I'm not saying a month is fast, but at least he got the care he needed. Under rare situations, people can still pay for immediate care if they don't want to wait... by paying for it in the US just like Americans do.
How much do you have to pay for immediate care? On my health plan I pay an extra $30 to go to the ER rather than schedule a Dr's appointment and I have one of the cheapest plans my company offers. Also, once I've paid that extra $30 that's the end of it. If I need surgery or any other kind of immediate treatment it's covered the same as it would be otherwise.
As for your dad with the sextuple bypass - I'm glad he's doing well (or so your post made it seem) but my godfather was in a very similar situation and had a quadruple bypass done in a matter of a couple of days. Personally, life threatening or not, if you're talking about bypass surgery on your heart it's a pretty big deal to me.
Basically, I wouldn't trade my health care system for yours.
I appreciate what you're saying but you kinda make my point.
You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?
My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?
It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.
What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
How much do you have to pay for immediate care? On my health plan I pay an extra $30 to go to the ER rather than schedule a Dr's appointment and I have one of the cheapest plans my company offers. Also, once I've paid that extra $30 that's the end of it. If I need surgery or any other kind of immediate treatment it's covered the same as it would be otherwise.
As for your dad with the sextuple bypass - I'm glad he's doing well (or so your post made it seem) but my godfather was in a very similar situation and had a quadruple bypass done in a matter of a couple of days. Personally, life threatening or not, if you're talking about bypass surgery on your heart it's a pretty big deal to me.
Basically, I wouldn't trade my health care system for yours.
Just a couple of quotes I stumbled across since we've seemed to wander off from same-sex marriage to socialism.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.
Yeah, the then-leader of the American Communist Party had an audience with Lenin once, and Lenin noticed him shuffling and writing on a stack of 3 x 5 cards, and asked him what he was doing.
"Well, I know your time is valuable, and I've only got so much of it, so I wrote the points I wanted to discuss with you on one card apiece, and now I'm writing the result of our discussions on the backs."
Lenin was so taken by this that he said Russians would only achieve true Communism when they learned to use 3 x 5 cards. (Kind of reminds me of "the Internet will bring true democracy.")
I guess my point is: people say stupid things--film at 11!
I appreciate what you're saying but you kinda make my point.
You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?
My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?
It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.
What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?
One of the biggest problems with the American health-care "system" is that an unconscionable proportion of its time and resources are wasted on treatments that can only charitably be described as experimental. (Charitable because if they were truly experimental, they would have been abandoned as failures long ago, but when you can continue charging patients or their insurance companies millions of dollars to have these "atrocious experiments" performed on them, they never will be.)
I speak as someone who has seen several family members murdered by cancer "treatments" that had been demonstrated to be ineffective years before, but were extremely lucrative. I understand doctors' reluctance to admit that there is nothing they can do for a given condition, but wasting billions of dollars annually and inflicting immeasurable suffering on their patients with failed experiments is not the answer.
P.S.: Every time I post to this thread, I have to re-unsubscribe from it, and then when I do, it dumps me back at page one. Is anybody else experiencing these grotesque glitches?
One liberals idea is not always the same as someone else's. That is why we have the Bible to teach us what is right.
I've got a newsflash for you: not all Christians agree either. There's a whole load of them who aren't Creationist, for instance. And there's plenty who don't have a problem with homosexuality, and a subset of them who don't mind homosexual marriage.
Yeah, the then-leader of the American Communist Party had an audience with Lenin once, and Lenin noticed him shuffling and writing on a stack of 3 x 5 cards, and asked him what he was doing.
"Well, I know your time is valuable, and I've only got so much of it, so I wrote the points I wanted to discuss with you on one card apiece, and now I'm writing the result of our discussions on the backs."
Lenin was so taken by this that he said Russians would only achieve true Communism when they learned to use 3 x 5 cards. (Kind of reminds me of "the Internet will bring true democracy.")
I guess my point is: people say stupid things--film at 11!
You think either of those is stupid? They seem quite spot on to me and do reflect what Kruschev was hoping for. And Norman Thomas had it 100% right, Americans will never accept socialism branded as socialiasm but when you throw out words like liberalism or "change" (without bothering to say exactly what kind of change you're talking about) people are far more likely to jump on that bandwagon.
