Supreme Court and gay marriage

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

Your dismissal, disdain and hatred for people who would let you live how you want to live is staggering...

well no... they would do away with their own way of living to keep me from asking to live the same way.

The government equivalent of taking your ball and going home when you don't get your way. I DO NOT want the government to do away with marriage altogether. I think it's an institution worth supporting.

Byrnzie

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

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.

It didn't. There were probably many factors that lead to that but marriage lowers your taxes.

It's been shown that the average gay couple pays about $5000 more in taxes per year.

And without being too much of a douchbag, I make about 5 time the average income of an American and my husband is about twice. So... yeah... we've paid a lot and gotten less.

brianlux

To big a file to post but check it out:

http://www.sadanduseless.com/image.php?n=2379

know1

Cosmo wrote:

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.

A. Then let it be a legally binding contract from lawyers and keep the government out of it. All I was saying was let the government allow for 2 people to be able to obtain the same "benefits"....which I'm not convinced they can't already.

B. Isn't the determination of who can be on a health insurance plan up to the employer or the insurance agency? I wasn't aware that was something the government determined, but I could be wrong. Prior to Obamasurance, there were plenty of companies and jobs where no insurance was offered to anyone so I'm not sure I get the whole health insurance angle.

And going back to a previous post, the amount of tax the government collects on inheritance is a complete travesty for all of us.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Your dismissal, disdain and hatred for people who would let you live how you want to live is staggering...

well no... they would do away with their own way of living to keep me from asking to live the same way.

The government equivalent of taking your ball and going home when you don't get your way. I DO NOT want the government to do away with marriage altogether. I think it's an institution worth supporting.

the institution of marriage existed long before it was gov't sanctioned

mikepegg44

Prince of Dorkness wrote:

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

thanks, I think that is the closest I will ever come to a compliment from you!

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?"

I would then argue that you didn't know a libertarian. Any libertarian who believes he should be able to lie is not a true libertarian, they are just assholes.

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

Not what I meant. I tried to get the GOP to drop this stupid charge for a marriage amendment that defined marriage between a man and a woman by asking that it be removed from the platform. I didn't advocate for eliminating the marriage license process, that would have been a losing proposition at a GOP caucus. Should have worded that differently. I then made a play on the angle of why on earth would the GOP want to be known as the party of exclusion. Didn't work, the old ladies screamed me down, something about God. Anyone in a Caucus state should go to them, it is like watching a really bad movie, like Trolls 2.

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.

That's a fair point and you aren't alone. The danger of giving the gov't the power to decree who can be married is the same thing that gives them the power to discriminate as to who can't be married.

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.

I didn't assume you wanted gov't out of marriage, that is simply my perfect world scenario. By saying that we want the same thing is the end result, I want you to be able to marry whoever you like and get the same privileges straight married folks get. But by taking gov't out of the actual sanctioning of a marriage through a license issued by the state, you end the ability of the gov't to deny that license to anyone. They should only respect the contract, they shouldn't originate it. If we are going to keep it the status quo then you should be able to get a marriage license like anyone else. And I will work for that end in my community as I have already. I never had more fun than talking to people on the phone who were going to vote yes on the amendment. I would just like to see us go further once everyone is on the same playing field.

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

i would love to get into this but that is for another thread, but the short answer is nope, 1 cent per hour is never a fair wage, unless the job is truly worth a penny an hour...which no job I know of is.

JimmyV

This thread has opened my eyes and I am reconsidering my position on Libertarian marriage.

riotgrl

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince of Dorkness wrote:

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

thanks, I think that is the closest I will ever come to a compliment from you!

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?"

I would then argue that you didn't know a libertarian. Any libertarian who believes he should be able to lie is not a true libertarian, they are just assholes.

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

Not what I meant. I tried to get the GOP to drop this stupid charge for a marriage amendment that defined marriage between a man and a woman by asking that it be removed from the platform. I didn't advocate for eliminating the marriage license process, that would have been a losing proposition at a GOP caucus. Should have worded that differently. I then made a play on the angle of why on earth would the GOP want to be known as the party of exclusion. Didn't work, the old ladies screamed me down, something about God. Anyone in a Caucus state should go to them, it is like watching a really bad movie, like Trolls 2.

