Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What do dependents have to do with marriage be it heterosexual or homosexual?
You can deduct dependents without ever being married.
Two parents can claim tax breaks assosciated with a child and do not have to be married.
no, that's age discrimination, gadawg. how far will it go?
can they file jointly, man? there has to be something to the hubbub over state blessing of marriage. can they get a permanent visa because their spouse is a citizen?
How in the hell is that age discrimination?
LOL... What color is the sky in your world?
Now just to be nice, let me ask you what you're basing this upon? And please... BE specific...
Blue, how many of your brain cells are scrambled? Kagan is not nearly as Liberal as Stevens. Just looking at what statements Kagan has made and the sides of decisions that Stevens has been on shows this.
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.
fail: your ad antiquitatum and ad populum characterizations are non-sequitur. the appeal court isn't saying that gay marriage is not right because of tradition or popular opinion. the argument is that applying loving v VA fails because the intent of marriage definitions is not to discriminate maliciously, if at all, based on a presumption of the original motive. they didnt feel an onus to prove that was the case, but just didn't feel they could judge those motives as ignorant or bigoted.1)what say you of the hernandez quote?
Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2)
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
well, your history lesson imperils the appeal courts generalization about all the traditions of marriage over history, but does that history overturn the conclusion that its presumptuous to deem the heterosexual definition of marriage bigoted?
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.
and how is that your business?
I mean......really....
what the fuk do you care if some guy marries his dog
or 10 women
if 10 women would happily marry one guy then what the fuk is it to you?
why do YOU feel you have to tell everyone else how to live?
why don't you just take care of your own life and stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone else...? hmmmm?
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
well, your history lesson imperils the appeal courts generalization about all the traditions of marriage over history, but does that history overturn the conclusion that its presumptuous to deem the heterosexual definition of marriage bigoted?
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:joint parenting;joint adoption;joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;immigration and residency for partners from other countries;inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;joint filing of customs claims when traveling;wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;crime victims' recovery benefits;loss of consortium tort benefits;domestic violence protection orders;judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;and more.... Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.
and how is that your business?
I mean......really....
what the fuk do you care if some guy marries his dog
or 10 women
if 10 women would happily marry one guy then what the fuk is it to you?
why do YOU feel you have to tell everyone else how to live?
why don't you just take care of your own life and stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone else...? hmmmm?
well, your history lesson imperils the appeal courts generalization about all the traditions of marriage over history, but does that history overturn the conclusion that its presumptuous to deem the heterosexual definition of marriage bigoted?
Yes.
Marriage as recognized by the State in this nation is a legal contract between two persons. As such, it is unconstitutional to discriminate in the recognition of that contract based on the sex, gender, or sexual presentation of the either or both of the parties involved just as it is to do so based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, et cetera. The motivations put forth in favour of such discrimination come down always to religion and personal bigotry and it is malicious not only for its motivations and root causes but also in its effect, including providing a major roadblock to caring securing the same rights and protections as a couple of the same race [Loving v. Virginia], religion, national origin, etc , including but not limited to guardianship of a partner's child, adoption of a child, power of attorney, and other legal rights, protections, and effects of union that are recognized when the couple is of the 'preferred type'.
Legal and economic benefits of marriage
Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Kagan's wrong (surprise surprise)...it's in the right to contract.
Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
if a judgment can't be made that the definition was motivated by hate, can the the effects stand alone?
this begs a question with a known answer: can an individuals choice to run out in traffic justify a penalty against the motorist who strikes him down?
should the law be pressed to accommodate a group who defines themselves outside its qualifications?
get denied a license because you dont put a male in the husband slot and a female in the wife spot on the application, you've filled out the application wrong,
or don't qualify to apply, like a nine-year-old on a drivers license app.
Marriage is a contract which is legally exclusive to one male and one female.
Like ****** loving?The joke here is that the advocates of normalizing abnormailty
miscegenation are being discriminated against... because miscegenation is a behavior which is being discouraged.
And since Marriage serves the purpose of ENCOURAGING HETERO-SEXUAL UNIONS...
excluded ONLY WHERE THEY SEEK TO JOIN OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT CULTURAL ENCOURAGEMENT.
Kagan's wrong (surprise surprise)...it's in the right to contract.
ROFL...
Nope... Any right to contract is limited to activity which is condoned by law.
Marriage is a contract which is legally exclusive to one male and one female.
The joke here is that the advocates of normalizing abnormailty claim that homosexuals are being excluded from engaging in these contracts; thus this represents 'discrimination'... Which is true and not true...
Homosexuals are being discriminated against... because homosexuality is a behavior which is being discouraged. And since Marriage serves the purpose of ENCOURAGING HETERO-SEXUAL UNIONS... Homosexuals are excluded ONLY WHERE THEY SEEK TO JOIN OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT CULTURAL ENCOURAGEMENT. Thus Homosexuals are not excluded, as long as they seek to contract within the legally defined scope; with a person of the necessary, legally defined gender.