Also, before I get some people going crazy, George W. Bush ran on a platform of "change" in 2000 so running on the platform of "change" is anything but a new concept.
One of the biggest problems with the American health-care "system" is that an unconscionable proportion of its time and resources are wasted on treatments that can only charitably be described as experimental. (Charitable because if they were truly experimental, they would have been abandoned as failures long ago, but when you can continue charging patients or their insurance companies millions of dollars to have these "atrocious experiments" performed on them, they never will be.)
I speak as someone who has seen several family members murdered by cancer "treatments" that had been demonstrated to be ineffective years before, but were extremely lucrative. I understand doctors' reluctance to admit that there is nothing they can do for a given condition, but wasting billions of dollars annually and inflicting immeasurable suffering on their patients with failed experiments is not the answer.
P.S.: Every time I post to this thread, I have to re-unsubscribe from it, and then when I do, it dumps me back at page one. Is anybody else experiencing these grotesque glitches?
So you'd rather they just not bother to try something, anything that might possibly help? I've lost family members to cancer as well so I'm not just being callous here I'm being serious. Those clinical trials often times have very, very low success rates and I do truly feel for those that had hope and that hope didn't come to fruition but if the doctors learned something from one of my relatives passing away that can eventually save hundreds (if not thousands +) then I'm ok with that. They did the best they could (and yes, I say that with a very heavy heart).
I appreciate what you're saying but you kinda make my point.
You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?
My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?
It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.
What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?
Actually, if you don't have a dime you can walk into any hospital and they will cover you and give you whatever treatment is needed. By law no hospital is allowed to refuse a patient regardless of their state of insurance. Does being unemployed and not having health insurance suck? Well of course it does, I don't think you'd find anyone who thinks otherwise. I'd also like to find some way to get everyone health insurance but at the same time there are 10's of millions of Americans that CHOOSE not to have health insurance, they have enough money to have health insurance they just choose not to (I think that's crazy as well!). I don't think you're going to find any sane person that doesn't want all to be covered but there are much, much better ways to go about that than mandating gov't sponsored health insurance.
I don't like McCain's plan all that well either as it would tax whatever my company is paying for my insurance but with 5k you can easily get insurance and I think allowing the people to decide what's best for them is better than a "one plan fits all" premise.
So you'd rather they just not bother to try something, anything that might possibly help? I've lost family memebers to cancer as well so I'm not just being callous here I'm being serious. Those clinical trials often times have very, very low success rates and I do truly feel for those that had hope and that hope didn't come to fruition but if the doctors learned something from one of my relatives passing away that can eventually save hundreds (if not thousands +) then I'm ok with that. They did the best they could (and yes, I say that with a very heavy heart).
Perhaps cancer wasn't the best example (although I know from observation that there's a lot of beating of dead horses going on there.) My main point is, let's stop people dying from treatable illnesses because they don't have medical insurance before we spend millions and millions of dollars doing multiple organ transplants that might keep some 75-year-old alive a year longer.
Perhaps cancer wasn't the best example (although I know from observation that there's a lot of beating of dead horses going on there.) My main point is, let's stop people dying from treatable illnesses because they don't have medical insurance before we spend millions and millions of dollars doing multiple organ transplants that might keep some 75-year-old alive a year longer.
well yeah, I'm with ya 100% on that one. I think they should be dumping massive money into the top killers and stop wasting so much freakin money on crap like Viagra. Yeah, great, it helps some old people enjoy their lives more then they are 70+. Great, that's awesome that some old dude can get a hard on and we have hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people dying from Malaria every single year since we decided to, effectively, ban DDT...
Actually, if you don't have a dime you can walk into any hospital and they will cover you and give you whatever treatment is needed. By law no hospital is allowed to refuse a patient regardless of their state of insurance.
Actually this isn't remotely true. Leaving aside the fact that by the time somebody goes into the ER to try and get some help, it's often too late, all that means is that they will be shuffled around until they reach the one hospital in the area that is "required" to treat everyone.
I used to work at Seattle's example of the latter: Harborview. Everything was loaded into that one antique facility, and they did incredible, cutting-edge work: the Northwest Trauma Center, the Northwest Burn Center, Medic One (EMTs in vans on call 24/7? They invented that!) Heaven help you, though, if you went in there for a routine appendectomy!
