a bit apprehensive to post this

know1 · February 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

know1 wrote:

As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.

For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.

On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.

A recent study showed that gay couples paid an average of $6000 more per year in taxes when they made less money and had access to fewer services and resources.

Us homos are tired of paying your way, either tax us less or treat us equally.

Well I'd like to be taxed like a single person again. My/Our taxes went up $3K just because we were married. There was no change to income, withholdings, etc. Of course, I could just choose to get a divorce if I wanted to be taxed like a single person again.

And my comment was in reference to the fact that it's not really the government that's denying them considering they could access them if they made that choice.

hedonist · February 2012

know1 wrote:

Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.

I agree with this.

And I also support gay marriage - unions? Is the choice of words semantics? (honest question)

The only thorn for me throughout all of this is not the issue itself, but the fact that a decision made by voters can be overturned. What's the point of voting...what will it affect next time?

Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?

Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.

mikepegg44 · February 2012

know1 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

that is a good point. I think this going to the supreme court will go a long way into defining what "right" there is to the legal and tax advantages of being married. If state and federal agencies are going to attach legal advantages to being married, it is strange that they can also deny someone access to those services based on WHO they wish to marry. Does that make sense?
I think we will see a 5-4 decisions overturning the 9th circuit, but I hope I am wrong. I will be VERY interested to read both the opinions, both the affirmative and the dissenting. I think this ruling will have an impact much more far reaching than we can see right now

As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.

For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.

On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.

my state taxes went down in MN. Our federal return is larger as a married filing jointly than it was adding together both of us filing single.

Plus all the other legal benefits and health benefits that we get simply for having a licensed marriage.

you bring up a good point though...and that is why I am so interested in the implications of the decision. Basically if the supreme court sides with a line of thinking like you expressed above they are saying that being homosexual is a choice that is made...David Cross said it best about that particular choice.
Which brings it back to the main point, individual rights...what are they in regards to access to the benefits given to those who are married?...and can the state's choose to deny access to certain benefits based on a definition created by the majority?

and I too believe that the government should not be in the marriage business at all.

Prince Of Dorkness · February 2012

hedonist wrote:

Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?

Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.

Ok so first, my husband is legally my husband. We're married in our home country of Canada and our state of california. We're not common law. We don't "consider" ourselves married, we ARE married. Twice.

There are over 1500 rights, resources, privileges, protections and responsibilities that are granted to legally married couples at the federal level that no amount of contracts and legal hoops to jump through can grant us, the one we're most wanting being me sponsoring him for a green card so we don't live under the constant threat of him being deported.

But there are many more. And after 20 years together, I think we have every right to demand them.

Prince Of Dorkness · February 2012

know1 wrote:

Well I'd like to be taxed like a single person again. My/Our taxes went up $3K just because we were married. There was no change to income, withholdings, etc. Of course, I could just choose to get a divorce if I wanted to be taxed like a single person again.

And you have that right, don't you?

But we don't have the right to be taxed like a married couple. Even though we are one.

hedonist · February 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?

Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.

Ok so first, my husband is legally my husband. We're married in our home country of Canada and our state of california. We're not common law. We don't "consider" ourselves married, we ARE married. Twice.

There are over 1500 rights, resources, privileges, protections and responsibilities that are granted to legally married couples at the federal level that no amount of contracts and legal hoops to jump through can grant us, the one we're most wanting being me sponsoring him for a green card so we don't live under the constant threat of him being deported.

But there are many more. And after 20 years together, I think we have every right to demand them.

Fair enough...I wasn't being antagonistic and was unaware you were way past the "considered" point

Prince Of Dorkness · February 2012

hedonist wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?

Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.

Ok so first, my husband is legally my husband. We're married in our home country of Canada and our state of california. We're not common law. We don't "consider" ourselves married, we ARE married. Twice.

