Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[WorldWatcher]

and we need all that for what?

If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.

Those are all government rules. I state. Abolish them all.

Here are a couple of examples of "marriage" in Civil Law, abolish Civil Marriage and here would be no recognition under the law:

1. There would be no transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no such thing as "spouse" under the law. As such the surviving spouse would be subject to a tax liability upon the transfer of property between people not recognized as legally married.

2. It would eliminate the exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

3. No spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. Since there would be no "spouse", they could not be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. Without the legal recognition of "spouse" there would not be automatic conveyance of parenthood upon the birth of a child.

6. Since there would be no spouse, there would be no establish family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. Since there would be no "spouse", employees would become liable for employer portions of health insurance because there would be no waiving of the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse. (For Civily Married couples, the employer portion of Health Insurance is tax free, however on plans where the significant other is not a legal spouse - then the federal government charges that portion as income and is liable for taxation.)

8. No "spouse" means no family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. No "spouse" means no established a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

and to just round it out to 10...

10. No "spouse" means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, etc... If there is no Civil Marriage, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​

Those are a few things that will happen if the government stops recognizing Civil Marriage off the top of my head. I'm sure that idea will win great support amongst the populous.


>>>>

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced — an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,"

Seems like he wants the people to make the decision. And you have a problem with this?

Um, yeah, I usually do when people appeal to bigotry to advance their political careers.

Christy is a fat sack of shit.

He's just one more Republican who doesn't get laid and doesn't want anyone else to either.

More and more, we're seeing this about pubs. In fatso's case, he hasn't even seen his prick since he was in high school. (Okay, maybe he has a mirror glued to a long stick) His whole world is what ever he can push into his fat face and he's damn pissed that he can't hog down a couple dozen donuts without having to up his pants size yet again.

I'm serious about this. All you have to do is watch him for a few minutes - he's a very angry guy and, if he can, he's gonna make other people pay for it - and then slam down a few big macs and a chocolate shake to feel better.

Pretty pathetic but also basic to the GObP/pub party who don't want to create jobs but DO want to control other people's private lives.

 

[jillian]

Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.

marriage is a creation of the state... not religion. it is mostly a function of property rights as there are over 1,000 rights and obligations which attach themselves to the status of being married.

"by the power vested in me by the state of _______________"

you can't possibly be saying that people married in nonreligious ceremonies aren't as married as people married in religious ceremonies.

oh, i bet he can

i truly hope not.

 

[FactFinder]

If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.

Those are all government rules. I state. Abolish them all.

Here are a couple of examples of "marriage" in Civil Law, abolish Civil Marriage and here would be no recognition under the law:

1. There would be no transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no such thing as "spouse" under the law. As such the surviving spouse would be subject to a tax liability upon the transfer of property between people not recognized as legally married.

2. It would eliminate the exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

3. No spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. Since there would be no "spouse", they could not be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. Without the legal recognition of "spouse" there would not be automatic conveyance of parenthood upon the birth of a child.

6. Since there would be no spouse, there would be no establish family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. Since there would be no "spouse", employees would become liable for employer portions of health insurance because there would be no waiving of the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse. (For Civily Married couples, the employer portion of Health Insurance is tax free, however on plans where the significant other is not a legal spouse - then the federal government charges that portion as income and is liable for taxation.)

8. No "spouse" means no family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. No "spouse" means no established a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

and to just round it out to 10...

10. No "spouse" means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, etc... If there is no Civil Marriage, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​

Those are a few things that will happen if the government stops recognizing Civil Marriage off the top of my head. I'm sure that idea will win great support amongst the populous.


>>>>

These are all F'n government rules. I say abolish them all. If I want to transfer property to my goldfish so be it. The government didn't have any thing to do with it.

 

[jillian]

And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....

Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

government should have nothing to do with inheritance rights? really?

damn... and to think every state has trusts and estates laws governing how estates are handled. these issues have always been dealt with by government. rights of dower, courtesy, inheritance,

you claim not to want government interference, yet you're ok with government interfering in the relationship between two people. and it's ok for government to tell me i can't purchase birth control?

i think you might want to work on consistency.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Those are all government rules. I state. Abolish them all.