On a somewhat related note, people would be helicoptered in from five states, landed at the helipad, and then had to be driven around the corner in a very expensive ambulance. Capitalism in action! Then when Reagan got in, they added a new wrinkle: if some lumberjack got injured far enough up in the mountains that Airlift's Agustas couldn't get to them, they'd be lifted out by an Army Huey from Fort Lewis, dropped in a schoolyard somewhere so Airlift could pick them up, and then airlifted to Harborview. Why? Because if the Army took them the whole way, they'd be interfering with the "right" of private enterprise to make a profit even though they couldn't actually perform the service needed!
If you can come up with an abuse of "Socialized Medicine" that can compare with this example of "Capitalized (?) Medicine" I'd like to hear it.
really? I guess you two deserve each other then...
...based on the current polls, more people agree with those statements than not. Hate to burst your bubble. The Republican party has used fear, ignorance and hatred to drive voters. Their failed policies have left America broke, desperate and divided. As a political pundit and corresponder with CNN, I have witnessed more division and emotional discourse than any other election. Just this afternoon the Federal Gov't broke up a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and kill 102 African-Americans. Found during the raid of dozens of skinheads were not just illegals fire-arms, but McCain pamphlets as well as anti-Semitic and anti-African-American and homophobic paraphernalia. Nice. This is Anti-American. Keep the hate and ignorance alive. America has become a politically divided nation, and a divided nation is a conquered nation. It would behoove some on AppleInsider to focus that anger towards better, positive outlets. Work in a soup kitchen, build homes for Habitats for Humanity, work in the Peace Corps. It's easy to hate, and that hatred will simply tear you apart.
...based on the current polls, more people agree with those statements than not. Hate to burst your bubble. The Republican party has used fear, ignorance and hatred to drive voters. Their failed policies have left America broke, desperate and divided. As a political pundit and corresponder with CNN, I have witnessed more division and emotional discourse than any other election. Just this afternoon the Federal Gov't broke up a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and kill 102 African-Americans. Found during the raid of dozens of skinheads were not just illegals fire-arms, but McCain pamphlets as well as anti-Semitic and anti-African-American and homophobic paraphernalia. Nice. This is Anti-American. Keep the hate and ignorance alive. America has become a politically divided nation, and a divided nation is a conquered nation. It would behoove some on AppleInsider to focus that anger towards better, positive outlets. Work in a soup kitchen, build homes for Habitats for Humanity, work in the Peace Corps. It's easy to hate, and that hatred will simply tear you apart.
And you know what started this whole division? Time had a pretty interesting piece a little while ago about how Bill Clinton and Newt Gengrich were about to fix Social Security and then the whole Monica Lewinsky thing came about, ever since then America has been divided. Also, since I'm sure you didn't bother to watch it, 60 minutes opened with a pretty lengthy piece on how we got into this financial crisis and, shock of shocks, it started with Clinton's administration.
And no, you're just totally making up crap to say the polls support you. Please, please point me to a poll that asks people if they are ok with America adopting socialist practices. I will guarantee you most do not agree with that and they never will.
As far as those 2 dumbasses wanting to kill BO - yeah, umm, you do know we've had bat-shit-crazy people in this country for a long time right? In fact there's been just as many instances of people on the other side wanting to kill white people so stop acting like crazy people are all on one side of the aisle or belong to only one race (that would, in fact, make you a racist...).
And, while you're at it, take your own advice and stop hating, it "will simply tear you apart."
Actually it's 100% true. That's part of the reason premiums are so high in America is because the uninsured walk into hospitals and, again, by law they have to be treated and then somebody has to foot the bill and it's not going to be the uninsured poor person with no job...
What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
by Brian Camenker
Anyone who thinks that same-sex ?marriage? is a benign eccentricity which won?t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It?s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex ?marriage.? Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.
The public schools
The homosexual ?marriage? onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.
At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex ?marriage? in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be ?marrying? their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage ? how it is now a normal part of society ? was handed out to the students.
Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. ?In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'? she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA ? a parent of a kindergartner ? strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
Second graders at the same school were read a book, ?King and King?, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is ?legal?, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now ?different kinds of families.? School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered ?inappropriate behavior.?
Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.
Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled ?Courting Equality? into every school library in the state.
It?s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex ?spouses? and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are ?married? to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.
?Gay days? in schools are considered necessary to fight ?intolerance? which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold ?gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days?. They ?celebrate? homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating ?homophobia? is now a top priority.
Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.
Public health
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is ?married? to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it?s ?wonderful being gay? and he wants to make sure there?s enough HIV testing available for all of them.
Since homosexual marriage became ?legal? the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
Citing ?the right to marry? as one of the ?important challenges? in a place where ?it?s a great time to be gay?, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives ?tips? to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to ?safely? have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Domestic violence
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
Business
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex ?married? couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
Businesses must recognize same-sex ?married? couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
Businesses are often ?tested? for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient ?equality? ? now that homosexual marriage is ?legal?. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".
Legal profession
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
Issues regarding homosexual ?families? are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.
Adoption of children to homosexual ?married? couples
Homosexual ?married? couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men ?married? to each other as their ?Parents of the Year?. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby?s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.
Government mandates
In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have ?Party A and Party B? instead of ?husband and wife.? Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)
Since homosexual relationships are now officially ?normal?, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual ?married? couples in the coverage.
The public square
Since gay ?marriage?, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane ?Dyke March? through downtown Boston, and recently a ?transgender? parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could ?become? men. Governor Patrick even marched with his ?out lesbian? 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a ?leather? group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!
The media
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual ?married? couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It?s ?equal?, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.
A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly ?married? homosexuals who march in the ?gay pride? parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.
The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex ?marriage? is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to ?take such action as it may deem appropriate.? Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans ?judicial review? ? a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.
In conclusion
Homosexual ?marriage? hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it?s only just begun.
It?s pretty clear that the homosexual movement?s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and ?marriage? as we know it isn?t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe?s marriage section hasn?t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.
If a conservative activist writes an article about it, it must be true.
Wikipedia:
In November 2005, Carmenker appeared on a Daily Show piece by reporter Ed Helms. It was rebroadcast on the February 7, 2008 episode.[3] In the interview, Camenker was asked if Massachusetts was worse off after the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.
Ed Helms: So the quality of life has decreased?
Brian Camenker: Yeah.
Ed Helms: Homelessness gone up?
Brian Camenker: I could, you know...
Ed Helms: Crime rates?
Brian Camenker: Crime rates?
Ed Helms: Air quality?
Brian Camenker: I mean, let me put it this way, I could, if, I could sit here, and I could probably, you know, find some way of connecting the dots to gay marriage, to all of these, if I had enough time, and I did some research.
Ed Helms (voice-over): Yeah! Why take time to do the research, when saying it is so much faster!
And you know what started this whole division? Time had a pretty interesting piece a little while ago about how Bill Clinton and Newt Gengrich were about to fix Social Security and then the whole Monica Lewinsky thing came about, ever since then America has been divided. Also, since I'm sure you didn't bother to watch it, 60 minutes opened with a pretty lengthy piece on how we got into this financial crisis and, shock of shocks, it started with Clinton's administration.
And no, you're just totally making up crap to say the polls support you. Please, please point me to a poll that asks people if they are ok with America adopting socialist practices. I will guarantee you most do not agree with that and they never will.
As far as those 2 dumbasses wanting to kill BO - yeah, umm, you do know we've had bat-shit-crazy people in this country for a long time right? In fact there's been just as many instances of people on the other side wanting to kill white people so stop acting like crazy people are all on one side of the aisle or belong to only one race (that would, in fact, make you a racist...).
And, while you're at it, take your own advice and stop hating, it "will simply tear you apart."
Wow... just... wow. You have some serious anger issues. I wouldn't even know where to begin with you other than I wish you well.
What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
by Brian Camenker etc etc etc etc etc etc ...
What a load of over dramatic sensationalist fear mongering codswallop! In the words of Ernest Gaines: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
What a load of over dramatic sensationalist fear mongering codswallop! In the words of Ernest Gaines: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
She is correct, what you gays really want in an in your face way to annoy the rest of us. Self serving perverts, we do not want your sexuality on public display.