There are over 1500 rights, resources, privileges, protections and responsibilities that are granted to legally married couples at the federal level that no amount of contracts and legal hoops to jump through can grant us, the one we're most wanting being me sponsoring him for a green card so we don't live under the constant threat of him being deported.

But there are many more. And after 20 years together, I think we have every right to demand them.

Fair enough...I wasn't being antagonistic and was unaware you were way past the "considered" point

Oh I know that.

I'll admit it gets a bit old to have to keep reminding people of that, or correcting them when they call him my "boyfriend" or something.

blackredyellow · February 2012

hedonist wrote:

know1 wrote:

Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.

I agree with this.

And I also support gay marriage - unions? Is the choice of words semantics? (honest question)

The only thorn for me throughout all of this is not the issue itself, but the fact that a decision made by voters can be overturned. What's the point of voting...what will it affect next time?

Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?

Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.

Putting this specific issue aside, the courts do have to have the ability to overturn popular vote (and should at times). We've seen it in the past with laws against races or women. Just because a majority of the people who voted feel a certain way, it shouldn't supersede rights granted in the constitution of the country or the sate that they are in.

know1 · February 2012

mikepegg44 wrote:

know1 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

that is a good point. I think this going to the supreme court will go a long way into defining what "right" there is to the legal and tax advantages of being married. If state and federal agencies are going to attach legal advantages to being married, it is strange that they can also deny someone access to those services based on WHO they wish to marry. Does that make sense?
I think we will see a 5-4 decisions overturning the 9th circuit, but I hope I am wrong. I will be VERY interested to read both the opinions, both the affirmative and the dissenting. I think this ruling will have an impact much more far reaching than we can see right now

As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.

For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.

On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.

my state taxes went down in MN. Our federal return is larger as a married filing jointly than it was adding together both of us filing single.

Plus all the other legal benefits and health benefits that we get simply for having a licensed marriage.

you bring up a good point though...and that is why I am so interested in the implications of the decision. Basically if the supreme court sides with a line of thinking like you expressed above they are saying that being homosexual is a choice that is made...David Cross said it best about that particular choice.
Which brings it back to the main point, individual rights...what are they in regards to access to the benefits given to those who are married?...and can the state's choose to deny access to certain benefits based on a definition created by the majority?

and I too believe that the government should not be in the marriage business at all.

Just a point of clarification. I didn't say being homosexual is a choice. I said marriage is a choice. I think there's no disputing that whomever you choose to marry is your choice.

And I literally do not know why our taxes went up so much. Adding our refunds/payments the year before we were married, we came out basically even. After the marriage, we owed a net $3500 at tax time.

know1 · February 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

know1 wrote:

Well I'd like to be taxed like a single person again. My/Our taxes went up $3K just because we were married. There was no change to income, withholdings, etc. Of course, I could just choose to get a divorce if I wanted to be taxed like a single person again.

And you have that right, don't you?

But we don't have the right to be taxed like a married couple. Even though we are one.

If you're legally married as you say you are, then you should be taxed that way. So why aren't you? Is it because the Federal Government doesn't recognize the marriage. I really don't know the answer here.

But...to keep up my point, you could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex and get taxed that way if that was your goal (and I know it is not just like it's not my goal to be single again for the tax advantages).

Prince Of Dorkness · February 2012

know1 wrote:

If you're legally married as you say you are, then you should be taxed that way. So why aren't you? Is it because the Federal Government doesn't recognize the marriage. I really don't know the answer here.

That's exactly it, yes.

But...to keep up my point, you could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex and get taxed that way if that was your goal (and I know it is not just like it's not my goal to be single again for the tax advantages).

Well, gay people marry for love.

Straight people, if I believe what I see on TV, get married to get big huge parties and lots of gifts... they get married for attention and to feel "special." So they can drop an average of $27K on their weddings that they're still paying for while they're in divorce court.

So they can parade down the street, holding up traffic and honking their horns on floats (usually a rented limo covered in paper flowers and streamers) waving "just married" signs.