Here are a couple of examples of "marriage" in Civil Law, abolish Civil Marriage and here would be no recognition under the law:

1. There would be no transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no such thing as "spouse" under the law. As such the surviving spouse would be subject to a tax liability upon the transfer of property between people not recognized as legally married.

2. It would eliminate the exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

3. No spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. Since there would be no "spouse", they could not be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. Without the legal recognition of "spouse" there would not be automatic conveyance of parenthood upon the birth of a child.

6. Since there would be no spouse, there would be no establish family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. Since there would be no "spouse", employees would become liable for employer portions of health insurance because there would be no waiving of the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse. (For Civily Married couples, the employer portion of Health Insurance is tax free, however on plans where the significant other is not a legal spouse - then the federal government charges that portion as income and is liable for taxation.)

8. No "spouse" means no family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. No "spouse" means no established a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

and to just round it out to 10...

10. No "spouse" means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, etc... If there is no Civil Marriage, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​

Those are a few things that will happen if the government stops recognizing Civil Marriage off the top of my head. I'm sure that idea will win great support amongst the populous.


>>>>

These are all F'n government rules. I say abolish them all. If I want to transfer property to my goldfish so be it. The government didn't have any thing to do with it.

Take away Social Security from the elderly, take away inheritance without tax exemptions, take away home sales without taxing profit, take away money from military families and the ability to have a spouse moved when transferred on orders, take away job protected leave to care for a sick family member...


... You should run for office, I can see that as a winning platform.



>>>>

 

[FactFinder]

And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....

Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

government should have nothing to do with inheritance rights? really?

damn... and to think every state has trusts and estates laws governing how estates are handled. these issues have always been dealt with by government. rights of dower, courtesy, inheritance,

you claim not to want government interference, yet you're ok with government interfering in the relationship between two people. and it's ok for government to tell me i can't purchase birth control?

i think you might want to work on consistency.

I am not OK with government interfering in marriage. I thought I made that abundantly clear. Marriage is between the individual and God. Government cannot and should not attempt to legislate it. As they should stay out of inheritance and all things marriage related. I trust that my family members would beat the hell out of anyone who tried to take away any property of mine that belonged ot my wife when I leave. If we both left at the same time then survival of the fittest suits me fine. As long as who is left doesn't defile common law rules against violence (the proper place for government) then all is well.

 

[del]

If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.

Those are all government rules. I state. Abolish them all.

In other words. I am a family because I state I am a family. The government should have zero interference in that. Their tax laws, interference in my retirement plans or lack thereof should be abolished. It is none of their business and the only reason they have ever ascerted themselves into it was to find out what they could take.

​

 

[FactFinder]

Here are a couple of examples of "marriage" in Civil Law, abolish Civil Marriage and here would be no recognition under the law:

1. There would be no transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no such thing as "spouse" under the law. As such the surviving spouse would be subject to a tax liability upon the transfer of property between people not recognized as legally married.

2. It would eliminate the exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

3. No spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. Since there would be no "spouse", they could not be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. Without the legal recognition of "spouse" there would not be automatic conveyance of parenthood upon the birth of a child.

6. Since there would be no spouse, there would be no establish family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. Since there would be no "spouse", employees would become liable for employer portions of health insurance because there would be no waiving of the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse. (For Civily Married couples, the employer portion of Health Insurance is tax free, however on plans where the significant other is not a legal spouse - then the federal government charges that portion as income and is liable for taxation.)

8. No "spouse" means no family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. No "spouse" means no established a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

and to just round it out to 10...

10. No "spouse" means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, etc... If there is no Civil Marriage, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​

Those are a few things that will happen if the government stops recognizing Civil Marriage off the top of my head. I'm sure that idea will win great support amongst the populous.


>>>>

These are all F'n government rules. I say abolish them all. If I want to transfer property to my goldfish so be it. The government didn't have any thing to do with it.

Take away Social Security from the elderly, take away inheritance without tax exemptions, take away home sales without taxing profit, take away money from military families and the ability to have a spouse moved when transferred on orders, take away job protected leave to care for a sick family member...


