Supreme Court and gay marriage

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I supported Ron Paul and I do not believe I am the only one entitled to rights by the way. I really wish you would stop misrepresenting what a libertarian believes, either you do it on purpose (which is the one I believe simply because you seem too intelligent to not understand it and you like to stir pots) or you need to read more about libertarian philosophy. Don't just assume we are all Idaho militia members who want to succeed from the union. that isn't libertarian. Libertarians support your cause, just differently.

to be totally honest... my opinion of libertarians from the many posts I've seen hear and the bleating screeds of people like Ron and Rand have shown me that they're generally a bunch of self-centered, narcissistic, selfish cry babies who want everyone to jump to their defense and protect them but don't ever want to lift a finger to help anyone else. They want to be able to fuck over anyone and everything for their own gain.

sad.
NO libertarian believes they are able to fuck over anyone at anytime.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. From the link to the platform you didn't have time to read but really do wish you would.

Even if they have nothing to gain, they'll get a kick out of sitting atop their own little ivory tower, saying they choose to do nothing because it's not their job. They're the kind of person who would run over a child and argue that they didn't feel it was the government's place to tell them to step on the brake. And I honestly think that most of them would get a kick out of doing that if they wouldn't go to jail for doing it.

I would take offense to that if I didn't know your writing style. When have I ever come across as a whiny brat who would run over a child and not think twice? If I have than I apologize. That certainly isn't the message I want to convey.

But the moment that the government doesn't race to wipe their asses... well THEN there's hell to pay.

that is not libertarians, that is neo conservatism void of principle.

I've always pictured libertarians like Veruca Salt from the Willy Wonka movie. Screaming and crying endlessly about what she wants... making a huge stink when she isn't allow to do or have whatever she wants. And the moment that people don't fall all over themselves to hand it to her on a silver platter... there's hell to pay.

I posted a link to the platform from 2012, did you read any of it? Veruca Salt could be a member of any political party. I would say she best represents those that want the most from government. That certainly isn't a libertarian. It describes the Eric Cantor, Michelle Bachmann and the current GOP perfectly though.

And yeah... I'm sure that they writings of some long-dead libertarian philosophy might say different. Well cool. But i'm talking about the actual people who call themselves libertarians and I think they're a bunch of spoiled brats who need a good kick in the pants.

I can polish a turd and call it gold but that doesn't make it so. People can call themselves libertarian all they want, doesn't mean they are. Anyone who believes the government should be able to ban gay marriage is not a libertarian. They are a conservative who likes the idea of libertarianism until they realize what it actually means. There is a lot more faith and belief in people in Libertarianism than in any other political view whether you want to believe that or not. Again, read the platform.

the GOP tea party you believe are libertarians are not, they prove it by who they vote for and regulation/laws they support like DOMA and the rest of that bullshit...Just because someone calls themselves libertarian doesn't mean they are...I could call myself democrat because of how I feel about social issues, but does that make me one? no.

to bring it back to the topic at hand, let me ask you, when I was working to get Minnesota's ridiculous marriage amendment defeated, when I was standing up at GOP caucuses all down the line in MN and trying to get support to take marriage language out of the party platform, who was I trying to screw over? Who was I running over?

hedonist

So much for reasoned debate :P

Am I missing something in supporting the rights of everyone to marry who they want, and at the same time have next-of-kin, POA, insurance benefits, inheritances, etc. covered under documents we have drawn up and executed?

Any couple - anyone, any two - can surely pursue these.

(again, unless I've overlooked some key point)

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

or you can go on believing that Libertarians want you to remain single and toiling in the salt mines with the rest of the population, whichever is easier

Um... not to kick you yet again... but Libertarians are against minimum wages and any kind of worker protections... so it's probably libertarians who would be the ones owning and operating the salt mines.



I'm just saying.

You aren't kicking me, we are having a discussion.

They also believe that people are responsible for their community and believe the a business owner should pay a fair wage for the job done. But take it anyway you want.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

he's in a government-recognized marriage. Because there's something in it for him.

He would be married with or without gov't benefits.

and even a bigger response to the rest of it. You are talking about a guy who treated MEDICAID patients for free at his practice because he didn't believe in government insurance. Honestly, don't let what you want them to be cloud who they really are. Your dismissal, disdain and hatred for people who would let you live how you want to live is staggering...

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

Penn Jillette does seem to be a better spokesperson for the ideals of Libertarianism than does either of the Pauls.