All you need to do is turn on "The Learning Channel" to "learn" that marriage is a prize granted to the winner of a reality show. A bunch of desperate women compete and tear each other's eyes out for the entertainment of the audience and the winner gets to marry a millionaire.

Or turn on "The Learning Channel" and see Kim Kardashian who married so she could sign $30 million in endorsement deals. Or Britney Spears who got married while drunk to "do something crazy."

Yes... I guess I could "choose" to marry someone I don't love (like straight people do) and get all those benefits (like straight people do) but I would like to think that marriage is more than that.

Something worth fighting for. But since you've never had to fight for anything, really... you'll never understand that.

(and while you're at it, get a better accountant. if you're paying more for being married, you're getting hosed.)

*I don't actually mean any of this but I'm sick and fucking tired of having straight guys debate the fine points of how I could choose to marry someone "if you want those rights" while I worry about my husband of 20 years being deported. And I'm not sorry.

know1 · February 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

know1 wrote:

If you're legally married as you say you are, then you should be taxed that way. So why aren't you? Is it because the Federal Government doesn't recognize the marriage. I really don't know the answer here.

That's exactly it, yes.

But...to keep up my point, you could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex and get taxed that way if that was your goal (and I know it is not just like it's not my goal to be single again for the tax advantages).

Well, gay people marry for love.

Straight people, if I believe what I see on TV, get married to get big huge parties and lots of gifts... they get married for attention and to feel "special." So they can drop an average of $27K on their weddings that they're still paying for while they're in divorce court.

So they can parade down the street, holding up traffic and honking their horns on floats (usually a rented limo covered in paper flowers and streamers) waving "just married" signs.

All you need to do is turn on "The Learning Channel" to "learn" that marriage is a prize granted to the winner of a reality show. A bunch of desperate women compete and tear each other's eyes out for the entertainment of the audience and the winner gets to marry a millionaire.

Or turn on "The Learning Channel" and see Kim Kardashian who married so she could sign $30 million in endorsement deals. Or Britney Spears who got married while drunk to "do something crazy."

Yes... I guess I could "choose" to marry someone I don't love (like straight people do) and get all those benefits (like straight people do) but I would like to think that marriage is more than that.

Something worth fighting for. But since you've never had to fight for anything, really... you'll never understand that.

(and while you're at it, get a better accountant. if you're paying more for being married, you're getting hosed.)

*I don't actually mean any of this but I'm sick and fucking tired of having straight guys debate the fine points of how I could choose to marry someone "if you want those rights" while I worry about my husband of 20 years being deported. And I'm not sorry.

As crazy as it sounds, our ideology on this topic isn't probably as far off as it would seem on the surface. I'm only trying to point things I notice in the pro- arguments. By the same token, I disagree with a lot of the anti- arguments as well (sanctity of marriage? Please!).

(I had several accountants look at it and they came up with the same story. We are simply paying more taxes now than we were before. It may have to do with my charitable contributions now being spread across 2 people, but I don't think that's possible either).

Prince Of Dorkness · February 2012

know1 wrote:

(I had several accountants look at it and they came up with the same story. We are simply paying more taxes now than we were before. It may have to do with my charitable contributions now being spread across 2 people, but I don't think that's possible either).

Well why don't you "choose" to marry someone of the same sex and you can be taxed differently?

Since that's what you want.

And you won't have to suffer the embarrassment of buying feminine hygiene products at the 711, either. It's win/win.

Prince Of Dorkness · February 2012

know1 wrote:

I'm only trying to point things I notice in the pro- arguments.

And I'm tired of debating them. It's like telling a mixed-race couple that they could "choose" to marry someone of the same race if they wanted to be treated better by other people.

I don't want "those rights."

I want "those rights for my family."

And if you can't tell the difference, I was probably right in my seemingly absurd diatribe about Britney, Kim and the Learning Channel.

