Ms. Orman is a smart lady and financially savvy, and for this I give her credit. I also give full marks for being another absent-minded, emotion filled idiot who froths at the moth when met with respect from the opposition. And Piers Morgan is Piers Morgan.
The condescension is reeking from Orman's pores. "I feel compassion for you." It seems someone thinks she has the moral higher moral ground; often times those that say such things are either emotional hurt by the dialogue or they're showing "And I'll tell you why, because I know that you believe very strongly about what you believe, but I also know that you are very very uneducated on how it really really works," says Orman. She goes on -
And I believe from the bottom of my heart that if you really understood why the government does need to get involved, why it does need to be legal on a federal level, if you really understood that there's no way you would sit there and say what you are saying right now.
Anderson goes to speaks about several dates about popular opinion on same-sex "marriage" to which Orman interjects "Look you got your facts down. You're a great recorder ... " The camera settles on Orman's face for a short time and her eyes tell us everything. She's hurt by what Anderson has said. She's vulnerable. The fact that he does not think that same-sex pairings' relationship should called marriage is what digs at her heart.
Let's be honest, this is about societal approval to finally be "fully
human" - to be recognized as a person with dignity just like a straight
person. Orman's eyes told us this after the "Look, you got all your
facts .... " line. To step away from Anderson's points (letting the
people vote on the issue, to clarify that the Constitution is silent on
the subject, to the connection between mother, father and child), this
isn't about facts or about the potential children. This isn't about the effects -
good or bad - of the governmental approval of same-sex "marriage." It's
all about washing away the pain of not being seen on the same plain as
straight relationships.
And we continue ...
Like a deus ex machina, there so happens to be an audience member who brings up the question about the economic positives in allowing same-sex pairings to be legally recognized. How convenient. The economic benefits of same-sex pairings being allowed to "marry" are introduced by Orman. Italicized is emphasis as depicted in video.
- pictures of Orman and her partner are shown -There's tremendous economic advantages, and I'll get to that in one second. And Piers there's also tremendous economic disadvantages to not being able to be married which is why I said I don't think this gentlemen really understands it. While it is true that every state, the nine states, can say 'You can legally get married,' it mean nothing on the federal level. That means what? That means we don't get to partake into state tax. We each have to pay a state tax no matter what. It means here I am and I'm married to Katie, and I'm covered under insurance for my corporation and I want to cover her. If it's (the same-sex relationship) not recognized Katie has to pay income tax on that health benefit - that could be $3, 000 to $5, 000 a year.
If we were legally married, recognized on the federal level Katie would not have to pay a penny. Then we have all kinds of things such as social security. Let's just say that Katie never worked her entire life, and now we're older and I'm gonna be 62, I am able to collect social security as we get older. As a legally married couple on a federal level Katie would be able to collect half my social security. Upon my death she would get my entire social security, but not now. We don't get to participate at all.
Orman then descends on the kids' benefits.
For a child ... Let's just say you're in a relationship and you have children, and they are legally your children, and you're staying at home with your children and taking care of them and raising them just they way I'm sure this gentlemen (Anderson) would like you, or thinks children should be raised, you have the privilege to be able to stay at home because not everybody does ... And the money is being brought in by your spouse, who is a woman, and now she dies - you can't social security based on her income. You can't get the widow's benefit. Therefore there's all kinds of things ... "
Morgan steps in telling that Orman's points are "key" issues and that, directed towards Anderson, that his concerns aren't the only ones. This is clear that the argument is geared towards Orman's specialty: personal finance. As said by Morgan, "These are sound economic reasons," to federally recognize same-sex "marriage" and to not be in support would be "just unfair" according to the host.
Anderson rebuttals about the inheritance tax - that policies can be formed to effectively deal with every economic scenario that Orman brought up without changing the one-man-one-woman definition - saying that the inheritance tax is bad law, that it can be repealed. He paints a scenario where, instead of two women with same-sex attraction being in a relationship together, are two sisters. These sisters care deeply for each other, they are best friends. He goes on to question why would the romantic same-sex pairing get the inheritance tax but not the two sisters who are joined by the hip (figure of speech there). Anderson, to protect both relationships, proposes to reform the inheritance tax leaving the original definition of marriage alone. Orman then steps in.
[Anderson]The problem is, however, right now the state's tax for most people aren't a problem because it's a five million dollar estate tax exemption, so if that (inheritance tax reform) had happened now we wouldn't be in that situation. But how about health benefits ... How about social security ... You're dealing with an economic situation right now where 'Are they really going to re-craft tax policies?' Do you really think that's possible? Is that what you think is going to happen?
