as the growing gap between rich and poor. There are people in both our countries who have a hard enough time puuting food on the table, never mind adding the stress of making an investment they can trust.
Part of the reason why you have such high income disparity is because you have a weak social safety net. Milton Friedman got you guys in the shit heap you are in right now (and unfortunately dragged us along with you). Do you really think MORE libertarian free market piracy is going to turn things around?
TANK
We’re talking about social security. Understand? Not deregulation of the financial markets. And why don’t you read milton friedman before you criticize him?
Second, I already said it’s not going to happen until the boomers are dead and buried. 2040-50. We’ll about out of this, then.
TANK
@TANK:
well out of this by then.
TANK
Well, the reason why we have such a growing wealth disparity is because of the cost of healthcare and a lack of market transparency…in other words, massive corruption. It’s not the weak safety net; that’s a symptom not a cause.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
@TANK:
Yeah, obviously there will be no problems and no more financial crises in the world by 2050.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are proposing eliminating your social security program and leaving it entirely up to people making their own investments.
Do you think the state of financial markets might have some bearing on how well those investments perform?
As well, how do you think people who are not earning enough to make any investments at all will fare?
And finally, if by some chance some of these investments are wiped out by investment fraud (though I am sure THAT’s not ever going to happen again), how do you prevent the whole mess from falling back in the taxpayers’ lap?
TANK
Yeah, obviously there will be no problems and no more financial crises in the world by 2050.
As bad as this one? Doubtful. This is the one you referenced, and the one I addressed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are proposing eliminating your social security program and leaving it entirely up to people making their own investments.
Yes.
Do you think the state of financial markets might have some bearing on how well those investments perform?
And historically they’ve done pretty damn well.
As well, how do you think people who are not earning enough to make any investments at all will fare?
Not any worse than they’re faring now.
And finally, if by some chance some of these investments are wiped out by investment fraud (though I am sure THAT’s not ever going to happen again),
Well, as I said, this isn’t about the deregulation which is not good, but a separate issue.
how do you prevent the whole mess from falling back in the taxpayers’ lap?
You assume that it will. THis is false assumption.
TANK
how do you prevent the whole mess from falling back in the taxpayers’ lap?
Because that’s where it’s falling right now…so this wouldn’t be any worse than right now. And given that social security is unsustainable, where do you think it’s going to fall in the future? Better to have a game plan.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
You’re riding your hopes on a lot of “ifs”.
Personally, I expect the pressures on our systems to be much heavier by 2050, even if you only consider the factors of oil and water.
And the fact is your country is third from the bottom on the Human Poverty Index among developed nations (Ireland and Italy are worse). You can blame it on corruption if you wish; I think it is your country’s slavish dedication to putting business and capital above the welfare of your own people.
But then it was an American who said “taxes are the price we pay for civilization,” so not everyone down there is a blind zealot, obviously.
Basically, I think you’re headed the wrong way, and I am not alone in that opinion.
strumpetwindsock
And you know, I don’t know why you are lecturing me given the fact this mess was largely caused by your country and its policies of deregulation (and the philosophy of small government and privatization that you are trumpeting).
We are certainly feeling it up here (I’ve lost money personally because of it), but it is our relatively strong social safety net and more conservative financial regulations that has saved much of our country from the worst of what you are going through.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
None of what you’ve said amounts to a defense of social security. You’re mixing issues left and right. And you’re far too nationalistic and antiamerican to understand the complexity of the current situation–to blame the global financial meltdown solely on the united states is…surreally stupid.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
It is completely relevant to social security if your proposed replacement depends on a healthy investment market (which, as you can see if you read the papers, is a bit of a crapshoot).
And I did not blame the entire meltdown on your country; I said “largely”, and that is true. But investors in our country and others do share a lot of blame for being sucked into your inflated housing market.
And I’m not anti-American at all, if you mean your people. I think I’ve written already that all the Americans I know personally have been very friendly, intelligent and generous (with the exception of the odd border guard and internet troll). It’s your government and some parts of your political and social culture that are completely fucking insane, and I think a lot of Americans agree with me.
I’m just calling it as I see it, just like the rest of you. Jesus, you guys have no problem dishing it out to other countries; I’m offering honest criticism and you should be able to take it as such.
TANK
It is completely relevant to social security if your proposed replacement depends on a healthy investment market (which, as you can see if you read the papers, is a bit of a crapshoot).
As I said, oversight of the financial markets and regulation to enforce oversight and the viability of social security are distinct issues. I am confining my criticism to social security. Obviously, you haven’t comprehended the average growth of our financial markets over the past eighty years.