... You should run for office, I can see that as a winning platform.



>>>>

Social Security has nothing to do with marriage. It is a contract that was forced on us all. Think the governemt is going to honor their side after all these years? We hope, heh? Inheritance should be out of taxes all together. We already paid. I really do not know how your argument about military families fits in. Any employer needs to treat their employees properly. Especially when they lay down their lives for you. The same goes for private employers and taking care of their own.

 

[WorldWatcher]

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

government should have nothing to do with inheritance rights? really?

damn... and to think every state has trusts and estates laws governing how estates are handled. these issues have always been dealt with by government. rights of dower, courtesy, inheritance,

you claim not to want government interference, yet you're ok with government interfering in the relationship between two people. and it's ok for government to tell me i can't purchase birth control?

i think you might want to work on consistency.

I am not OK with government interfering in marriage. I thought I made that abundantly clear. Marriage is between the individual and God. Government cannot and should not attempt to legislate it. As they should stay out of inheritance and all things marriage related. I trust that my family members would beat the hell out of anyone who tried to take away any property of mine that belonged ot my wife when I leave. If we both left at the same time then survival of the fittest suits me fine. As long as who is left doesn't defile common law rules against violence (the proper place for government) then all is well.

So if marriage is between the individual and God. Then you would have no problem with the government recognizing as equal all religious marriages between individuals and God based on their individual religious organizations view on the subject correct?

That if a same-sex couple is married in a religious institution in accordance with their view of what God allows, that those marriages (which exist today) should be recognized equally with other religious marriages? Or should the government which cannot respect one religion over another under the 1st Amendment, be picking and choosing which religious views are valid. If the government is to be consistent, then it needs to recognize both, if the government can pick and choose then the governemnt is free to ignore Church doctrine and require Catholic organization to cover birth control under insurance.

Either government has to honor religioius doctrine or it doesn't - pick one.




(Personally, I don't have a conflict because their is no one "marriage" and Religious Marriage is separate from Civil Marriage.)

>>>>

 

[FactFinder]

government should have nothing to do with inheritance rights? really?

damn... and to think every state has trusts and estates laws governing how estates are handled. these issues have always been dealt with by government. rights of dower, courtesy, inheritance,

you claim not to want government interference, yet you're ok with government interfering in the relationship between two people. and it's ok for government to tell me i can't purchase birth control?

i think you might want to work on consistency.

I am not OK with government interfering in marriage. I thought I made that abundantly clear. Marriage is between the individual and God. Government cannot and should not attempt to legislate it. As they should stay out of inheritance and all things marriage related. I trust that my family members would beat the hell out of anyone who tried to take away any property of mine that belonged ot my wife when I leave. If we both left at the same time then survival of the fittest suits me fine. As long as who is left doesn't defile common law rules against violence (the proper place for government) then all is well.

So if marriage is between the individual and God. Then you would have no problem with the government recognizing as equal all religious marriages between individuals and God based on their individual religious organizations view on the subject correct?

That if a same-sex couple is married in a religious institution in accordance with their view of what God allows, that those marriages (which exist today) should be recognized equally with other religious marriages? Or should the government which cannot respect one religion over another under the 1st Amendment, be picking and choosing which religious views are valid. If the government is to be consistent, then it needs to recognize both, if the government can pick and choose then the governemnt is free to ignore Church doctrine and require Catholic organization to cover birth control under insurance.

Either government has to honor religioius doctrine or it doesn't - pick one.




(Personally, I don't have a conflict because their is no one "marriage" and Religious Marriage is separate from Civil Marriage.)

>>>>

I don't think the government need to recognize anything as pertains to marriage. It is none of their business.

 

[DiamondDave]

And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....

Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

government should have nothing to do with inheritance rights? really?

damn... and to think every state has trusts and estates laws governing how estates are handled. these issues have always been dealt with by government. rights of dower, courtesy, inheritance,

you claim not to want government interference, yet you're ok with government interfering in the relationship between two people. and it's ok for government to tell me i can't purchase birth control?

i think you might want to work on consistency.