Shawshank · February 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

All you need to do is turn on "The Learning Channel" to "learn" that marriage is a prize granted to the winner of a reality show. A bunch of desperate women compete and tear each other's eyes out for the entertainment of the audience and the winner gets to marry a millionaire.

Or turn on "The Learning Channel" and see Kim Kardashian who married so she could sign $30 million in endorsement deals. Or Britney Spears who got married while drunk to "do something crazy."

Spot on my friend. If anything is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage it's this shit.

Prince Of Dorkness · February 2012

Shawshank wrote:

Spot on my friend. If anything is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage it's this shit.

you'd be amazed at how many people roll their eyes and say "well, that's different" when presented with that, but when you ask "how is that different" they just look at you like this... :shock:

puremagic · February 2012

SweetChildofMine wrote:

Marriage is just a piece of legal paper.

and, that has been the real challenge facing the Church, because

People keep forgetting that - no Church within the United States can stop gays from getting married in legalized States because Churches –DO NOT have the power to legally marry any couple, gay or straight - without a STATE issued marriage license.

The State’s told the Churches that the power to issue marriage licenses remains a State’s right . So on the one-hand, the States are for separation of church when it comes to maintaining their power and control, yet, on the other hand, the Churches are the perfect CASH cow for politicians to push their agenda.

SweetChildofMine · February 2012

puremagic wrote:

SweetChildofMine wrote:

Marriage is just a piece of legal paper.

and, that has been the real challenge facing the Church, because

People keep forgetting that - no Church within the United States can stop gays from getting married in legalized States because Churches –DO NOT have the power to legally marry any couple, gay or straight - without a STATE issued marriage license.

The State’s told the Churches that the power to issue marriage licenses remains a State’s right . So on the one-hand, the States are for separation of church when it comes to maintaining their power and control, yet, on the other hand, the Churches are the perfect CASH cow for politicians to push their agenda.

Right, when its convenient for either parties to push their agenda on you. Im all for joining forces, however pushing oppression is not one of them. I know people who have been in relationships for many years and are considered to be "married" by families and friends. The thing is does it really matter? If you are in a long term healthy relationship with another human being isnt that the goal? Sharing the life with the person you love? The contract between two humans is essential part of life experience. I see nothing wrong with giving any loving couple the same legal rights. Besides, the sanctity of marriage is held within a loving sacred contract of two being regardless of what the world dictates.

The world is in the business of hating people who love each other, anyway.

hedonist · February 2012

SweetChildofMine wrote:

Right, when its convenient for either parties to push their agenda on you. Im all for joining forces, however pushing oppression is not one of them. I know people who have been in relationships for many years and are considered to be "married" by families and friends. The thing is does it really matter? If you are in a long term healthy relationship with another human being isnt that the goal? Sharing the life with the person you love? The contract between two humans is essential part of life experience. I see nothing wrong with giving any loving couple the same legal rights. Besides, the sanctity of marriage is held within a loving sacred contract of two being regardless of what the world dictates.

The world is in the business of hating people who love each other, anyway.

YES to this!

And Prince, I'm glad you had that disclaimer at the end of your rant. Gotta admit that I agreed with some of what you said - but other parts left me miffed. We all aren't THAT much different.

bgivens33 · February 2012

blackredyellow wrote:

hedonist wrote:

know1 wrote:

Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.

I agree with this.

And I also support gay marriage - unions? Is the choice of words semantics? (honest question)

The only thorn for me throughout all of this is not the issue itself, but the fact that a decision made by voters can be overturned. What's the point of voting...what will it affect next time?

Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?

Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.

Putting this specific issue aside, the courts do have to have the ability to overturn popular vote (and should at times). We've seen it in the past with laws against races or women. Just because a majority of the people who voted feel a certain way, it shouldn't supersede rights granted in the constitution of the country or the sate that they are in.

What right granted in the constitution does not allowing homosexuals to marry violate?

a bit apprehensive to post this

Comments

Categories