The Pauls aren't libertarian, Ron is actually a small government conservative, the only one left really...easily confused.

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Penn Jillette does seem to be a better spokesperson for the ideals of Libertarianism than does either of the Pauls.

The Pauls aren't libertarian, Ron is actually a small government conservative, the only one left really...easily confused.

Yet they come up in almost every single discussion of Libertarianism and are touted as flagbearers for the cause.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

not to derail, and some might think this is nitpicking but knowing Ron Paul that isn't a vote in support of Prop 8. I guess it is all how you look at it. He didn't say he was against it I know, but he didn't say he was for it and he stated his position nurmerous times that gov't should not be involved in marriage. There was no yes or no in that sentence and he is generally very careful in his word choices

i think it's not unreasonable to infer he would have voted for the proposition ... but that's the thing with libertarians (apologize for the slight derail) tho - is that they resort to this speak but non-speak ... yeah - sure, gov't shouldn't be involved with marriage ... but the reality is they are ... so, what's your position then!? ...

in any case - it's kind of sad how this is still a topic for discussion ...

unsung

JimmyV wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Penn Jillette does seem to be a better spokesperson for the ideals of Libertarianism than does either of the Pauls.

The Pauls aren't libertarian, Ron is actually a small government conservative, the only one left really...easily confused.

Yet they come up in almost every single discussion of Libertarianism and are touted as flagbearers for the cause.

They are more or less the closest thing.

unsung

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I supported Ron Paul and I do not believe I am the only one entitled to rights by the way. I really wish you would stop misrepresenting what a libertarian believes, either you do it on purpose (which is the one I believe simply because you seem too intelligent to not understand it and you like to stir pots) or you need to read more about libertarian philosophy. Don't just assume we are all Idaho militia members who want to succeed from the union. that isn't libertarian. Libertarians support your cause, just differently.

to be totally honest... my opinion of libertarians from the many posts I've seen hear and the bleating screeds of people like Ron and Rand have shown me that they're generally a bunch of self-centered, narcissistic, selfish cry babies who want everyone to jump to their defense and protect them but don't ever want to lift a finger to help anyone else. They want to be able to fuck over anyone and everything for their own gain.

Even if they have nothing to gain, they'll get a kick out of sitting atop their own little ivory tower, saying they choose to do nothing because it's not their job. They're the kind of person who would run over a child and argue that they didn't feel it was the government's place to tell them to step on the brake. And I honestly think that most of them would get a kick out of doing that if they wouldn't go to jail for doing it. Do you really think that Unsung wouldn't secretly enjoy doing that? Because I'm positive he would.

But the moment that the government doesn't race to wipe their asses... well THEN there's hell to pay.

I've always pictured libertarians like Veruca Salt from the Willy Wonka movie. Screaming and crying endlessly about what she wants... making a huge stink when she isn't allow to do or have whatever she wants. And the moment that people don't fall all over themselves to hand it to her on a silver platter... That's when the shit hits the fan.

And yeah... I'm sure that the writings of some long-dead libertarian philosophy might say different. Well cool. But i'm talking about the actual people who call themselves libertarians and I think they're a bunch of spoiled brats who need a good kick in the pants.

You have no idea what a Libertarian is. You also don't know me and what I do. But honestly I don't give a shit about someone's opinion of me when they can't accept a sincere apology and choose to instead push that issue twice more.

Good luck with your fight, I do hope you get what you want.

know1

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Married couples pay lower taxes and they get protections and benefits and he wanted that..

This is something I personally haven't seen.

The year before I was married, the collective tax return for myself and girlfriend at the time was about $1000.

The next year, we made no changes to our withholdings, had no income change and nothing else significant that should affect our taxes and we ended up owing $3500.

I should go back and look at the total taxes paid, but we were shocked that simply getting married made such a difference at tax time.

Jeanwah

know1 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Married couples pay lower taxes and they get protections and benefits and he wanted that..

This is something I personally haven't seen.

The year before I was married, the collective tax return for myself and girlfriend at the time was about $1000.

The next year, we made no changes to our withholdings, had no income change and nothing else significant that should affect our taxes and we ended up owing $3500.

I should go back and look at the total taxes paid, but we were shocked that simply getting married made such a difference at tax time.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/new-york-doma-windsor

Edith Windsor, who filed the original case that could upend the Defense of Marriage Act, says just getting the case to this point is a kind of victory.