You know me Jill.... I respect the freedom for anyone to choose to be with whomever they choose in an adult relationship... and I respect the freedom for you to purchase any birth control you want..

BUT... I also respect the freedom for people to discriminate or not accept the choices of others... someone has the freedom to be an insensitive bigot just as they have the freedom to be an accepting type person.... I respect the freedom of an employer to choose what benefits they wish to pay for to their employees...

Freedom is a multi directional thing... and you have to embrace all parts of it, even if you don't like it or you don't get positive benefits from it personally

 

[FactFinder]

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

government should have nothing to do with inheritance rights? really?

damn... and to think every state has trusts and estates laws governing how estates are handled. these issues have always been dealt with by government. rights of dower, courtesy, inheritance,

you claim not to want government interference, yet you're ok with government interfering in the relationship between two people. and it's ok for government to tell me i can't purchase birth control?

i think you might want to work on consistency.

You know me Jill.... I respect the freedom for anyone to choose to be with whomever they choose in an adult relationship... and I respect the freedom for you to purchase any birth control you want..

BUT... I also respect the freedom for people to discriminate or not accept the choices of others... someone has the freedom to be an insensitive bigot just as they have the freedom to be an accepting type person.... I respect the freedom of an employer to choose what benefits they wish to pay for to their employees...

Freedom is a multi directional thing... and you have to embrace all parts of it, even if you don't like it or you don't get positive benefits from it personally

If we get the hell out of everybody's private business we willl be the better for it. Private is between me and God.

 

[WorldWatcher]

These are all F'n government rules. I say abolish them all. If I want to transfer property to my goldfish so be it. The government didn't have any thing to do with it.

Take away Social Security from the elderly, take away inheritance without tax exemptions, take away home sales without taxing profit, take away money from military families and the ability to have a spouse moved when transferred on orders, take away job protected leave to care for a sick family member...


... You should run for office, I can see that as a winning platform.



>>>>

Social Security has nothing to do with marriage.

Actually Social Security does have something to do with marriage in the way it (SS) is administered.

Under the law, if a couple is Civilly Married for a prescribed number of years and one or both have been working adults and paid into Social Security, then upon retirement age if one of the spouses had died then the surviving spouse can draw Social Security based on the deceased spouses contribution if it is higher than their own in recognition of the family support entailed in Civil Marriage.

Think the governemt is going to honor their side after all these years?

They did for my parents when one passed a number of years before the other.

Inheritance should be out of taxes all together. We already paid.

Whether inheretance taxes should exist or not is a discussion for another thread. The reality is that they do exist and Civil Marriage brings with it large impacts on the transfer of property between spouses.

I really do not know how your argument about military families fits in. Any employer needs to treat their employees properly. Especially when they lay down their lives for you.

The military recognizes the family relationship established as a result of Civil Marriage and with it awards certain benefits as a result. One such benefit is a military member who has a spouse is eligible for either base housing or additional pay to help provide a place to live for that spouse. Another is that the spouse becomes eligible for health care under the military system and can use TRICARE for civil health care or can be seen at military clinics and hospitals. Another is that when the government orders a military member through Permanent Change of Station orders (PCS) to relocate from one place to another the military sponsors the spouse to travel and relocate to the new base with their spouse. For example when I was transferred from Tennesseee to Japan for 4-years the military paid for my spouse to accompany me and provided United States government sponsorship for my wife to enter and reside in Japan in accordance with the Status of Forces agreement between our two countries.

I agree when we in the military are willing to lay down our lives to defend our country, that when we are in a Civil Marriage all military members should be treated equally.

The same goes for private employers and taking care of their own.

I disagree, it is not the same with private employers. The military is not the same as a private employer, they are a government employer.


>>>>

 

[FactFinder]

Take away Social Security from the elderly, take away inheritance without tax exemptions, take away home sales without taxing profit, take away money from military families and the ability to have a spouse moved when transferred on orders, take away job protected leave to care for a sick family member...


... You should run for office, I can see that as a winning platform.



>>>>

Social Security has nothing to do with marriage.

Actually Social Security does have something to do with marriage in the way it (SS) is administered.

