Gay Marriage is a Lie: Honest or Disagree?

[nodoginnafight]

...the separation of Church and state protects the Church far more than it protects the state.

Jefferson would agree with you. Be careful who you crawl into bed with. Lay down with dog and you gets fleas works as well.

I'm a Christian, but even I just have to shake my head when I hear other Christians say, "we are under attack."

What did you expect when so many of your "mega" churches started interjecting themselves into politics. There is going to be some blow back. Does that really surprise them??????

Of course every war has been sold as "God's righteous war" and about half of the debate over social issues is all about "doing God's work."

Makes me wanna barf

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...the separation of Church and state protects the Church far more than it protects the state.

Jefferson would agree with you. Be careful who you crawl into bed with. Lay down with dog and you gets fleas works as well.

I'm a Christian, but even I just have to shake my head when I hear other Christians say, "we are under attack."

What did you expect when so many of your "mega" churches started interjecting themselves into politics. There is going to be some blow back. Does that really surprise them??????

People who believe they are doing the Will of God tend to have bad eyes for seeing the future and run straight for the brick walls thinking God will push them aside before they get there.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Jefferson would agree with you. Be careful who you crawl into bed with. Lay down with dog and you gets fleas works as well.

I'm a Christian, but even I just have to shake my head when I hear other Christians say, "we are under attack."

What did you expect when so many of your "mega" churches started interjecting themselves into politics. There is going to be some blow back. Does that really surprise them??????

People who believe they are doing the Will of God tend to have bad eyes for seeing the future and run straight for the brick walls thinking God will push them aside before they get there.

And if they are mistaking (or have been duped into believing) that a political cause is "God's will", they are in for a rude surprise.

 

[kaz]

Maybe you should learn to use the quote function and address comments in an understandable manner.




Like this.



>>>>

Maybe you should read more carefully. I'll add bolding for you

These are government practices which are created by the same liberals who are demanding gay marriage and I have no reason to let them out of their trap. No one should pay these taxes. The death tax is just evil

1. tax free transfer of real property to a spouse

2. exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home

These are unconstitutional violations of the 10th amendment.

6. 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. Without Civil Marriage there is tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples are charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not.)

8. Civil Marriage establishes a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

These while technically true are nailing brads with a sledge hammer. Furthermore, with the decline of government marriage in this country, we need to re-think our paternity laws and responsibilities anyway. Gays are no different in that regard.

3. Without Civil Marriage there is no spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. Without Civil Marriage there is no burial for a spouse in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. Without Civil Marriage there is no assumed parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

9. Civil Marriage establishes a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

10. Not being Civilly Married allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.

Thanks that's a little clearer.

If the breaking up quotes is to difficult for you, you can use bold to try to separate your sections.

Dosen't change the fact that you said "There is nothing marriage provides gays they can't get without marriage." and the things I listed either can't be reproduced by same-sex couples at all (and there are a lot more) or can't be reproduced for the same 50 bucks it costs a different-sex couple.

You were wrong, you should just have the testicular fortitude to admit it instead of deflecting.

>>>>

OK, I see what you're saying. I could have been clearer on that sentence. What I meant was that there are better solutions for government to implement than gay government marriage. I didn't mean that with marriage exactly as it is gays don't get anything from gay government marriage. We don't need gay marriage to solve the problems. And in fact, those problems should be solved for everyone, not just gay couples.

Kids are born without their parents being married, people care for people they are not married to. A far better solution is to solve the problems for everyone by repealing the illegitimate laws and implementing wider solutions for the others that don't involve a piece of paper from the government saying you're married to someone. What I meant was we don't need gay marriage to solve the problems, and gay marriage doesn't solve the problems. Again, I wasn't clear I was referring to government in that sentence, your interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

These are government practices which are created by the same liberals who are demanding gay marriage and I have no reason to let them out of their trap. No one should pay these taxes. The death tax is just evil

1. tax free transfer of real property to a spouse

2. exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home

These are unconstitutional violations of the 10th amendment.

Citation?

Absent case law in support this is mere subjective opinion, not legal fact.

You’re of course entitled to your opinion, but absent case law in support it’s irrelevant, where you are in fact wrong.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law as written by the states and as administered by state courts.

The only thing liberals are demanding is gay Americans be afforded their comprehensive civil rights – the right to due process and equal protection of the law – the same as every other American, and as required by the 14th Amendment. (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

 

[kaz]

These are government practices which are created by the same liberals who are demanding gay marriage and I have no reason to let them out of their trap. No one should pay these taxes. The death tax is just evil

1. tax free transfer of real property to a spouse

2. exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home

These are unconstitutional violations of the 10th amendment.