"We've made a huge step forward and a huge difference in how people look at us," she said. "And so, it'll happen. Another year if not now."

It was the death of Windsor's life partner, Thea Clara Spyer, that led to the case.

Theirs was not a fleeting romance -- the women were together 42 years sharing ups and downs, laughs and tears. They also shared what they'd earned together, including from Windsor's job as a programmer with IBM and Spyer's work as a psychologist.

"We were mildly affluent and extremely happy," Windsor said. "We were like most couples."

But even after they married in 2007 in Toronto, some 40 years into their courtship, the two women were not "like most couples" in the eyes of the state of New York, where they lived, nor in the eyes of the U.S. government, which under the Defense of Marriage Act mandates that a spouse, as legally defined, must be a person of the opposite sex.

This fact hit Windsor hard in 2009, while in a hospital after suffering a heart attack a month after Spyer's death. As she recovered and mourned, Windsor realized she faced a hefty bill for inheritance taxes -- $363,053 more than was warranted, she later claimed in court -- because Spyer was, in legal terms, little more than a friend.

"It was incredible indignation," Windsor recalled feeling. "Just the numbers were so cruel."

This anger gave way to action. Why, she and her lawyers argued, should her relationship with Spyer be any different when it came to rights, taxes and more than a heterosexual couple? Why should Windsor have to pay, literally, for losing her soulmate -- even though, by 2009, New York courts had recognized that "foreign same-sex marriages" should be recognized in the state as valid?

In October, Windsor got an answer in the form of a ruling opinion from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court found, in her favor, that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution's equal protection clause and thus she shouldn't have had to pay an inheritance tax after her partner's death. This follows a similar ruling, in May, from another federal appeals court in Boston.

Neither opinion settles the matter for good. That is expected to happen when the Supreme Court will weigh the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act through the prism of Windsor and Spyer's story. It is one of two cases related to same-sex marriage that the high court is considering. The other addresses California's Proposition 8. The court is expected to rule on both cases by mid-June.

Even with those cases pending, Windsor said last fall -- when the lower court decided in her favor, three years after Spyer's death -- that she felt she could finally breathe and celebrate.

It was a day she relished, and one she didn't entirely expect after all her heartache.

"What I'm feeling is elated," Windsor said. "Did I ever think it could come to be, altogether? ... Not a chance in hell."

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

I don't support the government allowing marriage for heterosexuals. I think the government needs to get it's nose out of issues such as this and worry about running this country. I am anti- government-sanctioned marriage.

...
So, what happens in case of divorce?
The only reason WHY government HAS to come into play is because of people's inability to do what is right and fair. All of the state run stuff is so a sole supporter husband cannot just leave his housewife with nothing. Marriage is basically a legal contract that gives each person certain rights... such a spousal support, parental custody, etc... because people are not fair.
If people weren't selfish assholes... then there would be no need for government to get involved.
...
What is your next debate point?

know1

Cosmo wrote:

know1 wrote:

I don't support the government allowing marriage for heterosexuals. I think the government needs to get it's nose out of issues such as this and worry about running this country. I am anti- government-sanctioned marriage.

...
So, what happens in case of divorce?
The only reason WHY government HAS to come into play is because of people's inability to do what is right and fair. All of the state run stuff is so a sole supporter husband cannot just leave his housewife with nothing. Marriage is basically a legal contract that gives each person certain rights... such a spousal support, parental custody, etc... because people are not fair.
If people weren't selfish assholes... then there would be no need for government to get involved.
...
What is your next debate point?

I've said time and again that the government or lawyers should come up with some legal contract that two people could sign that essentially gives them these so-called benefits.

Outside of that, let people get their "marriage" or whatever they want to call it sanctioned by the church, their families, or nobody at all because.

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

I've said time and again that the government or lawyers should come up with some legal contract that two people could sign that essentially gives them these so-called benefits.

Outside of that, let people get their "marriage" or whatever they want to call it sanctioned by the church, their families, or nobody at all because.