Under the law, if a couple is Civilly Married for a prescribed number of years and one or both have been working adults and paid into Social Security, then upon retirement age if one of the spouses had died then the surviving spouse can draw Social Security based on the deceased spouses contribution if it is higher than their own in recognition of the family support entailed in Civil Marriage.



They did for my parents when one passed a number of years before the other.



Whether inheretance taxes should exist or not is a discussion for another thread. The reality is that they do exist and Civil Marriage brings with it large impacts on the transfer of property between spouses.

I really do not know how your argument about military families fits in. Any employer needs to treat their employees properly. Especially when they lay down their lives for you.

The military recognizes the family relationship established as a result of Civil Marriage and with it awards certain benefits as a result. One such benefit is a military member who has a spouse is eligible for either base housing or additional pay to help provide a place to live for that spouse. Another is that the spouse becomes eligible for health care under the military system and can use TRICARE for civil health care or can be seen at military clinics and hospitals. Another is that when the government orders a military member through Permanent Change of Station orders (PCS) to relocate from one place to another the military sponsors the spouse to travel and relocate to the new base with their spouse. For example when I was transferred from Tennesseee to Japan for 4-years the military paid for my spouse to accompany me and provided United States government sponsorship for my wife to enter and reside in Japan in accordance with the Status of Forces agreement between our two countries.

I agree when we in the military are willing to lay down our lives to defend our country, that when we are in a Civil Marriage all military members should be treated equally.

The same goes for private employers and taking care of their own.

I disagree, it is not the same with private employers. The military is not the same as a private employer, they are a government employer.


>>>>

Well that is a different argument in a different place but "fair is fair". If not get the hell out of there. That has a lot to do with why I didn't reup after my 1st 3 years. I wanted to be free to tell someone to go to hell.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am not OK with government interfering in marriage. I thought I made that abundantly clear. Marriage is between the individual and God. Government cannot and should not attempt to legislate it. As they should stay out of inheritance and all things marriage related. I trust that my family members would beat the hell out of anyone who tried to take away any property of mine that belonged ot my wife when I leave. If we both left at the same time then survival of the fittest suits me fine. As long as who is left doesn't defile common law rules against violence (the proper place for government) then all is well.

So if marriage is between the individual and God. Then you would have no problem with the government recognizing as equal all religious marriages between individuals and God based on their individual religious organizations view on the subject correct?

That if a same-sex couple is married in a religious institution in accordance with their view of what God allows, that those marriages (which exist today) should be recognized equally with other religious marriages? Or should the government which cannot respect one religion over another under the 1st Amendment, be picking and choosing which religious views are valid. If the government is to be consistent, then it needs to recognize both, if the government can pick and choose then the governemnt is free to ignore Church doctrine and require Catholic organization to cover birth control under insurance.

Either government has to honor religioius doctrine or it doesn't - pick one.




(Personally, I don't have a conflict because their is no one "marriage" and Religious Marriage is separate from Civil Marriage.)

>>>>

I don't think the government need to recognize anything as pertains to marriage. It is none of their business.

I can respect your right to believe that.

I just don't think that once people think beyond the platitude of it and start to examine closely what it means in terms of the 1138 Federal government laws (at last count), plus hundreds of more state laws, in which marriage was a component of federal and state recognized "rights, responsibilities, and privileges" and that if suddenly the government stopped recognizing the family relationship established under Civil Marriage and all that that would take away from the people.

The government stopping the recognition of a spouse will have a huge impact - one that I don't see you gaining a lot of support from heterosexuals for.

They say the hardest job in the military is being a military spouse and my wife was one for most of my military career. As a retiree she has medical benefits and arrangements have been made (which are ONLY available to a legal spouse) that she will receive part of my retirement check if I were to pass before she does so that she will have something to care for herself with. Government non-recognition of Civil Marriage means she would have no security in our elder years because while she raised our children while I was off defending our country she would have no access to my Social Security nor my military retirement.

Similar situations exist both in the government sector and the private sector - government not recognizing Civil Marriage is not something that will gain large support.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Social Security has nothing to do with marriage.