Comments
I'm not saying a month is fast, but at least he got the care he needed. Under rare situations, people can still pay for immediate care if they don't want to wait... by paying for it in the US just like Americans do.
How much do you have to pay for immediate care? On my health plan I pay an extra $30 to go to the ER rather than schedule a Dr's appointment and I have one of the cheapest plans my company offers. Also, once I've paid that extra $30 that's the end of it. If I need surgery or any other kind of immediate treatment it's covered the same as it would be otherwise.
As for your dad with the sextuple bypass - I'm glad he's doing well (or so your post made it seem) but my godfather was in a very similar situation and had a quadruple bypass done in a matter of a couple of days. Personally, life threatening or not, if you're talking about bypass surgery on your heart it's a pretty big deal to me.
Basically, I wouldn't trade my health care system for yours.
You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?
My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?
It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.
What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?
How much do you have to pay for immediate care? On my health plan I pay an extra $30 to go to the ER rather than schedule a Dr's appointment and I have one of the cheapest plans my company offers. Also, once I've paid that extra $30 that's the end of it. If I need surgery or any other kind of immediate treatment it's covered the same as it would be otherwise.
As for your dad with the sextuple bypass - I'm glad he's doing well (or so your post made it seem) but my godfather was in a very similar situation and had a quadruple bypass done in a matter of a couple of days. Personally, life threatening or not, if you're talking about bypass surgery on your heart it's a pretty big deal to me.
Basically, I wouldn't trade my health care system for yours.
Just a couple of quotes I stumbled across since we've seemed to wander off from same-sex marriage to socialism.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.
Yeah, the then-leader of the American Communist Party had an audience with Lenin once, and Lenin noticed him shuffling and writing on a stack of 3 x 5 cards, and asked him what he was doing.
"Well, I know your time is valuable, and I've only got so much of it, so I wrote the points I wanted to discuss with you on one card apiece, and now I'm writing the result of our discussions on the backs."
Lenin was so taken by this that he said Russians would only achieve true Communism when they learned to use 3 x 5 cards. (Kind of reminds me of "the Internet will bring true democracy.")
I guess my point is: people say stupid things--film at 11!
I appreciate what you're saying but you kinda make my point.
You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?
My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?
It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.
What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?
One of the biggest problems with the American health-care "system" is that an unconscionable proportion of its time and resources are wasted on treatments that can only charitably be described as experimental. (Charitable because if they were truly experimental, they would have been abandoned as failures long ago, but when you can continue charging patients or their insurance companies millions of dollars to have these "atrocious experiments" performed on them, they never will be.)
I speak as someone who has seen several family members murdered by cancer "treatments" that had been demonstrated to be ineffective years before, but were extremely lucrative. I understand doctors' reluctance to admit that there is nothing they can do for a given condition, but wasting billions of dollars annually and inflicting immeasurable suffering on their patients with failed experiments is not the answer.
P.S.: Every time I post to this thread, I have to re-unsubscribe from it, and then when I do, it dumps me back at page one. Is anybody else experiencing these grotesque glitches?
One liberals idea is not always the same as someone else's. That is why we have the Bible to teach us what is right.
I've got a newsflash for you: not all Christians agree either. There's a whole load of them who aren't Creationist, for instance. And there's plenty who don't have a problem with homosexuality, and a subset of them who don't mind homosexual marriage.
Yeah, the then-leader of the American Communist Party had an audience with Lenin once, and Lenin noticed him shuffling and writing on a stack of 3 x 5 cards, and asked him what he was doing.
"Well, I know your time is valuable, and I've only got so much of it, so I wrote the points I wanted to discuss with you on one card apiece, and now I'm writing the result of our discussions on the backs."
Lenin was so taken by this that he said Russians would only achieve true Communism when they learned to use 3 x 5 cards. (Kind of reminds me of "the Internet will bring true democracy.")
I guess my point is: people say stupid things--film at 11!
You think either of those is stupid? They seem quite spot on to me and do reflect what Kruschev was hoping for. And Norman Thomas had it 100% right, Americans will never accept socialism branded as socialiasm but when you throw out words like liberalism or "change" (without bothering to say exactly what kind of change you're talking about) people are far more likely to jump on that bandwagon.