[Orman]Look, I don't want to obscure ... I think these are secondary issues. The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children. Everything we've discussed so far is about adult relationships. (woman sitting behind Anderson furrows her brow towards him, smirks and shakes her head) What institution would be left to show -
[Anderson]I don't know, one very two people who get married in the United States of America - heterosexual marriage - gets divorced ... Why -
So how do we strengthen the message that they shouldn't get divorced?
The number one reason is the arguments over money ... So marriage isn't keeping people together sweetheart.
[Anderson]
It's not doing a very good job at it because -
[Orman]
It's not doing the function that you say it is ...
[Anderson]
Because we redefined it forty years ago (Roe v Wade, 1973) -
[Orman]
And this isn't about children.
[Anderson]
But it should be though. That's the problem, right?
[Orman]
No. No.
[Anderson]
Because 40 years ago we redefined marriage -
[Orman]
What if you don't want a child? What if this love couple (points to unseen audience members) - they never want a child! What if you were sterile and you couldn't have a child?[Anderson]
Not every marriage will have a child, but every child has a mother and father, and marriage is what connects the mother and the father with each other for the child. 40 years ago we redefined marriage -
- audience grumbles with whispers of "No, no ... " -
[Orman]
No. Marriage is what connects the husband and the wife together as one.
[Anderson]
For the sake of connecting the mother and father with the child. Otherwise we can have the government out of the marriage business ...
[Orman]
Really? We got a live audience here. What do you say to him?
[Audience]
No!
[Anderson]
-gestures hands towards audience-
[Morgan]You live in the court with this (audience members) public opinion, but in America there's a lot of people who agree with me. So we should have this conversation and not put it to a mob vote.
(words I can't make out) -- Ryan, we discovered in this audience that public opinion is moving very very fast (audience members behind Morgan nod their heads) I think mainly it's a generational issue. How old are you?
[Anderson]
I'm 31.
[Morgan]
Right, it seems interesting to me someone of your age still maintains this kind of view.
[Anderson]
That's because I think mothers and fathers are important. And I think that we need to have an institution that holds up the ideal that men and women are different, and that mothering and fathering are different phenomenons.
[Orman]
All right, so here's the thing ... (Anderson tries to interject) All right wait one second ... (turns to Morgan) He can talk all about what he thinks and his beliefs, and he's seriously in the minority, especially at the age of 30. And anybody at the age of 30, if you take polls all throughout the United States right now, are waaay in the majority saying like 'What are you even talking about? What issue is this?' But Piers, more than what he's saying - 'mother', 'father' - it's about two people having the ability to say 'I love you. And I want to be with you forever.' It's about sitting at a Thanksgiving dinner, and while the kids are the table asking the other people, 'Well when did you meet? How was your wedding? How did you get married? And there's Katie and I are sitting and nobodies is asking us -
[Morgan]
Well I saw Elton John and his, uh, partner David Furnish the other day with the second baby they now got (slowly turns to Anderson and stares at him), and I never seen two more loving parents in my life (audience members behind Morgan nods). And the idea that you run, the best one in the world, the idea that you want to stop people, like Elton and Dave or Susie and Katie, from getting married -
[Anderson]
I don't want to stop anyone from living and loving.
[Morgan]
-audience claps with few a 'Whoos!'-From getting married in America in the modern era, I just find it a bit offensive these days. It's not fair. It's not tolerant. It's not America.
Orman admitted in
frustration that it wasn't about children. It's about public recognition - because without government recognition it's not "official." Once they get the thumbs up from SCOTUS it's off the civil court! Now Orman and her partner has the blessing of the government - now the people (kids?) at Thanksgiving have to ask "When did you two meet? How was your wedding? How did you get married?" I feel compassion for Orman. She and Katie just wants to be included that day. But they are. No one excluded them from the Thanksgiving dinner. The people (kids?) asking the hetero couples how they met could've asked the same question towards Orman and Katie. But they didn't.
If you are emotionally hurt enough, feel that you've been wronged and have the Left Machine on your side you can win almost any case - you can redefine marriage from its original meaning and forever change the institution, all because you're butt hurt that people at Thanksgiving don't ask where you met your partner.
I'm an independent voter but I loath comments like the following.
I won't comment the relishing of Republicans being stigmatized to the corner of society. I will comment on Trump's illegal alien comment. Yes, Trump's statements were controversial but it doesn't erase the very real possibility that unchecked immigration and amnesty would allow rapists into the country.
Let's us turn to the black rights and same-sex "marriage comparison that is common amongst "equality" true believers.
I could tell they took AP U.S. History during high school and received a five on the test.
These are the supporters of same-sex "marriage."
Some reasonable minds were present, but that sanity quickly dissipated.
No comments :
Post a Comment