Citation?

Absent case law in support this is mere subjective opinion, not legal fact.

You’re of course entitled to your opinion, but absent case law in support it’s irrelevant, where you are in fact wrong.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law as written by the states and as administered by state courts.

The only thing liberals are demanding is gay Americans be afforded their comprehensive civil rights – the right to due process and equal protection of the law – the same as every other American, and as required by the 14th Amendment. (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

The beauty of how the founding fathers wrote the Constitution was that it was an enumerated document of Federal authority. Not there, not a federal authority. That neither of us can point to the enumerated power in the Constitution is a complete and decisive loss. For you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

These are government practices which are created by the same liberals who are demanding gay marriage and I have no reason to let them out of their trap. No one should pay these taxes. The death tax is just evil

1. tax free transfer of real property to a spouse

2. exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home

These are unconstitutional violations of the 10th amendment.

Citation?

Absent case law in support this is mere subjective opinion, not legal fact.

You’re of course entitled to your opinion, but absent case law in support it’s irrelevant, where you are in fact wrong.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law as written by the states and as administered by state courts.

The only thing liberals are demanding is gay Americans be afforded their comprehensive civil rights – the right to due process and equal protection of the law – the same as every other American, and as required by the 14th Amendment. (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

The beauty of how the founding fathers wrote the Constitution was that it was an enumerated document of Federal authority. Not there, not a federal authority. That neither of us can point to the enumerated power in the Constitution is a complete and decisive loss. For you.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

The Congress has the power to lay taxes on income. Spouses over the years put money into investments and since they are married it is considered community property, if they divorce each gets 50%. On the other hand if one dies the other inherits the others investment. The surviving spouse already owns 50%, the other 50% received as part of the estate is income based on "whatever source derived".

Any two people can make the investments together, however if they are not married and the deceased individual wills their part to the other, for the survivor it is income. Same for the spouse, but the spouse (because of Civil Marriage) receives and exception.

Just because it is Constitutional for Congress to lay a tax, does not mean they are required to - therefore their exception for spouses is perfectly Constitutional.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Citation?

Absent case law in support this is mere subjective opinion, not legal fact.

You’re of course entitled to your opinion, but absent case law in support it’s irrelevant, where you are in fact wrong.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law as written by the states and as administered by state courts.

The only thing liberals are demanding is gay Americans be afforded their comprehensive civil rights – the right to due process and equal protection of the law – the same as every other American, and as required by the 14th Amendment. (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

The beauty of how the founding fathers wrote the Constitution was that it was an enumerated document of Federal authority. Not there, not a federal authority. That neither of us can point to the enumerated power in the Constitution is a complete and decisive loss. For you.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

The Congress has the power to lay taxes on income. Spouses over the years put money into investments and since they are married it is considered community property, if they divorce each gets 50%. On the other hand if one dies the other inherits the others investment. The surviving spouse already owns 50%, the other 50% received as part of the estate is income based on "whatever source derived".

Any two people can make the investments together, however if they are not married and the deceased individual wills their part to the other, for the survivor it is income. Same for the spouse, but the spouse (because of Civil Marriage) receives and exception.

Just because it is Constitutional for Congress to lay a tax, does not mean they are required to - therefore their exception for spouses is perfectly Constitutional.


>>>>

First, I don't understand how you're confused by sections. They're even bolded now.

Second, the death tax isn't a tax on income, it's a tax on wealth, so it isn't covered by the sixteenth amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The beauty of how the founding fathers wrote the Constitution was that it was an enumerated document of Federal authority. Not there, not a federal authority. That neither of us can point to the enumerated power in the Constitution is a complete and decisive loss. For you.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

The Congress has the power to lay taxes on income. Spouses over the years put money into investments and since they are married it is considered community property, if they divorce each gets 50%. On the other hand if one dies the other inherits the others investment. The surviving spouse already owns 50%, the other 50% received as part of the estate is income based on "whatever source derived".

Any two people can make the investments together, however if they are not married and the deceased individual wills their part to the other, for the survivor it is income. Same for the spouse, but the spouse (because of Civil Marriage) receives and exception.

Just because it is Constitutional for Congress to lay a tax, does not mean they are required to - therefore their exception for spouses is perfectly Constitutional.


>>>>

First, I don't understand how you're confused by sections. They're even bolded now.