Also, before I get some people going crazy, George W. Bush ran on a platform of "change" in 2000 so running on the platform of "change" is anything but a new concept.
One of the biggest problems with the American health-care "system" is that an unconscionable proportion of its time and resources are wasted on treatments that can only charitably be described as experimental. (Charitable because if they were truly experimental, they would have been abandoned as failures long ago, but when you can continue charging patients or their insurance companies millions of dollars to have these "atrocious experiments" performed on them, they never will be.)
I speak as someone who has seen several family members murdered by cancer "treatments" that had been demonstrated to be ineffective years before, but were extremely lucrative. I understand doctors' reluctance to admit that there is nothing they can do for a given condition, but wasting billions of dollars annually and inflicting immeasurable suffering on their patients with failed experiments is not the answer.
P.S.: Every time I post to this thread, I have to re-unsubscribe from it, and then when I do, it dumps me back at page one. Is anybody else experiencing these grotesque glitches?
So you'd rather they just not bother to try something, anything that might possibly help? I've lost family members to cancer as well so I'm not just being callous here I'm being serious. Those clinical trials often times have very, very low success rates and I do truly feel for those that had hope and that hope didn't come to fruition but if the doctors learned something from one of my relatives passing away that can eventually save hundreds (if not thousands +) then I'm ok with that. They did the best they could (and yes, I say that with a very heavy heart).
I appreciate what you're saying but you kinda make my point.
You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?
My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?
It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.
What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?
Actually, if you don't have a dime you can walk into any hospital and they will cover you and give you whatever treatment is needed. By law no hospital is allowed to refuse a patient regardless of their state of insurance. Does being unemployed and not having health insurance suck? Well of course it does, I don't think you'd find anyone who thinks otherwise. I'd also like to find some way to get everyone health insurance but at the same time there are 10's of millions of Americans that CHOOSE not to have health insurance, they have enough money to have health insurance they just choose not to (I think that's crazy as well!). I don't think you're going to find any sane person that doesn't want all to be covered but there are much, much better ways to go about that than mandating gov't sponsored health insurance.
I don't like McCain's plan all that well either as it would tax whatever my company is paying for my insurance but with 5k you can easily get insurance and I think allowing the people to decide what's best for them is better than a "one plan fits all" premise.
So you'd rather they just not bother to try something, anything that might possibly help? I've lost family memebers to cancer as well so I'm not just being callous here I'm being serious. Those clinical trials often times have very, very low success rates and I do truly feel for those that had hope and that hope didn't come to fruition but if the doctors learned something from one of my relatives passing away that can eventually save hundreds (if not thousands +) then I'm ok with that. They did the best they could (and yes, I say that with a very heavy heart).
Perhaps cancer wasn't the best example (although I know from observation that there's a lot of beating of dead horses going on there.) My main point is, let's stop people dying from treatable illnesses because they don't have medical insurance before we spend millions and millions of dollars doing multiple organ transplants that might keep some 75-year-old alive a year longer.
Perhaps cancer wasn't the best example (although I know from observation that there's a lot of beating of dead horses going on there.) My main point is, let's stop people dying from treatable illnesses because they don't have medical insurance before we spend millions and millions of dollars doing multiple organ transplants that might keep some 75-year-old alive a year longer.
well yeah, I'm with ya 100% on that one. I think they should be dumping massive money into the top killers and stop wasting so much freakin money on crap like Viagra. Yeah, great, it helps some old people enjoy their lives more then they are 70+. Great, that's awesome that some old dude can get a hard on and we have hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people dying from Malaria every single year since we decided to, effectively, ban DDT...
Actually, if you don't have a dime you can walk into any hospital and they will cover you and give you whatever treatment is needed. By law no hospital is allowed to refuse a patient regardless of their state of insurance.
Actually this isn't remotely true. Leaving aside the fact that by the time somebody goes into the ER to try and get some help, it's often too late, all that means is that they will be shuffled around until they reach the one hospital in the area that is "required" to treat everyone.
I used to work at Seattle's example of the latter: Harborview. Everything was loaded into that one antique facility, and they did incredible, cutting-edge work: the Northwest Trauma Center, the Northwest Burn Center, Medic One (EMTs in vans on call 24/7? They invented that!) Heaven help you, though, if you went in there for a routine appendectomy!
