Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Mark Sullivan
Recent Activity
-
Mark commented on the article |Amen Raymond Sawyer.
I think it will be great when I don't know anyones sexual orientation. At that point, we will have achieved equality.
Marriage should be a mute Federal point. Rights for Citizens. Then sexual preference will be mute. -
Mark commented on the article |President-elect Obama,
In my opinion, this problem is best addressed by removing Federal Tax breaks for 'married' couples all together. 'Married' filing status is discriminates against single people and should be seen as a violation of One Man, One Vote upon which Democracy is based.
Pass legislation requiring the Insurance industry (or anyone else providing Benefits) to do the same and extend benefits to co-dependents. The definition will be the tricky part and the next argument will be over how many co-dependents one is allowed. But, hopefully, the 'Pass the Rights for Polygamists' arguement is still some distance away.
In other words, my position is to make all citizens equal and keep the Federal government nuetral on one's sex, race, sexual orientation, religion and any other descriptor which only serves to ensure discrimination.
Sometimes the easiest answer is also the best answer. -
Mark commented on the article |I'm sorry.
This is a subject which should NOT be addressed in Government. -
Mark commented on the article |
And this is a subject that should be addressed in Government.
Try this:
Repeal all 'marriage' tax breaks. Readjust the code if you feel the need.
Pass legislation to force the insurance industry, business and anybody else handing out benefits to allow co-dependants in place of 'spousal' benefits. Define co-dependents as needed.
There, every CITIZEN is equal. Everybody gets the same benefits and tax treatment. And, the government is not all up in your sexual business where it has no business being in the first place.
Moral Majorities are happy because everyone is a tax citizen so there aren't supporting a lifestyle/sexual orientation with which the don't agree or condone. -
Mark commented on the article |P.S. How do you know a crime perpetrated on a LGBT person was motivated by their particular orientation?
Are you making a judgment prior to the facts and due process?
Would you be inadvertantly giving prejudice to crimes against LGBT persons than any other orientation? -
Mark commented on the article |
I fail to see how an additional law will help the Duanna Johnson's of the world.
You didn't say if her murderer was ever caught. Murder is a crime. The motivation for the murder is irrelevant. If I kill you for a dollar, your car, because you're a woman, black, white, yellow or green, I have committed murder.
We need to work on our judicial system. To the point, we need an ethical shift in the Legal industry. Lawyers should make sure their clients get a fair investigation, trial and sentence. Trying to find loopholes to get a guilty client off, is accessory to murder after the fact.
Now, that would be a good law and probably much more effective in ensuring JUSTICE- a lost concept at this point.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits