Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[bodecea]

Yes...and that is in the marriage license itself? Show me where that is...and show me it ONLY applies if you are married.

Married filing jointly allows for tax breaks -- even before any children are realized. The potential burden for procreation being the original impetus. Homos can't procreate, therefore moot.

And yet, there is no documented requirement for children, or even plans for children, in order to be able to file a joint tax return.

Right. But since the nature of the marriage creates the potential for children those tax breaks were created.

No, that is why the tax breaks for children were created. The Joint Filing status has nothing to do with children. It is also available to senior citizens, long past the child bearing or raising years.

Your argument fail in a number of way.

And what is best is that is has failed spectacularly. Even Alabama, one of the last bastions of old school, is now going to recognize gay marriage.

Again, the potential for procreation begins at the nuptials. Most likely the assumption that a woman was going to sacrifice a career and potential retirement plan by becoming a housewife and potential mother began at this point. Therefore the tax breaks begin even without yet the realization of children. The tax breaks continue into old age because at least one of the couple, assumed to be the wife, sacrificed a career and is in less position to effect a retirement plan.
Anyone who wants to change marriage provisions for hetero couples in light of cultural changes over the years, especially insofar as career women is concerned, is OK by me. But to grant these current subsidies to homo couples and allow for the child abuse of adoption into a home devoid of both genders as parents is immoral and wrong and selfish and outdated already. Not cutting-edge. 1960's old school outdated thinking.

Oh really? So there is no potential for procreation WITHOUT nuptials?

 

[Seawytch]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

Has nothing to do with a fake man in the sky. What is happening is lawless, and dangerous. And states should respond to it. The federal government is so far out of control, that this country soon will not be able to operate correctly.

Making sure that same sex couples can marry effects you how??? Exactly what changed in your life because of this? It is no more than the federal courts making sure all Americans enjoy equal protections under the law.

What does your question have to do with what I typed? Try again. People like you with unicorn dreams, could care less what laws get broken to accomplish the goal. But it indeed is dangerous. Judges being able to wipe out portions of state constitutions. If you don't see the danger in that, there is no helping you.

State Constitutions cannot violate the US Constitution.

 

[hipeter924]

And this is an example of the ignorance and hate which render laws seeking to violate the rights of gay Americans invalid.

What homo's rights are being violated? They have the right to legally a marry a consenting adult of the opposite gender the same as heteros do.

The right to equal protection of the law, where same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples; to deny same-sex couples access to laws they're eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional.

You don't provide equal protection to entities that aren't equal. Homos cannot procreate as heteros can.

Procreating isn't a requirement for legal marriage. You know that. Stop being silly.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage in the first place. Using its occasional lack of instance as a wedge is a homo agenda MO.

Only if you define marriage from the perspective of Henry the eighth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I fooled someone?

A majority of Americans support their children being adopted by homosexuals if we die?

That question has never been asked of the American people.

"My personal opinion happens to be the opinion of 99% of Americans. My personal opinion happens to be the opinion of all Children."

If the question has never been asked of the American people - why do you think your claims are valid? Did you just make up your number or can you point us to a link showing that such a question was voted on by the people?


>>>>

Should I use the Liberal Company, Google? Will Google allow a result they disagree with to be found? Is a link proof of anything?

First, I stated Americans with Children, those are the ones who get to decide what happens to their children.

Why is that valid? You believe Mom and Dad would choose a homosexual man and man to adopt their 4 year old son over a loving financially stable mother and father who will see their Child through college and be there the child's entire life?

This is a red herring.

Same-sex couples are perfectly capable of being good parents.

 

[Syriusly]

And in 8 counties in Alabama, same-sex couples were married. Sorry, but you are fighting a losing battle on this one.

Roy Moore's tactic is a delay at best. This is him trying to be George Wallace standing on the steps at the Univ of Alabama. That was wrong and so it Moore. Moore wants a theocracy.

The federal courts have ruled and the SCOTUS refuses to overturn it.

No, this is him preventing George Wallace from forcing bigoted legislation. The homo agenda are the bigots on this issue.

No. When George Wallace stood on the steps of the UA, the majority of the state was behind him in wanting segregation. They wanted to be able to have state laws trump the US Constitution. He wanted state laws to be able to defy federal judges.

Moore is playing "Wallace" in this instance.

You're referring to the mechanics of the law and I'm referring to the bigotry of the agenda. Wallace was a bigot in favor of maintaining a popular bigotry

And that is exactly what Moore is.

 

[Syriusly]

False logic, Rosh, as SCOTUS and federal rulings keep telling you.

Alito, apparently, has switch to join Roberts and Kennedy with the four liberals. Only Scalia and Thomas are holding out.

Again, slavery used to the law of the land and upheld by the SCOTUS.
Forcing subsidization in the name of an irrelevant personal behavior is the same as official discrimination rooted in something as irrelevant as skin color. The homo agenda is the new Jim Crow. I guess it's now called Byron Crow or Butch Crow.

'forced subsidization'......something that Rosh believes is okay when he can take advantage of it, but wrong when homosexuals are allowed equal access......

 

[Syriusly]

And this is an example of the ignorance and hate which render laws seeking to violate the rights of gay Americans invalid.

What homo's rights are being violated? They have the right to legally a marry a consenting adult of the opposite gender the same as heteros do.

The right to equal protection of the law, where same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples; to deny same-sex couples access to laws they're eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional.

You don't provide equal protection to entities that aren't equal. Homos cannot procreate as heteros can.

Incorrect.

Gay Americans are entitled to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, just like any other American.