Actually Social Security does have something to do with marriage in the way it (SS) is administered.

Under the law, if a couple is Civilly Married for a prescribed number of years and one or both have been working adults and paid into Social Security, then upon retirement age if one of the spouses had died then the surviving spouse can draw Social Security based on the deceased spouses contribution if it is higher than their own in recognition of the family support entailed in Civil Marriage.



They did for my parents when one passed a number of years before the other.



Whether inheretance taxes should exist or not is a discussion for another thread. The reality is that they do exist and Civil Marriage brings with it large impacts on the transfer of property between spouses.



The military recognizes the family relationship established as a result of Civil Marriage and with it awards certain benefits as a result. One such benefit is a military member who has a spouse is eligible for either base housing or additional pay to help provide a place to live for that spouse. Another is that the spouse becomes eligible for health care under the military system and can use TRICARE for civil health care or can be seen at military clinics and hospitals. Another is that when the government orders a military member through Permanent Change of Station orders (PCS) to relocate from one place to another the military sponsors the spouse to travel and relocate to the new base with their spouse. For example when I was transferred from Tennesseee to Japan for 4-years the military paid for my spouse to accompany me and provided United States government sponsorship for my wife to enter and reside in Japan in accordance with the Status of Forces agreement between our two countries.

I agree when we in the military are willing to lay down our lives to defend our country, that when we are in a Civil Marriage all military members should be treated equally.

The same goes for private employers and taking care of their own.

I disagree, it is not the same with private employers. The military is not the same as a private employer, they are a government employer.


>>>>

Well that is a different argument in a different place but "fair is fair". If not get the hell out of there. That has a lot to do with why I didn't reup after my 1st 3 years. I wanted to be free to tell someone to go to hell.

I don't understand how this responds to the specific points address about Social Security having nothing to do with marriage and about how Civil Marriage impacts military families.


>>>>

 

[FactFinder]

So if marriage is between the individual and God. Then you would have no problem with the government recognizing as equal all religious marriages between individuals and God based on their individual religious organizations view on the subject correct?

That if a same-sex couple is married in a religious institution in accordance with their view of what God allows, that those marriages (which exist today) should be recognized equally with other religious marriages? Or should the government which cannot respect one religion over another under the 1st Amendment, be picking and choosing which religious views are valid. If the government is to be consistent, then it needs to recognize both, if the government can pick and choose then the governemnt is free to ignore Church doctrine and require Catholic organization to cover birth control under insurance.

Either government has to honor religioius doctrine or it doesn't - pick one.




(Personally, I don't have a conflict because their is no one "marriage" and Religious Marriage is separate from Civil Marriage.)

>>>>

I don't think the government need to recognize anything as pertains to marriage. It is none of their business.

I can respect your right to believe that.

I just don't think that once people think beyond the platitude of it and start to examine closely what it means in terms of the 1138 Federal government laws (at last count), plus hundreds of more state laws, in which marriage was a component of federal and state recognized "rights, responsibilities, and privileges" and that if suddenly the government stopped recognizing the family relationship established under Civil Marriage and all that that would take away from the people.

The government stopping the recognition of a spouse will have a huge impact - one that I don't see you gaining a lot of support from heterosexuals for.

They say the hardest job in the military is being a military spouse and my wife was one for most of my military career. As a retiree she has medical benefits and arrangements have been made (which are ONLY available to a legal spouse) that she will receive part of my retirement check if I were to pass before she does so that she will have something to care for herself with. Government non-recognition of Civil Marriage means she would have no security in our elder years because while she raised our children while I was off defending our country she would have no access to my Social Security nor my military retirement.

Similar situations exist both in the government sector and the private sector - government not recognizing Civil Marriage is not something that will gain large support.

>>>>

Not looking for support. Just stating my mind. All those things you mention are the twisted twine ball of the government. Of course my family is entitled to all I have earned when I am gone. It should be a matter of fact not a goverment regulation. Nor should my family have to deal with the government in any way other than maybe to prove they exist if the government owes me.

 

[Chris]

Bigotry is the Republican core value.

 

[Listening]

Bigotry is the Republican core value.

And stupidity is yours.