tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797900675685174936.post3217745684583442716..comments2022-10-31T03:09:49.234-07:00Comments on LynnFergy: Sudden blog attack...Lynn Fergusonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00627107362917586816noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797900675685174936.post-9051029314913941972013-03-28T11:13:09.610-07:002013-03-28T11:13:09.610-07:00Hehe, Susan Cosier makes a great point! So maybe i...Hehe, Susan Cosier makes a great point! So maybe if this whole SCOTUS thing doesn't work out, Congress can just create a cap and trade market through which straight couples can transfer their unwanted marriages to gay couples. Thus creating additional markets for marriage-transfer brokers and attorneys - not to mention all the people you'd have to hire to make sure your previously-owned marriage didn't have hidden cracks or mold and wasn't built on a Native American burial ground. Ah, wonderful.. finally marriage can stop freeloading off of government and become a productive member of our economy. Marriage equality the Milton Friedman way - straight or gay, buy a marriage today! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797900675685174936.post-17555901179031541082013-03-25T08:23:38.148-07:002013-03-25T08:23:38.148-07:00I find it odd that anyone makes such a fuss. My &q...I find it odd that anyone makes such a fuss. My "boyfriend" (we are in our 50's now, it just sounds silly!) and I have been living together for almost 11 years now and it seems that by "common law" we are considered married! This bugs the bejesus out of me since I never agreed to any such nonsense. So not only do they forbid gays from marrying, they arbitrarily declare straight people married against their wills! It's Hell in a hand basket time, people!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10952642816450415160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797900675685174936.post-31429853097045247472013-03-24T16:42:43.675-07:002013-03-24T16:42:43.675-07:00I think uebergeek has a valid point about money be...I think uebergeek has a valid point about money being part of it. The other part I think is the "ick" factor. Gay marriage? Oh, what they do behind closed doors is "icky" and I don't want to think about it, so I'm going to deny them the right to something I have because if they can have it too, it means that what I do behind closed doors is "icky" too! Oh for goodness sake people, grow the fark up! Let them be as miserable or as happy as the rest of us! It's not going to make you a bad person. In fact, if you support them, it will make you a better person! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401254034135085409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797900675685174936.post-20219142160066728502013-03-24T16:18:16.726-07:002013-03-24T16:18:16.726-07:00I don't think it sounds conspiracy theory-ish ...I don't think it sounds conspiracy theory-ish at all. I think it sounds like the only reasonable explanation for it continuing. It makes as much sense as forbidding people who have blue eyes to marry. Lynn Fergusonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627107362917586816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797900675685174936.post-84843504975290836642013-03-24T15:21:17.139-07:002013-03-24T15:21:17.139-07:00I think I'm starting to figure out the "o...I think I'm starting to figure out the "opposition" to same sex marriage in the US. Remember how after Newtown people started to figure out that most of the opposition to things like assault weapons bans was coming not from 2nd Amendment enthusiasts, but from gun manufacturers? I suspect it's the same here - money disguised as morality. Same sex couples spend a lot of money they wouldn't have to pay if their marriages were fully recognized legally. Some people have to pay for expensive health insurance because they can't get covered under their same sex partner's policy. "Cha-ching" goes the insurance company. And they have weird tax burdens, like the 83-year-old woman in one of the current Supreme Court cases who somehow had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes under federal law even though she and her partner were legally married. Apparently the government needs to get its money from 83-year-old widows, as it can't just go around taxing the "job creators," now can it... Maybe this sounds a little conspiracy-theory-ish, but modern US political history suggests whenever there's "moral" opposition to something, morality = money.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents. Er, 2 scruples? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com