On a somewhat related note, people would be helicoptered in from five states, landed at the helipad, and then had to be driven around the corner in a very expensive ambulance. Capitalism in action! Then when Reagan got in, they added a new wrinkle: if some lumberjack got injured far enough up in the mountains that Airlift's Agustas couldn't get to them, they'd be lifted out by an Army Huey from Fort Lewis, dropped in a schoolyard somewhere so Airlift could pick them up, and then airlifted to Harborview. Why? Because if the Army took them the whole way, they'd be interfering with the "right" of private enterprise to make a profit even though they couldn't actually perform the service needed!
If you can come up with an abuse of "Socialized Medicine" that can compare with this example of "Capitalized (?) Medicine" I'd like to hear it.
really? I guess you two deserve each other then...
...based on the current polls, more people agree with those statements than not. Hate to burst your bubble. The Republican party has used fear, ignorance and hatred to drive voters. Their failed policies have left America broke, desperate and divided. As a political pundit and corresponder with CNN, I have witnessed more division and emotional discourse than any other election. Just this afternoon the Federal Gov't broke up a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and kill 102 African-Americans. Found during the raid of dozens of skinheads were not just illegals fire-arms, but McCain pamphlets as well as anti-Semitic and anti-African-American and homophobic paraphernalia. Nice. This is Anti-American. Keep the hate and ignorance alive. America has become a politically divided nation, and a divided nation is a conquered nation. It would behoove some on AppleInsider to focus that anger towards better, positive outlets. Work in a soup kitchen, build homes for Habitats for Humanity, work in the Peace Corps. It's easy to hate, and that hatred will simply tear you apart.
...based on the current polls, more people agree with those statements than not. Hate to burst your bubble. The Republican party has used fear, ignorance and hatred to drive voters. Their failed policies have left America broke, desperate and divided. As a political pundit and corresponder with CNN, I have witnessed more division and emotional discourse than any other election. Just this afternoon the Federal Gov't broke up a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and kill 102 African-Americans. Found during the raid of dozens of skinheads were not just illegals fire-arms, but McCain pamphlets as well as anti-Semitic and anti-African-American and homophobic paraphernalia. Nice. This is Anti-American. Keep the hate and ignorance alive. America has become a politically divided nation, and a divided nation is a conquered nation. It would behoove some on AppleInsider to focus that anger towards better, positive outlets. Work in a soup kitchen, build homes for Habitats for Humanity, work in the Peace Corps. It's easy to hate, and that hatred will simply tear you apart.
And you know what started this whole division? Time had a pretty interesting piece a little while ago about how Bill Clinton and Newt Gengrich were about to fix Social Security and then the whole Monica Lewinsky thing came about, ever since then America has been divided. Also, since I'm sure you didn't bother to watch it, 60 minutes opened with a pretty lengthy piece on how we got into this financial crisis and, shock of shocks, it started with Clinton's administration.
And no, you're just totally making up crap to say the polls support you. Please, please point me to a poll that asks people if they are ok with America adopting socialist practices. I will guarantee you most do not agree with that and they never will.
As far as those 2 dumbasses wanting to kill BO - yeah, umm, you do know we've had bat-shit-crazy people in this country for a long time right? In fact there's been just as many instances of people on the other side wanting to kill white people so stop acting like crazy people are all on one side of the aisle or belong to only one race (that would, in fact, make you a racist...).
And, while you're at it, take your own advice and stop hating, it "will simply tear you apart."
Actually this isn't remotely true.
Actually it's 100% true. That's part of the reason premiums are so high in America is because the uninsured walk into hospitals and, again, by law they have to be treated and then somebody has to foot the bill and it's not going to be the uninsured poor person with no job...
really? I guess you two deserve each other then...
Sheesh...
It's far worse than most people realize
by Brian Camenker
Anyone who thinks that same-sex ?marriage? is a benign eccentricity which won?t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It?s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex ?marriage.? Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.
The public schools
The homosexual ?marriage? onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.
At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex ?marriage? in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be ?marrying? their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage ? how it is now a normal part of society ? was handed out to the students.
Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. ?In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'? she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA ? a parent of a kindergartner ? strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
Second graders at the same school were read a book, ?King and King?, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is ?legal?, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now ?different kinds of families.? School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered ?inappropriate behavior.?
Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.
Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled ?Courting Equality? into every school library in the state.
It?s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex ?spouses? and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are ?married? to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.
?Gay days? in schools are considered necessary to fight ?intolerance? which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold ?gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days?. They ?celebrate? homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating ?homophobia? is now a top priority.
Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.
Public health
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is ?married? to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it?s ?wonderful being gay? and he wants to make sure there?s enough HIV testing available for all of them.
Since homosexual marriage became ?legal? the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
Citing ?the right to marry? as one of the ?important challenges? in a place where ?it?s a great time to be gay?, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives ?tips? to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to ?safely? have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Domestic violence
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
Business
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex ?married? couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
Businesses must recognize same-sex ?married? couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
Businesses are often ?tested? for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient ?equality? ? now that homosexual marriage is ?legal?. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".
Legal profession
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
Issues regarding homosexual ?families? are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.
Adoption of children to homosexual ?married? couples
Homosexual ?married? couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men ?married? to each other as their ?Parents of the Year?. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby?s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.
Government mandates
In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have ?Party A and Party B? instead of ?husband and wife.? Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)
Since homosexual relationships are now officially ?normal?, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual ?married? couples in the coverage.
The public square
Since gay ?marriage?, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane ?Dyke March? through downtown Boston, and recently a ?transgender? parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could ?become? men. Governor Patrick even marched with his ?out lesbian? 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a ?leather? group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!
The media
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual ?married? couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It?s ?equal?, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.
A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly ?married? homosexuals who march in the ?gay pride? parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.
The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex ?marriage? is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to ?take such action as it may deem appropriate.? Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans ?judicial review? ? a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.
In conclusion
Homosexual ?marriage? hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it?s only just begun.
It?s pretty clear that the homosexual movement?s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and ?marriage? as we know it isn?t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe?s marriage section hasn?t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/m...ts_of_ssm.html
Wikipedia:
In November 2005, Carmenker appeared on a Daily Show piece by reporter Ed Helms. It was rebroadcast on the February 7, 2008 episode.[3] In the interview, Camenker was asked if Massachusetts was worse off after the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.
Ed Helms: So the quality of life has decreased?
Brian Camenker: Yeah.
Ed Helms: Homelessness gone up?
Brian Camenker: I could, you know...
Ed Helms: Crime rates?
Brian Camenker: Crime rates?
Ed Helms: Air quality?
Brian Camenker: I mean, let me put it this way, I could, if, I could sit here, and I could probably, you know, find some way of connecting the dots to gay marriage, to all of these, if I had enough time, and I did some research.
Ed Helms (voice-over): Yeah! Why take time to do the research, when saying it is so much faster!
And you know what started this whole division? Time had a pretty interesting piece a little while ago about how Bill Clinton and Newt Gengrich were about to fix Social Security and then the whole Monica Lewinsky thing came about, ever since then America has been divided. Also, since I'm sure you didn't bother to watch it, 60 minutes opened with a pretty lengthy piece on how we got into this financial crisis and, shock of shocks, it started with Clinton's administration.
And no, you're just totally making up crap to say the polls support you. Please, please point me to a poll that asks people if they are ok with America adopting socialist practices. I will guarantee you most do not agree with that and they never will.
As far as those 2 dumbasses wanting to kill BO - yeah, umm, you do know we've had bat-shit-crazy people in this country for a long time right? In fact there's been just as many instances of people on the other side wanting to kill white people so stop acting like crazy people are all on one side of the aisle or belong to only one race (that would, in fact, make you a racist...).
And, while you're at it, take your own advice and stop hating, it "will simply tear you apart."
Wow... just... wow. You have some serious anger issues. I wouldn't even know where to begin with you other than I wish you well.
What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
by Brian Camenker etc etc etc etc etc etc ...
What a load of over dramatic sensationalist fear mongering codswallop! In the words of Ernest Gaines: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
What a load of over dramatic sensationalist fear mongering codswallop! In the words of Ernest Gaines: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
She is correct, what you gays really want in an in your face way to annoy the rest of us. Self serving perverts, we do not want your sexuality on public display.