And I did not blame the entire meltdown on your country;
Just about. Your radical antiamericanism expresses itself here just about every day. And I’m sick of it. It’s founded upon nothing, really. Just grumpy inadequacy. It’s almost like you’re just here to remind everyone about canada. Well, it has its shortcomings, too (like eighteen for age of consent for butt sex, for example). And you just can’t compare the canadian economy to the american economy. We’ve got a REAL population here, compared to your what, 33 million people?…we’re the largest economy in the entire world.
I said “largely”, and that is true.
Yes, because we’re the biggest economy in the world. No other country in the world gets the privilege of purchasing its loans with its own currency. The american dollar is the most stable and trustworthy extant.
But investors in our country and others do share a lot of blame for being sucked into your inflated housing market.
If you think the housing market is responsible for america’s financial meltdown…that’s a bit player. That’s a sideshow to the real damage done by the banks and government deregulation of the financial sector. Separate topic, though. I’m talking about social security. You aren’t.
And I’m not anti-American at all, if you mean your people. I think I’ve written already that all the Americans I know personally have been very friendly, intelligent and generous (with the exception of the odd border guard and internet troll). It’s your government and some parts of your political and social culture that are completely fucking insane, and I think a lot of Americans agree with me.
Blah blah blah. Many of your comments are driven by an overzealous antiamericanism. As I said, not a day goes by where you aren’t here to remind everyone of the beauty of the canadian government and system (fake country, for chrissakes…teeny tiny little population) and the shortcomings of america.
I’m just calling it as I see it, just like the rest of you. Jesus, you guys have no problem dishing it out to other countries; I’m offering honest criticism and you should be able to take it as such.
strumpetwindsock
Actually the Euro and the British Pound are more stable than the U.S. dollar. You may be the single largest national economy, but the European Union is larger, and China is gaining on you.
You know, I don’t want to sound like I think Americans are stupid or uneducated (because I don’t think that at all), but I do think as a culture you are so big that you have a hard time realizing how things are beyond your own borders.
A perfect example is religion and politics. It may dominate your world, but I think it might be healthy for you to realize it is not that way in every country. Obviously you have to fight the fundamentalists (we have them here too) but you should realize the power they have in your culture is not a natural or a healthy state of affairs.
Besides, I’m from here, and if I have something relevant to add (and unless you’re following the news from up here you’re not likely to know otherwise) I’m going to mention it. You don’t like it? I don’t really care.
You might also want to check some of the unflattering and ignorant comments that are made by some posters (and on occasion, by the editors) about other countries.
This may be a U.S. site, but I am sorry to inform you that the internet is everyone’s territory.
And I think we’re done with this social security discussion. I guess we’ll have to compare notes in 40 years, if you’re still around then,
TANK
Actually the Euro and the British Pound are more stable than the U.S. dollar.
The u.s. dollar is the international currency. All international financial transactions of significance are carried out with the u.s. dollar. It is the most trusted currency extant. And we’re talking about historically, too. This is not disputed or disputable.
You may be the single largest national economy, but the European Union is larger, and China is gaining on you.
Yes, china is gaining, and unless some serious changes are made, it will surpass us. Different issue.
TANK
Okay, so it’s american ethnocentrism and hubris that you take issue with? From canada? as I Said, I could hold the entire country hostage with a starter pistol…ha ha ha ha ha…sorry, I couldn’t help it. Yeah, that can be a problem…but we’re americans. We wouldn’t be americans if we cared about you little people.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
The dollar is still the number one international currency, but probably not for long. There are already more Euros in international circulation.
Unless some serious changes are made…
Take it from someone who is used to living next door to an elephant,,, that is a very funny statement.
See what I mean, you can learn a thing or two from us. Hubris and ethnocentrism are beside the point.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
As well, it has been almost 200 years since our countries fought a real war against each other; so if you are talking recent history your government has had to turn to countries much smaller than ours for its rare lessons in hubris.
alicia banks
Carrie has a right to her opinions, even when awkwardly expressed. Perez had absolutely nothing to do with Carrie’s admirably honest and courageous, though inarticulate, amoral, unintelligent, and unimpressive response. Perez’s singular vote did not solely decide her loss. And, most of the other judges probably shared her bigotry, even as they also secured her loss.
What irks me most about this entire event is that Perez has not similarly attacked President Barack Obama. Obama agrees with Carrie. Could sexism be motivating collectively selective outrage? Why can’t Carrie be equally beloved for the homohatred she shares with Obama? Obama may not even have been born if his parents were still outlawed when he was conceived, as gay spouses are now!
see more:
OUTLOOK
http://aliciabanks.blogspot.com
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
So we get lectures on vietnam (a tremendous mistake by much our own country’s lights) by a denizen of a faux country like canada? Look, we’ve got…real problems…real people…real population…real economic concerns. Buzz off.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re impotent little “sleights” don’t deal with the reality that countries around the world horde…u.s. dollars. Especially third world countries where inflation is a serious problem for their own currencies. To them, it’s as good as gold. This is the historical record, and it’s the current state of affairs.