Second, the death tax isn't a tax on income, it's a tax on wealth, so it isn't covered by the sixteenth amendment.

Nice try but no. When wealth is transferred from one person to another to the receiving person that is income so ya actually it is covered by the 16th Amendment. Not saying the transfer of wealth from a deceased spouse for their part of community property to the other spouse should be taxes, just saying that Constitutionally it could under the 16th but Congress provides for an exception (which they can).

You should try to understand that there are two ways to discuss the law: what "should be", and "reality". Saying the transfer of wealth from one person to another isn't income is not accepting reality.

Personally I'd like to scrap the whole tax code and go to a Flat Tax with only three types: Federal, State, and Local. Repeal all hidden taxes (gas tax, etc.), progressive tax schemes (graduated tax rates), and loopholes. One Flat Tax by each level of government set on an annual basis to cover expenses. See that is my opinion of what "should be", yet I recognize that does not reflect the "reality" of what is.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

The Congress has the power to lay taxes on income. Spouses over the years put money into investments and since they are married it is considered community property, if they divorce each gets 50%. On the other hand if one dies the other inherits the others investment. The surviving spouse already owns 50%, the other 50% received as part of the estate is income based on "whatever source derived".

Any two people can make the investments together, however if they are not married and the deceased individual wills their part to the other, for the survivor it is income. Same for the spouse, but the spouse (because of Civil Marriage) receives and exception.

Just because it is Constitutional for Congress to lay a tax, does not mean they are required to - therefore their exception for spouses is perfectly Constitutional.


>>>>

First, I don't understand how you're confused by sections. They're even bolded now.

Second, the death tax isn't a tax on income, it's a tax on wealth, so it isn't covered by the sixteenth amendment.

Nice try but no. When wealth is transferred from one person to another to the receiving person that is income so ya actually it is covered by the 16th Amendment. Not saying the transfer of wealth from a deceased spouse for their part of community property to the other spouse should be taxes, just saying that Constitutionally it could under the 16th but Congress provides for an exception (which they can).

You should try to understand that there are two ways to discuss the law: what "should be", and "reality". Saying the transfer of wealth from one person to another isn't income is not accepting reality.

Personally I'd like to scrap the whole tax code and go to a Flat Tax with only three types: Federal, State, and Local. Repeal all hidden taxes (gas tax, etc.), progressive tax schemes (graduated tax rates), and loopholes. One Flat Tax by each level of government set on an annual basis to cover expenses. See that is my opinion of what "should be", yet I recognize that does not reflect the "reality" of what is.


>>>>

what you don't get is that inherited money has already been taxed. either when it was earned as income or when it appreciated through capital gains. the death tax is a second tax on the same money. Its wrong and should be repealed.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Now you retreat to semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Good job.

Semantics is the issue when someone says marriage is for straight people and civil unions are for gay people. If they are the same, why do I need two words? And what's more important, a value, equality in this case, or a word? Let's see how honest you, don't play semantics just answer the questions.

Until recently, "marriage" was a union between a man and a woman. Now, we are faced with a small minority of deviant individuals who insist on re-defining a traditional institution to suit their own agenda. They insist on disrespecting those who hold their traditional belief that "marriage" is a sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN. They refuse to accept an alternate definition that would afford them what they claim to demand, equality under the law for those government benefits awarded to "married" couples. And yet, these deviants insist they be given the respect they refuse to give to others.
Hypocrite much? Compromise much? Compassion much? Respect for others much?

I didn't think so.

^ This.

ftr: disagree with the 'deviant' part.

 

[Redfish]

gay couples can get equal rights via a civil union contract.

the gay agenda is NOT about equal rights, its about government forced societal validation of a deviant lifestyle.

Until you on the left admit this basic truth, this will go nowhere.

 

[bodecea]

gay couples can get equal rights via a civil union contract.

the gay agenda is NOT about equal rights, its about government forced societal validation of a deviant lifestyle.

Until you on the left admit this basic truth, this will go nowhere.

When why did Red States fall all over themselves passing laws making even civil unions illegal?

And if a civil marriage is now called a civil union.....a lot of statutes and laws have to change their wording.

 

[Redfish]

gay couples can get equal rights via a civil union contract.

the gay agenda is NOT about equal rights, its about government forced societal validation of a deviant lifestyle.

Until you on the left admit this basic truth, this will go nowhere.

When why did Red States fall all over themselves passing laws making even civil unions illegal?

