Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[daws101]

The reactionaries who can't believe their world is changing continue to freak out.

Calling for the protection of children is not 'freaking out'.

what threat that was already present are you protecting them from..
"what about the children!" is a classic ploy by the right.and a steaming pile.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So a gay or lesbian couple that uses adoption or invitro (egg and/or sperm donation) get's a lower tax rate for life right?



>>>>

Arghhhh, been addressed

Yes, if they raised a child they are supplying what is needed for the world to go on.

OK so the lifetime tax deduction is available to heterosexuals and homosexuals.


Is it based in the individual testing positive for fertility. In other words the government makes you go to the doctor have a test and submit the medical results?

Or is it based on performance?

Now for women it's pretty easy to determine performance, but for men - will they need to get a get a DNA test to prove that they qualify because they produced off spring or do we just go with the name on the birth certificate? So a woman can go out and screw around and the infertile Dad gets credit?



Share with us specifically how this brilliant idea is going to work?



>>>>

Child in home = credit

Child grows to maturity = credit

Simple nuff?

So it's performance based and not fertility based.

You didn't answer the question about the Dad though, do we just assume who the biological father is or is proof required?




So you loose the credit if the child dies before the age of 18?

But at the age of 18 then poof the tax credit is for the rest of your life?



>>>>

Id let congress handle the details ( I'm far to busy trying to figure out who the hells gonna make the NCAA playoffs), but in my opinion. The household gets the deduction.

In cases of adoption or invitro, and the household breaks apart, the deduction is applied 50/50 to the parents that were within the household when the child is brought home.

But you said "Child grows to maturity = credit".

So they get the tax credit at birth and raising the child to maturity isn't a factor?



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rosh, no "just once more". It's over.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, shit! I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over. That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!

Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass

Not once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?

Walk it back

Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.

I don't have to, you did, again. It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics. Coupled with many who don't even practice any faith.

Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because fools like yourself try to peg them as such.

No matter how you try to justify your bigotry, it's still bigotry. Religious bigotry still has "bigotry" in it.

 

[Seawytch]

I woke up married in 19 states...I'll go to bed married in 30. What a country!!!!

 

[RKMBrown]

I woke up married in 19 states...I'll go to bed married in 30. What a country!!!!

Grats... just 27 more to go.

 

[R.D.]

Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass

Not once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?

Walk it back

Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.

I don't have to, you did, again. It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics. Coupled with many who don't even practice any faith.

Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because fools like yourself try to peg them as such.

No matter how you try to justify your bigotry, it's still bigotry. Religious bigotry still has "bigotry" in it.

You're posting again after the embarrassment a few months back. Good for you, ya big bigot tool.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jesus is not too worried about R. D.'s pronouncements.

He is simply happy for all His children this day in the USA.

 

[Seawytch]

I woke up married in 19 states...I'll go to bed married in 30. What a country!!!!

Grats... just 27 more to go.

 

[Seawytch]

Not once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?

Walk it back

Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.

I don't have to, you did, again. It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics. Coupled with many who don't even practice any faith.

Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because fools like yourself try to peg them as such.

No matter how you try to justify your bigotry, it's still bigotry. Religious bigotry still has "bigotry" in it.

You're posting again after the embarrassment a few months back. Good for you, ya big bigot tool.

Are you confusing me with someone else? I've posted pretty much everyday for a couple years now.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You haven't explained a single thing! Acting like you have and wishing it will all go away is a cop out.
Rebut the assertion that forced acquiescence to irrelevant behavior is an infringement on rights and liberty. I dare you.

Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate? Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded? And "forced acquiescence". Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you? How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty? How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?

Is it your assertion that hatred and discrimination are somehow linked to freedom?

That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

 

[Dana7360]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

I've been a professional photographer for decades.

While weddings aren't what I usually do, I would very happily photograph a gay wedding.

Their money spends just the same as money from heterosexual couples.

I have worked with many homosexuals in the last 35 years. I don't care if a person is gay or not. It's none of my business and it has no bearing on whether I will work with anyone or not.

There are many jobs that I refuse to do. None of them ever involved homosexuals.

I wonder what the christian right would do if someone refused to work with them just because they're christian right or just because they were heterosexual.

I wouldn't be surprised if those christians screamed bloody murder that they were being discriminated.

 

[Seawytch]

Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate? Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded? And "forced acquiescence". Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you? How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty? How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?

Is it your assertion that hatred and discrimination are somehow linked to freedom?

