CA judge overturns "No Gay Marriage" law

[Simplysnus]

Blue, are you in the top income tax bracket?

[lxskllr]

Turtles rock :^)

[sgreger1]

One small correction... It goes to appeals court before the Supreme Court(assuming they agree to hear the case). Instead of granting queers the right to marriage, I'd revoke it for the straights. That'll take care of the issue, and it can then become an issue of contract law. Anyone competent to sign a contract and ally with another person, will have the right to do so. There would be no tax benefit, or any other governmental benefit by incorporating in that method. There's no reason a "corporation" should have greater rights than an individual citizen.

Absolutely Lx, this is exactly what I mean. It is a contract like any other, therefore two individuals should be able to enter themselves into an agreed upon contract without hassle from the government. If you want to get married in a church by a priest, that's up to the church and frankly I don't care. Married couples should NOT get any more rights or breaks than anyone else. Government giving tax breaks to married couples is effectively subsidizing marriage, which is not what they were tasked to do.


For anyone who is against gay marriage, just be aware that by making the government regulate and define what is/is not marriage and who can/cannot enter into such a contract is us ALL losing yet another right. Marriage should be a personal thing and not involve the government in ANY way, other than courts who of course make sure contracts are upheld and also handle mitigation should the two parties want to withdraw from the contract. But congress for example has no right to say anything about it either way.


Of course it's unconstitutional, because if a priest wants to marry a couple, they cannot be stopped from doing so by the state because, as you mentioned, separation of church and state. No tax breaks, no anything different other than what the two parties involved agree upon, no outside brown nosing or rule making, we are all adults and if you are of legal age that means you are afforded with certain rights and responsibilities.

[sgreger1]

but think about it, it's welfare anyway you think about it. All these blow hards who hate welfare and unemployment for hard working men on tough times, have no problem taking their exemptions for having kids. And by their own logic, they are stealing from those of us who have no children exemptions.

This is a great point, another reason why marriage should have no added benefit other than what's gained by the union between the two individuals, and no subsidization by the government in the form of tax breaks or anything. Conversely, a marriage penalty like Obama is about to bring back is a step in the wrong direction as well. Marriage should have nothing to do with the feds or congress, and everything to do with contract law and the courts.



Untill that time, thanks for the money Blue (you sucker, I got like 6 exemptions bitch lolollolo)

/welfare FTW!

[Bigblue1]

Blue, are you in the top income tax bracket?

I would never answer that q on an open forum, but i have to ask what difference would it make to my point? Weather on the top or bottom I would still pay more taxes than a married kid(s) having in the same situation...... Which means I am contributing to others welfare by default......

[Bigblue1]

which according to many kid having douchebags here, would be wrong, Remember the point I'm taking here, I've stood up for my unemployed brothers on this forum and in life, I just think some don't ever think outside their own situation.... and maybe after I make my point in a totally un-related thread with my situation they may think differently, I doubt it but he it's worth a shot......

[MGX]

A federal judge struck down a state law? That's complete BS and unconstitutional. Powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole responsibility of the State.

While people may or may not agree with it; this violates the US Constitution. We may as well live by fiat.

[lxskllr]

which according to many kid having douchebags here, would be wrong, Remember the point I'm taking here, I've stood up for my unemployed brothers on this forum and in life, I just think some don't ever think outside their own situation.... and maybe after I make my point in a totally un-related thread with my situation they may think differently, I doubt it but he it's worth a shot......

I agree with you completely. Government benefits shouldn't be given out according to one's married state. A bicorporation(legal joining of 2 people) should only be for inter-economic ties, and for legal recourse in life matters(hospitalization, death, child custody...). They shouldn't be granted benefits individuals don't get.

[Snusdog]

it can then become an issue of contract law.

As one who take religion pretty seriously, I would say that lx's view is far more consistent with the general ethos of the nation's laws.

The church has always (1) complied and worked within the legal bounds of state law. (2) has always understood its blessing and definition of marriage as something distinct from (though coinciding with) the legal union recognized by the state. Thus I'm not sure lx's suggestion is all that different from what already takes place. I think the issue is that now the state and the traditional views have begun to diverge in a way that has not been seen before.

Regardless, at the end of the day, one cannot legislate belief. As such I think that lx's solution may in fact be the best way through the mess.