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.

That's a fair point and you aren't alone. The danger of giving the gov't the power to decree who can be married is the same thing that gives them the power to discriminate as to who can't be married.

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.

I didn't assume you wanted gov't out of marriage, that is simply my perfect world scenario. By saying that we want the same thing is the end result, I want you to be able to marry whoever you like and get the same privileges straight married folks get. But by taking gov't out of the actual sanctioning of a marriage through a license issued by the state, you end the ability of the gov't to deny that license to anyone. They should only respect the contract, they shouldn't originate it. If we are going to keep it the status quo then you should be able to get a marriage license like anyone else. And I will work for that end in my community as I have already. I never had more fun than talking to people on the phone who were going to vote yes on the amendment. I would just like to see us go further once everyone is on the same playing field.

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

i would love to get into this but that is for another thread, but the short answer is nope, 1 cent per hour is never a fair wage, unless the job is truly worth a penny an hour...which no job I know of is.

I think this is the first time that a Libertarian has explained their reasoning in such a way that I finally understand what you're true intentions are in regards to government intervention. I think you've represented true Libertarians in a way that makes it easier for me to see myself liking the platform, so thank you for that.

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Your dismissal, disdain and hatred for people who would let you live how you want to live is staggering...

well no... they would do away with their own way of living to keep me from asking to live the same way.

The government equivalent of taking your ball and going home when you don't get your way. I DO NOT want the government to do away with marriage altogether. I think it's an institution worth supporting.

the institution of marriage existed long before it was gov't sanctioned

But it is now government sanctioned. It doesn't matter much how it existed before, this is how it exists now.

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince of Dorkness wrote:

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

thanks, I think that is the closest I will ever come to a compliment from you!

Geez. I really am a jerk when I've had a long week.

Anyway... I think you have good taste in music, too.

I also don't think you're such a bad guy, even if I do explode at you on occasion. But I think your idealized idea of what a libertarian is isn't really close to what they actually are. If that makes sense.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince of Dorkness wrote:

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

thanks, I think that is the closest I will ever come to a compliment from you!

Geez. I really am a jerk when I've had a long week.

Anyway... I think you have good taste in music, too.

I also don't think you're such a bad guy, even if I do explode at you on occasion. But I think your idealized idea of what a libertarian is isn't really close to what they actually are. If that makes sense.

this is probably true...

anyway back on topic, Does anyone think that the court will overturn prop 8? I don't unfortunately.

I do think they will strike down DOMA though.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Another consequence will be a rise in the number of divorces. It's already crazy high and once gay couples can actually get married, they will be no different from the rest.

I would think that the lawyer lobby would be all over this hoping for it to happen. It'd be like a manufacturing company getting their product into a new emerging market. Crazy $ to be made!!!

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

Another consequence will be a rise in the number of divorces. It's already crazy high and once gay couples can actually get married, they will be no different from the rest.

Actually...

In the states where they allowed marriage equality... divorce went DOWN.

Funny factoid...

Marriage isn't something that gay people are pushed into by family and society pressure. I didn't get a hope chest for my 18th birthday or parents and friends nagging us about getting married. We aren't told our whole lives that our wedding will be the "Best Day Of Your Life" or made to feel like we're not complete people for not being married.

So gay couples don't rush into marriage and therefore... the divorce rate is much lower than with the straight people who race to the altar.


Other funny factoid... straight marriages are months-long ordeals of showers and money raising and pre-marriage parties and "Jack and Jill" and receptions and expensive dresses and floral arrangements and stressed nerves and outrageously expensive rings with transparent rocks. They cost a fortune and are usually humiliating displays of tackiness that know no bounds. Gay weddings almost never come with "showers" or astronomical prices on flowers or clothes or invitations. If gay people want to make a big spectacle of themselves... they won't get married to do it.

So we actually get married because we want to. So we stay married longer.

Go figure.

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

anyway back on topic, Does anyone think that the court will overturn prop 8? I don't unfortunately.

I do think they will strike down DOMA though.

Prop 8 has already been over-turned. By Judge Walker in California.

The case before the Supreme Court is wether his ruling should stand or not. And most likely, they will either just let that ruling stand OR they will say the plaintiffs don't have standing in the case. Even if they do overturn HIS decision (everyone agrees that's unlikely), the mechanism is already set to put it back on the ballot in 2014. And it won't survive another vote. So Prop 8 is going away either way.

(Next Step, a constitutional amendment to remove the tax-free status of the Mormon Cult and outlaw Mormon marriages. You don't really think that we're going to not exact some revenge on those pigs, do you? )

DOMA is pretty much dead in the water already. It was written - poorly - by a bunch of Republican assholes whose REAL motive was just humiliating Bill Clinton. So it's grossly unconstitutional and such a mess that it's never once survived a challenge. Even the anti-equality twits who are shilling for the Vatican admit that it's chances of survival are very low.

hedonist

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Actually...

In the states where they allowed marriage equality... divorce went DOWN.

Funny factoid...

Marriage isn't something that gay people are pushed into by family and society pressure. I didn't get a hope chest for my 18th birthday or parents and friends nagging us about getting married. We aren't told our whole lives that our wedding will be the "Best Day Of Your Life" or made to feel like we're not complete people for not being married.

So gay couples don't rush into marriage and therefore... the divorce rate is much lower than with the straight people who race to the altar.


Other funny factoid... straight marriages are months-long ordeals of showers and money raising and pre-marriage parties and "Jack and Jill" and receptions and expensive dresses and floral arrangements and stressed nerves and outrageously expensive rings with transparent rocks. They cost a fortune and are usually humiliating displays of tackiness that know no bounds. Gay weddings almost never come with "showers" or astronomical prices on flowers or clothes or invitations. If gay people want to make a big spectacle of themselves... they won't get married to do it.

So we actually get married because we want to. So we stay married longer.

Go figure.

Actually...

There are many straight people who have no inclination to go that route, and haven't even been guided toward it. Never been a goal of mine, that's for sure. Having a solid, happy and lasting relationship? Hell yeah. You can keep the bells & whistles.

No rocks here either...not my style (and again, I'm sure for many others as well)

Some of us do not aspire to that princess for a day thing. The over the top hoopla.

Put away that brush, please!

hedonist

And thinking further about this, though a bit off-topic...I don't really care how anyone chooses to celebrate their marriage. I've turned down many an invite to showers and weddings. Sure I send good wishes (maybe a gift once in awhile), but these things can be so...tiring.

As to the race to the altar...I think that'd apply to all people. Imagine if being gay hadn't carried the stigma and prejudice it unfortunately has; might not gay people do the same? Don't some already?

On a brighter note, I'm all for lowering divorce rates. Committing your life to another shouldn't be taken so lightly.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

anyway back on topic, Does anyone think that the court will overturn prop 8? I don't unfortunately.

I do think they will strike down DOMA though.

Prop 8 has already been over-turned. By Judge Walker in California.

The case before the Supreme Court is wether his ruling should stand or not. And most likely, they will either just let that ruling stand OR they will say the plaintiffs don't have standing in the case. Even if they do overturn HIS decision (everyone agrees that's unlikely), the mechanism is already set to put it back on the ballot in 2014. And it won't survive another vote. So Prop 8 is going away either way.

(Next Step, a constitutional amendment to remove the tax-free status of the Mormon Cult and outlaw Mormon marriages. You don't really think that we're going to not exact some revenge on those pigs, do you? )

DOMA is pretty much dead in the water already. It was written - poorly - by a bunch of Republican assholes whose REAL motive was just humiliating Bill Clinton. So it's grossly unconstitutional and such a mess that it's never once survived a challenge. Even the anti-equality twits who are shilling for the Vatican admit that it's chances of survival are very low.

that is what I meant on Prop 8, basically. I am not so positive the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling and declare one final time that it is unconstitutional for a state to deny the right to marry a same sex partner. I just don't know if they will make such a sweeping decision. Hopefully they do and it doesn't take getting it back on the ballot in 2014.

Are you really that confident that prop 8 wouldn't survive another vote? I am shocked it passed in California to begin with...