...
But.. if, as you say, 'Government or lawyers should come up with some legal contract that two people could sign that essentially gives them these so-called benefits'... then, isn't that govenment involvement by definition?
And that is the core of the Gay Marriage debate... that heterosexual couples are granted certain Federal Benefits, such as a waiver in inhereitence taxes, but homosexual couples are denied. All because a Gay Marriage is not recognized as a legitimate bond like a heterosexual Marriage is viewed.
That is why there are two choices to make here, either:
A. Grant the same benefits to Gay Married couples... OR...
B. Revoke all Federal benefits from all heterosexual married couples and deny them from placing their spouses on their heath insurance plans and make the survivor pay the inheritence taxes like everybody else.
It really is, that simple.

JimmyV

know1 wrote:

I've said time and again that the government or lawyers should come up with some legal contract that two people could sign that essentially gives them these so-called benefits.

Outside of that, let people get their "marriage" or whatever they want to call it sanctioned by the church, their families, or nobody at all because.

I don't necessarily disagree but why not just let homosexual couples get married under the current system? Then we don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Prince Of Dorkness

hedonist wrote:

So much for reasoned debate :P

Am I missing something in supporting the rights of everyone to marry who they want, and at the same time have next-of-kin, POA, insurance benefits, inheritances, etc. covered under documents we have drawn up and executed?

Any couple - anyone, any two - can surely pursue these.

(again, unless I've overlooked some key point)

Yes... The 1200 rights and protections that couples can ONLY get with marriage recognized at the rederal level,

Besides... Why should we have to jump through a bunch of hoops that Britney Spears can get next time she staggers into a chapel in Vegas?

hedonist

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

hedonist wrote:

So much for reasoned debate :P

Am I missing something in supporting the rights of everyone to marry who they want, and at the same time have next-of-kin, POA, insurance benefits, inheritances, etc. covered under documents we have drawn up and executed?

Any couple - anyone, any two - can surely pursue these.

(again, unless I've overlooked some key point)

Yes... The 1200 rights and protections that couples can ONLY get with marriage recognized at the rederal level,

Besides... Why should we have to jump through a bunch of hoops that Britney Spears can get next time she staggers into a chapel in Vegas?

You drinking this evening, Mr. Dork?

(if so, cheers)

Said before in essence that we should eliminate the hoop-jumping all over.

edited to clarify - either we all do some jumping or no one does.

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

NO libertarian believes they are able to fuck over anyone at anytime.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. From the link to the platform you didn't have time to read but really do wish you would.

a party platform is just feel-good nicey nice bullshit. The same year that the Republican party wrote the "defense of marriage act," they also adopted the party platform of "equality for all."

I would take offense to that if I didn't know your writing style. When have I ever come across as a whiny brat who would run over a child and not think twice? If I have than I apologize. That certainly isn't the message I want to convey.

you personally? Never. that I'll concede... you're very atypical to the libertarians I've run afoul of.

People can call themselves libertarian all they want, doesn't mean they are.

I also knew a libertarian who came from a long line of libertarians who owned tobacco companies and they were incensed that they weren't allowed to sell cigarettes to anyone and lie about the health risks and the dangers and if people died... tough shit... they should have been smarter. I think his quote was "it's not my fault if people are dumb enough to buy cigarettes... so why should I have to warn them about it too? Do I have to smoke it for them as well?"

when I was standing up at GOP caucuses all down the line in MN and trying to get support to take marriage language out of the party platform, who was I trying to screw over? Who was I running over?

Well... I mean... me. ALL married people. You keep saying that we want the same thing but you're wrong.

I DO want government involved in marriage. I think the family is the cornerstone of humanity and I think that as humans who want to keep the species going.. we should encourage and support small, social family units. I DO think we should give tax incentives to couples who have kids, I DO think it takes a village to raise a child. I DO think that we should do anything we can to keep families and couples together because THOSE are the people who are going to care for each other. And I think it's the right thing to do.

You assume that because I'm gay that I want the government out of marriage... I don't... I want IN. That's what I'm fighting for. I'm fighting for my family.

Prince Of Dorkness

hedonist wrote:

we should eliminate the hoop-jumping all over.

edited to clarify - either we all do some jumping or no one does.

OK... I see what you mean, now.

But WHY? I mean.. it seems like a huge pain in the ass to write up hundreds of legal papers. And I can tell you it's expensive.

So ... if there's a mechanism in place to give all of those under one umbrella... why not just... make that accessible to everyone instead of a huge bureaucracy of red tape?

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

They also believe that people are responsible for their community and believe the a business owner should pay a fair wage for the job done. But take it anyway you want.

So that "there should be no minimum wage" thing means that he thinks that 1¢ per hour is a fair wage.