And if a civil marriage is now called a civil union.....a lot of statutes and laws have to change their wording.

such laws should be passed. But a gay union will never be a marriage. Why does the word 'marriage' make such a difference to you?

we both know the answer----------because you think that if your gay hookup is called a marriage then that would mean that society validates the gay lifestyle as normal. Sorry, but its not and never will be.

 

[WorldWatcher]

First, I don't understand how you're confused by sections. They're even bolded now.

Second, the death tax isn't a tax on income, it's a tax on wealth, so it isn't covered by the sixteenth amendment.

Nice try but no. When wealth is transferred from one person to another to the receiving person that is income so ya actually it is covered by the 16th Amendment. Not saying the transfer of wealth from a deceased spouse for their part of community property to the other spouse should be taxes, just saying that Constitutionally it could under the 16th but Congress provides for an exception (which they can).

You should try to understand that there are two ways to discuss the law: what "should be", and "reality". Saying the transfer of wealth from one person to another isn't income is not accepting reality.

Personally I'd like to scrap the whole tax code and go to a Flat Tax with only three types: Federal, State, and Local. Repeal all hidden taxes (gas tax, etc.), progressive tax schemes (graduated tax rates), and loopholes. One Flat Tax by each level of government set on an annual basis to cover expenses. See that is my opinion of what "should be", yet I recognize that does not reflect the "reality" of what is.


>>>>

what you don't get is that inherited money has already been taxed. either when it was earned as income or when it appreciated through capital gains. the death tax is a second tax on the same money.

Correct it was taxed when earned under the person that owned it. When passed to another person though it is new income for them.

I have an income earned either through work or investments, I paid taxes on that income and I'm not being taxed a second time. I walk up and hand you a check for $50,000 - that is new income for YOU.

Its wrong and should be repealed.

I don't disagree that it should be repealed, doesn't change the fact that it is a transfer or wealth and is considered income - which the Congress has exempted between spouses.

There are two ways to discuss the law: what "should be", and "reality". I'm talking about the way the law is (which is Constitutional under the 16th Amendment, which is where Kaz was initially incorrect), I agree that such laws "should be" that inherited wealth is not taxed - which it pretty much isn't for a spouse.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

The cake is a lie.

Same sex marriage on the other hand, is real -- and coming to your state soon (if it hasn't already.)

 

[GreenBean]

Gay Marriage Is A Lie: Lesbian Masha Gessen And Glenn Beck Agree

I ran into a disagreement with someone over Masha Gessen's statement
that Gay Marriage is a Lie. I thought she was being honest.

I believe that the religious and spiritual beliefs about marriage should remain private or through the church, and the state/govt should only handle civil contracts by consensus without any religious bias either way. So that part of marriage doesn't belong under govt jurisdiction.

What do you think?

Gay Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen - YouTube

Contemporary interpretations of Marriage go far beyond family and child rearing. Being a passionately Anti-Gay activist , but a stern believer in civil liberties I don't see how you can logically deny these people the same rights Under the law the rest of us have.

Gay Marriage is not the place to draw the line in the sand, they should have the same rights and obligations as sane people - let the faggots have their weddings - there's bigger battles to be fought.

 

[Redfish]

The cake is a lie.

Same sex marriage on the other hand, is real -- and coming to your state soon (if it hasn't already.)

as a result of activist liberal judges, not the will of the people. That is the wrong way to change laws.

the PEOPLE of the left coast state of California voted it down twice. In evey state where the people have been allowed to vote, it has been voted down.

the american people will only tolerate a limited amount of tyranny from the govt, and that limit has been reached.

 

[Redfish]

Gay Marriage Is A Lie: Lesbian Masha Gessen And Glenn Beck Agree

I ran into a disagreement with someone over Masha Gessen's statement
that Gay Marriage is a Lie. I thought she was being honest.

I believe that the religious and spiritual beliefs about marriage should remain private or through the church, and the state/govt should only handle civil contracts by consensus without any religious bias either way. So that part of marriage doesn't belong under govt jurisdiction.

What do you think?

Gay Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen - YouTube

Contemporary interpretations of Marriage go far beyond family and child rearing. Being a passionately Anti-Gay activist , but a stern believer in civil liberties I don't see how you can logically deny these people the same rights Under the law the rest of us have.

Gay Marriage is not the place to draw the line in the sand, they should have the same rights and obligations as sane people - let the faggots have their weddings - there's bigger battles to be fought.

what should happen to the gay hair dresser who refused to cut the governor or new mexicos hair because she opposes gay marriage?

this has to work both ways.

 

[paperview]

In evey state where the people have been allowed to vote, it has been voted down.

Redfish is wrong, again.