In no state is the ability to procreate a prerequisite to enter into a marriage contract, as infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry.

Infertile heteros should be allowed to adopt as

Well thats mighty white of you.

Over 100,000 children are awaiting adoption at any one time in the United States. Over 32,000 will wait over 3 years to be adopted.

Almost all of those children were abandoned by their heterosexual parents- who threw away their children having a 'mom and dad'.

Those kids want a mom or dad- someone who will raise them as their own- love them, support then growing up, and be there when they are adults.

By saying that homosexuals- and by extension single parents- should not adopt- you are suggesting an action that will have one specific result: fewer children will be adopted. Kids will spend more years in foster care waiting for some heterosexual couple that is acceptable to you to step up and adopt them- because homosexuals and single parents aren't acceptable to you.

 

[Syriusly]

Good. Two consenting adults that love each other should be allowed to marry.

I agree. But don't make the rest of us fund it. And don't grant them the privilege to adoption and potential child abuse of depriving a child of one of its necessary parents. That's what legal homo marriage does.

And how many children are BORN to heterosexual couples are mistreated? Who else wants so many unwanted children? If two loving people want to adopt and give that child a home, love, medical attention, learning, who are we to say they should not be able to??? You'd rather they stay in a system being fostered over and over and over again or stay in one institution until they are 18? Really?

I'm sure homo couples are just as capable of being abusive to children as any hetero couples.

But homosexual couples are not the ones abandoning children to foster care- that is heterosexual couples.

If two loving people want to adopt and give that child a home, love, medical attention, learning, who are we to say they should not be able to??? You'd rather they stay in a system being fostered over and over and over again or stay in one institution until they are 18? Really?

 

[Syriusly]

Procreating isn't a requirement for legal marriage. You know that. Stop being silly.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage in the first place. Using its occasional lack of instance as a wedge is a homo agenda MO.

No, it is not. Of the rights the gays are seeking in their quest for their marriages to be recognized, a few have to deal with children. Most do not.

The right to make decisions on health care, if the spouse is incapacitated. The right of inheritance. The right to co-own homes. And other rights have nothing to do with having children.

And gay couples can either adopt or make use of modern medical technologies to have their own children (or at least have the genetics of one of them).

Those provision apply to hetero marriage because of the hardships that child rearing place on individual careers. Originally for the benefit of a woman who would sacrifice self-sufficiency in the name of child rearing. More mutual child rearing situations require potential sacrifices for either or both genders happening more often more recently keeps those legal provisions just as legit. Since homos can't procreate and should not be allowed to adopt for concern over the well being of the kids and the society, those provisions are irrelevant as an automatic. If two people want to draw up those provisions in separate legal contracts I do believe that is already allowed, homo marriage not necessary.
Hospital visitation is about the only thing that needs to be tweaked.

This is all a nice idea you have had. It is more intelligent than some, like Steve. But in the end it is simply your opinion and wishful thinking. Nowhere, in any marriage document I signed or ceremonial vow I took, were children mentioned at all.

That's because it was a given, an assumption. Like blind people not being considered for driver's licenses to this day and that probably not even written into driving laws.

Its a given- which is an appeal to tradition.

Like the other poster said- nowhere in my marriage vows, or my marriage license- are children mentioned.

And my marriage would be still just as valid- and valuable- whether my wife and i had children or not.

Marriage is neither all about sex, nor is it all about children.

 

[Syriusly]

Show us one state marriage law that requires or even encourages procreation. Just one.

Ever heard of tax exemptions for dependents, i.e., children?

Yes...and that is in the marriage license itself? Show me where that is...and show me it ONLY applies if you are married.

Married filing jointly allows for tax breaks -- even before any children are realized. The potential burden for procreation being the original impetus. Homos can't procreate, therefore moot.

And yet, there is no documented requirement for children, or even plans for children, in order to be able to file a joint tax return.

Right. But since the nature of the marriage creates the potential for children those tax breaks were created.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

First of all- such 'tax breaks' break down into two things:
a) dependent exemptions- which apply to anyone who has dependents- regardless of marriage and
b) marriage- filed jointly- which may result in a tax break- and may result in paying more taxes.

However, two married people filing jointly get those tax breaks regardless of their ability, or interest in having children.

The State may even require them to prove that they cannot have children before they allow them the 'privelege' of those tax breaks.

(

 

[Syriusly]

And this is an example of the ignorance and hate which render laws seeking to violate the rights of gay Americans invalid.

What homo's rights are being violated? They have the right to legally a marry a consenting adult of the opposite gender the same as heteros do.

The right to equal protection of the law, where same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples; to deny same-sex couples access to laws they're eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional.

You don't provide equal protection to entities that aren't equal. Homos cannot procreate as heteros can.

And procreation is not the issue. marriage is the issue.

Procreation is the only tangible issue for legal marriage. It's the only reason the law needs to be involved.

Says you.

In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

California Prop 8 Ruling August 2010
Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughoutthe history of the United States. See FF 19, 34-35. Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form arelationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. FF20, 34. The spouses must consent to support each other and anydependents. FF 34-35, 37. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis o a stable, governable populace. FF 35-37. The state respects an individual’s choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual’slife. See Bowers v Hardwick, 478 US 186, 204-205 (1986) (Blackmun,J, dissenting).

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Racists and anti gay bigots...peas and carrots.

Homofascists and racists, apples and apples.

 

[Skylar]

Racists and anti gay bigots...peas and carrots.

Homofascists and racists, apples and apples.

What's fascist about wanting to get married?