That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

 

[Seawytch]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

I've been a professional photographer for decades.

While weddings aren't what I usually do, I would very happily photograph a gay wedding.

Their money spends just the same as money from heterosexual couples.

I have worked with many homosexuals in the last 35 years. I don't care if a person is gay or not. It's none of my business and it has no bearing on whether I will work with anyone or not.

There are many jobs that I refuse to do. None of them ever involved homosexuals.

I wonder what the christian right would do if someone refused to work with them just because they're christian right or just because they were heterosexual.

I wouldn't be surprised if those christians screamed bloody murder that they were being discriminated.

Christians are federally protected from such discrimination. They object to gays being on equal protected footing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition."

laughing out loud at the loony comment

 

[Pop23]

Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?

What does that mean?

If procreation is seen as a requirement for a marriage license, why does that standard get ignored when the elderly wed?

Arghhhh, been addressed

Yes, if they raised a child they are supplying what is needed for the world to go on.

OK so the lifetime tax deduction is available to heterosexuals and homosexuals.


Is it based in the individual testing positive for fertility. In other words the government makes you go to the doctor have a test and submit the medical results?

Or is it based on performance?

Now for women it's pretty easy to determine performance, but for men - will they need to get a get a DNA test to prove that they qualify because they produced off spring or do we just go with the name on the birth certificate? So a woman can go out and screw around and the infertile Dad gets credit?



Share with us specifically how this brilliant idea is going to work?



>>>>

Child in home = credit

Child grows to maturity = credit

Simple nuff?

So it's performance based and not fertility based.

You didn't answer the question about the Dad though, do we just assume who the biological father is or is proof required?




So you loose the credit if the child dies before the age of 18?

But at the age of 18 then poof the tax credit is for the rest of your life?



>>>>

Id let congress handle the details ( I'm far to busy trying to figure out who the hells gonna make the NCAA playoffs), but in my opinion. The household gets the deduction.

In cases of adoption or invitro, and the household breaks apart, the deduction is applied 50/50 to the parents that were within the household when the child is brought home.

But you said "Child grows to maturity = credit".

So they get the tax credit at birth and raising the child to maturity isn't a factor?



>>>>

WW, if a child dies before maturity, how is the credit currently handled? Got it?

A credit (does not have to be the current child credit), should apply to those that survive to maturity and creates additional tax revenue.

Humming to my self the big hit. A brave new worlddddddddddd

 

[Stephanie]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

I've been a professional photographer for decades.

While weddings aren't what I usually do, I would very happily photograph a gay wedding.

Their money spends just the same as money from heterosexual couples.

I have worked with many homosexuals in the last 35 years. I don't care if a person is gay or not. It's none of my business and it has no bearing on whether I will work with anyone or not.

There are many jobs that I refuse to do. None of them ever involved homosexuals.

I wonder what the christian right would do if someone refused to work with them just because they're christian right or just because they were heterosexual.

I wouldn't be surprised if those christians screamed bloody murder that they were being discriminated.

Well how lovely you're also a hater and a bigot. so jump off your high horse

 

[ShackledNation]

SCOTUS has little incentive to rule when all courts are in agreement and they don't see a huge problem with the decisions. When a more conservative circuit court upholds the bans, then you can bet the court will make a final decision. But this is great news today, because cases that have been appealed are no longer stayed.

Last June, 13 states had laws allowing same-sex couples to marry, and with DOMA not a single state had full marriage equality. Just 15 months later, DOMA is gone for good and with this ruling 30 states will have full marriage equality. I am shocked and delighted at the swiftness individual rights have been spreading across this country. All true Americans should be proud of their country today.

 

[Pop23]

That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Correct, but they should not end at the time that they leave the home, they should continue through the life of the child (maybe at a lower rate).

 

[JakeStarkey]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

I've been a professional photographer for decades.

While weddings aren't what I usually do, I would very happily photograph a gay wedding.

Their money spends just the same as money from heterosexual couples.

I have worked with many homosexuals in the last 35 years. I don't care if a person is gay or not. It's none of my business and it has no bearing on whether I will work with anyone or not.

There are many jobs that I refuse to do. None of them ever involved homosexuals.

I wonder what the christian right would do if someone refused to work with them just because they're christian right or just because they were heterosexual.

I wouldn't be surprised if those christians screamed bloody murder that they were being discriminated.

Well how lovely you're also a hater and a bigot. so jump off your high horse

The comment is not hateful, but your observation certainly is hateful, Stephanie.

Your personality exudes hate.