That said, one can and must legislate moral conviction (law must be grounded on a society's understanding of such notions as fairness, equality, justice). As such, I think the issue of "marriage" should be discussed with a sobriety hitherto absent from both sides of the issue. At stake here is a fundamental shift in an understanding of society that no culture has ever made before in the history of society. That is not to say that the change should or should not be made. Rather, it is to impress upon us the enormity of the decision that we are undertaking. We are in uncharted waters (regardless of which side you support)

The issue will be navigated between two poles:

The first pole is marriage understood as propagation (the continuation of a people and their ideals as well as their ability to promote/defend themselves).

Now I know that everyone has archaic images of bedouin clans and tribal land wars............. but consider: China has warned the USA that we are nearing a point where China will no longer loan us money because (looking at our birth rate) they have determined that there will not be enough working population in the next generation to pay back the debt we owe (the very same situation that lead to the collapse of Greece only a few months back). And remember economic dependence is conquest without the blood and smoke

The second pole is marriage understood as self-fulfillment (be it equality of individual rights, companionship, or tax breaks). Consider

Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves stipends from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses under the weight of its own fiscal policy. In turn democracy is always followed by a dictatorship. (Alexander Tytler, 1747-1813)

It should also be noted that how the debate is decided matters as much (if not more) than what decision is finally reached. For both what is determined and how it is decided will have far reaching and vast implications for who we are in the future.

When Darwin challenged the prevailing notion of the origin and thus nature of life, it was a discussion that involved the best minds, the best thought, and the best research.

In comparison, today we decide issues that are no less fundamental to who we are as a people based on the lowest common denominator: things such as mere personal preference, sit-coms, blogs, and the vilification of the opponent.

Agree with Lx and you are a liberal

Agree with his opponents and you are a homophobic fundamentalist.

I've said it once.............and I will say it again...........the manner in which we are going about mapping the future of this country............ is absolutely terrifying

and that applies regardless of where it is that you think we should wind up

Just my

[Bigblue1]

I agree with you completely. Government benefits shouldn't be given out according to one's married state. A bicorporation(legal joining of 2 people) should only be for inter-economic ties, and for legal recourse in life matters(hospitalization, death, child custody...). They shouldn't be granted benefits individuals don't get.

Well after what we've seen happen, nobody should agree that a corporation should be given the rights of a person, yet the protection of a corporation, I've mentioned this book a many a time on this forum, but everybody needs to read "Unequal Protection" By Thom Hartmann Yes Joe I read everything. But back to my point, anybody who thinks the little government subsidies they enjooy are any different than unemployment, wake up man, we've been headed down this road for a long time, and this is what we get when we are placated with a few dollars...... Then when those dollars seemingly dry up, and the first people start to feel it, your brothers, you are willing to cut them offf.... remember the line doesn't end at your brother, he just might have a better spot.......

[lxskllr]

I've said it once.............and I will say it again...........the manner in which we are going about mapping the future of this country............ is absolutely terrifying

and that applies regardless of where it is that you think we should wind up

Just my

Yup, pop culture politics. Pick a team, and cheer them on, facts be damned.

[Fury]

Can I marry a badger instead of a turtle? Badgers r0x0rz

[Snusdog]

Yup, pop culture politics. Pick a team, and cheer them on, facts be damned.

Such does fundamental injustice to both sides of any issue

[sgreger1]

which according to many kid having douchebags here, would be wrong.

Is this a swipe at me or something? Im getting mixed readings here. We both agree no one group should be afforded any more rights or benefits than another.

And what is your gripe, that people who dont like 4 year long unemployment checks shouldnt take their available tax deductions? First of all, i would take both for the reasons lx mentioned in another thread, because its every man for themselves now and i paid into it so im going to get whats coming to me. Secondly, if i pay 30% in taxes, and i have a child, the government just takes less from me each month (a few dollars less). This is different from me being paid something, it is instead me being asked to give a smaller amount, so you can rest assured that you are not paying for us kid having douchebags.


Let me guess, you just got laid off or something? I dont think anyone here has a problem with a safety net (unemployment), i think the complaint was that 2-4 years is a bit excessive and hard on the budget.

[Bigblue1]

I'm Just saying, And most likely most people who are on unemployment Have kids, But If you are getting an unfair advantage in taxes because you decided to procreate, you shouldn't talk shit about others, just saying, nothing personal.......