TANK
your even
TANK
@TANK:
And a country as important and powerful as u.s. does make serious mistakes…given the potential to do so. We can learn from them and enact measures to make sure that they don’t happen again. Your mistakes (canada’s mistakes) are commensurate with its power and standing in the international community…small and insignificant. Hopefully, we can admit when we’ve made them. Like with iraq.
obey wan
There are also plenty of unemployed housewives who have families to spend money on. Childless gay couples have far more disposable income if both people are working. This will be the end and likely bankrupt social security and possibly other govt benefits if these handouts are passed on to gay couples and gay widows. Families with children have to spend money because children cost a ton of money. Sure those same kids might be able to get a good job and afford a nice retirement home for the parents, but many hard working americans rely on the social security to pay for retirement. I’m specifically talking about not allowing gay widows to use marriage as a tool to reap the benefits as a gold-digger. Every gay and straight man is entitled to his social security benefits and he has paid his taxes since forever. I’m saying that Gay Widows and Housewives would both be entitled to their husbands benefits after death. This doesn’t make sense because (1) Gay widows will likely have more saved up for retirement and (2) Gay couples won’t have children to pay back into the social security system through taxes to support their parents retirement.
There is no choice in being a gay couple, but their is a choice in not having children. The reason that straight marriage and children is essential to the govt is that the govt survival is dependent on future generations to pay taxes and pay for their parents. It would also help benefit the human species. But to allow for greater immigration is foolish because that indicates that Americans aren’t capable or unwilling to have kids to support our own govt services. Parents are having less kids because kids are expensive and they want to save money. But if gay couples do not have children, then they are not contributing to the future of the tax system and that can cause govt services to collapse on their own bloated weight.
atdleft
@Tony: I guess we really should thank Perez. I mean, with spokesidiots like Miss Carrie, the NOMbies are doing themselves no favor. And when they can’t even talk about the larger issue of civil rights, it just goes to show that the NOMbies care nothing about “marriage” and everything about bigotry.
atdleft
@obey wan: Lies!
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/LGBPovertyReport.pdf
Where do I start? Many, MANY LGBT couples are NOT childless. Most LGB families’ incomes are BELOW the national average (unfortunately, UCLA couldn’t find enough data to appropriately study transgender poverty). And in fact, a larger number of LGB families are living in poverty than is portrayed in the corporate media (and even among supposed “advocacy groups” like HRC). So please take your BS & spew it elsewhere. Most of us aren’t rich, are being punished by the government simply for being who we are by charging us more taxes, and are in need of real help.
Repeal DOMA NOW! And let’s make marriage equality happen in more states!
obey wan
Both biological parents are responsible for paying child support even if they get a divorce. So this is really about money, well lots of people are poor, just because you are gay does not make you poor. Everyone is looking for a handout and they blame the govt for making them poor because of their lifestyle. Having no kids actually makes you richer in my opinion.
atdleft
@obey wan: No, you’re distorting the facts. Why do you refuse to talk about the LGBT families? And why do you refuse to answer to the facts I just provided on poverty in the LGBT community? Did your NOMbie friends forget to provide talking points on that?
Stop talking about us as if we’re choosing some “fabulously wealthy lifestyle”. We’re not. Queer isn’t a choice. You are or you’re not. And if you really want to punish us for simply being who we are, then that’s your problem… Not mine.
obey wan
“are being punished by the government simply for being who we are by charging us more taxes, and are in need of real help.”
Do you think that straight couples with biological children are actually “helped by the govt” with the tax breaks, rather than the govt punishing singles and gays for not having kids. I still think that biological parents have to pay child support even if they get a divorce, so even if a gay person has a biological child, they are still obligated to receive spousal or child support from the other half. I think gay rights is fine, but I am just saying that from a financial and fiscal point of view, the purposes of paying taxes for social services will be impossible if there is population reduction. Especially for social security, which is going bankrupt from the baby boomers, there are not enough offspring to pay for the retirement of boomers. So social security will be eliminated as well as many other benefits. As for a legally binding contract between two gay men or women, this can be created by a lawyer. If you really want to marry your gay partner, create a contract which promises shared income and designate him with power of attorney. While it is easier to have the govt grant a marriage license, it is also possible to get an agreement through a lawyer. I also don’t think there will be very many gay marriages and that the divorce rate will be slightly higher due to a lack of children to force a couple to stay together for 18 years of child-raising. It will just cause a lot more divorce problems and I have never heard of any gay male willing to pay spousal support for a common-law ex-husband. But we shall see.