« Former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, marries partner Heather Poe | Main | Gallery | Steve Rothaus at Stonewall National Museum & Archives pop-up in Wilton Manors »

CNBC video | Finance guru Suze Orman speaks out for marriage equality

From GLAAD:

This Saturday night, just in time for NYC LGBT Pride Week, financial guru Suze Orman will dedicate an episode of “The Suze Orman Show” to marriage equality and the economic impacts that marriage equality has on LGBT couples nationwide. The show is one of the highest rated shows on network CNBC and this episode will cover estate taxes, health insurance, pensions, and social security.

Click here to read more.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b26169e2017615bfa934970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CNBC video | Finance guru Suze Orman speaks out for marriage equality:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

GET REAL, SUZE!

Suze Orman, you are too smart to declare with a completely straight face that you “are not treated equally” because you cannot marry a person of your same sex.

Inequality means not being permitted something another citizen is permitted UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS as that other citizen.

Suze Orman, you can marry anyone under the SAME terms and conditions as every other American. NO ONE in America is allowed to marry under DIFFERENT terms and conditions. This would be unequal.

NO ONE in America is ever asked their alleged sexual preference, their alleged sexual behavior or their alleged sexual practices when they apply for a marriage license. NO ONE! EVERYONE in America can marry under the SAME terms and conditions as everyone else. So deal with it, Suze. Do not attempt to insult our intelligence, or yours, for that matter.

Now, if you want to talk about “Marriage Equality,” that true equality applies equally to everyone! It cannot be granted to a privileged few, but unequally denied to everyone else. It’s hypocritical to demand "Marriage Equality” for aberrosexuals (those who engage in biologically aberrant sexual behavior), yet cynically deny it to all others that, by the same logic, are as equally deserving.

Aberrosexualists (partisans, whether aberrosexual or not, of the extremist ideology pushing for the “normalization” of biologically aberrant sexual behavior) mock the very notion of equality by demanding “equal marriage rights" for themselves while conveniently refusing it to everyone else in a “loving and caring relationship.” What about those who want to so-call “marry” their blood relatives, minors, multiple partners, or even their lovable, adorable pets? That’s right, Suze! If you can leave your entire estate to your beautiful Labrador retriever, why shouldn’t you be able to marry him (or her?) as well? Shouldn’t “Marriage Equality” apply to these Americans as well?

Aberrosexualist extremists pushing so-called “Marriage Equality” need to come clean. They need to be consistent at the very least! They can’t advocate “Marriage Equality” for a chosen few, while hypocritically denying it to those who may want to so-call "marry" multiple partners or their grandma so they can be covered by her insurance or inherit her great pension benefits. Otherwise, they must stop pretending to stand for “Marriage Equality" at all!

Americans in all fifty states already enjoy “Marriage Equality.” Regardless of their alleged sexual preference, everyone in America has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex on the SAME equal terms and equal conditions. That’s what true marriage equality is all about! An equality that equals reality.

The previous commenter is being paid per exclamation mark.

As soon as someone reveals they don't know the difference between a person and a labrador retriever, you know that don't have to take them seriously.

Bur just in case: Dr. Meissner, a person is a human being, while a labrador retriever is a dog. The two species have always been treated differently under the law, in part because a dog is more likely to chew up a contract than to read and understand it. Changing the laws regarding which humans are allowed to marry one another will not change a dog's ability to enter into a contract. Therefore, humans marrying humans is categorically different from humans marrying dogs.

If you wish to make a serious contribution to this conversation, Dr. Meissner, you may wish to refresh yourself on this distinction between humans and dogs before you continue. I suggest you look up "dog" on Google or at amazon. You'll find handy reference materials there.

Just to save you some time, though, here's a tip: Do not ask your dog to read the books. He (or she) is unlikely to have that ability. (It's the "human and dogs are different" thing again.)

DID YOU REALLY THINK YOU COULD WALK RIGHT PAST THE FACTS AND NOT BE NOTICED, SIR?

Just in case: Mr. Tisinai, a man is a male, while a woman is a female. The two sexes have always been recognized in law, science and medicine, as biologically and genetically different.

Changing the marriage law that respects the biological and genetic differences between the males and females will never make the sexes the same. Therefore, a male and a female marrying is categorically, indisputably, scientifically different from a male marrying another male or a female marrying another female.

If you wish to make a serious contribution to this conversation, Mr. Tisinai, you may wish to refresh yourself on the vast differences between males and females before you continue. I suggest you look up "male" and “female” on any good search engine. I’m sure you'll find handy reference materials there.

BTW, your humor is truly delightful!

Thanks, Judy, I appreciate the compliment. So does that mean you're admitting that your attempt to equate human-human marriage with human-nonhuman marriage was ridiculous? Because, I'm afraid,until you're willing to acknowledge that there is a difference between humans and dogs, there's little reason to take anything you say seriously.

Well, Dr. Judy apparently has some very unhealthy obsession with Suze Orman. She's cut and pasted her abberrosexual comment on every website with a reference to Mrs. Orman's article.

This obsession with Orman would seem to indicate that Dr. Judy is jealous that Orman didn't marry her. I've never seen anyone quite so obsessed, with the exception of Peter LaBarbera and his leather fetish.

"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

Have a ring to it Dr. Judy?

BTW, I notice you've been trying to sell your new word since some time before 2011. Good luck with that. Maybe someday you'll amount to something. I'm pretty sure you mother's probably not too proud of you right now for all the hate you like to spew.

Just curios, where'd your degree come from the University of Uganda?

The law does not recognize differences in males and females in contracts. Civil marriage is a contract. Dr. Meissner is apparently quite comfortable with insulting the intelligence of Americans, as long as she thinks she can get away with that behaviour. By the way, Dr. M, same sex couples can be married in several states currently and blood relatives in many more. Fail.

please judy, Suze is a married woman. find someone else to hit on. reminds me of grade school when the boys would pull the girls hair when they liked them.

another thing, if you look at a happily married couple or loving duo, and your mind jumps to pet-o-philia (see, me can make up words too) or pedophilia, that is pretty darn creepy. i'd watch my pets and kids around you.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment