Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[P@triot]

Somehow I think that if you had been in a similar financial situation as Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - legally Civilly Married - and your wife passed and the government tax man showed up with a bill for $365,000 that other Civilly Married couples didn't have to pay...


.... You would have been less than thrilled.


>>>>

You're 100% correct on that - I would not be happy. However, there are wills, life insurance policies, and trust funds to deal with stuff like that. Marriage is not a requirement in any capacity to avoid that situation.

So...we should cut out civil marriage all together. You won't mind, right? You'll have wills, life insurance policies, and trust funds to deal with stuff like that.

If you're under the impression that I think marriage has anything to do with financials - then yes. However, unlike you, I'm not that shallow. I got married for the right reasons.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah, go with that...I'll go with this.

Don't worry...you'll still have a hose to keep those kids of gays off your lawn.

You mentioned which side of history you were on - I pointed out the actual history. You respond with CURRENT (ie NOT history) trending

You libs are an odd bunch...

It's going to be interesting in a few years.....people like you gnashing your teeth so much that they are worn down to nubs.

You wish sweetheart... I doubt you'll ever see gay marriage (considering ultra liberal California shot it down, what the hell prayer could you people possibly have?). But should it happen - so be it. I won't "gnash my teeth" over a few more liberals working the system for everything they can. You parasites have been doing that for over 100 years now - it's truly NOT shocking to us with each new case.

 

[P@triot]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

First of all I'm not a liberal, you can think of me more as a Goldwater Conservative (if you are old enough to know who that is) so you might not want my answer. I've been a registered Republican since 1978, spent 20 years in the military, married my one and only wife in 1987 and we're still happily married today (both Civilly and Religiously).

Without a dime from the government I also would have married her, no question.

But after being together for so many years the rights, responsibilities, and benefits are important to our success as a family. Without the legal recognition of our marriage the government would not have stationed us together, after she got out and I stayed in - they would not have transferred her to my duty stations, they would not have allowed her to be seen in military medical facilities and she probably would have died when we were stationed overseas.

Now as we approach our senior years it's nice to know that not only will she get our savings, my 403b's and our property tax free if something were to happen to me, she would also continue to be eligible for TRICARE, Social Security based on my higher earnings, and receipt of Military Survivor Benefits

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

Members of the gay community have been doing exactly that for decades. One of the earliest Churches (IIRC) to perform same-sex weddings started was the Metropolitan Community Church starting around 1970.

So if members of the gay community HAVE been getting married with no chance of government recognition because prior to the Lawrence decision in 2003 it was still Constitutional to make homosexual sex a crime.


>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

 

[P@triot]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

First of all I'm not a liberal, you can think of me more as a Goldwater Conservative (if you are old enough to know who that is) so you might not want my answer. I've been a registered Republican since 1978, spent 20 years in the military, married my one and only wife in 1987 and we're still happily married today (both Civilly and Religiously).

Without a dime from the government I also would have married her, no question.

But after being together for so many years the rights, responsibilities, and benefits are important to our success as a family. Without the legal recognition of our marriage the government would not have stationed us together, after she got out and I stayed in - they would not have transferred her to my duty stations, they would not have allowed her to be seen in military medical facilities and she probably would have died when we were stationed overseas.

Now as we approach our senior years it's nice to know that not only will she get our savings, my 403b's and our property tax free if something were to happen to me, she would also continue to be eligible for TRICARE, Social Security based on my higher earnings, and receipt of Military Survivor Benefits

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

Members of the gay community have been doing exactly that for decades. One of the earliest Churches (IIRC) to perform same-sex weddings started was the Metropolitan Community Church starting around 1970.

So if members of the gay community HAVE been getting married with no chance of government recognition because prior to the Lawrence decision in 2003 it was still Constitutional to make homosexual sex a crime.


>>>>

Good post - and while I know that *some* have done that, lets be honest, the majority have not.

For instance, I had a co-worker who moved to Vermont over a decade ago because he wanted to marry his boyfriend. Now I'm against gay marriage, but make no mistake about it - this is a STATE issue. The federal government has no business being involved in this issue.

The problem is, liberals can't take losing. California (über liberal California) put it to a vote and it was shot down. The gay community either needs to form their own union absent of government or they need to move to a state that has legalized it.

 

[ima]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

So why are you trying to hog all the perks? Greed?

 

[P@triot]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

So why are you trying to hog all the perks? Greed?

Uh...what? Do I somehow get more "perks" by limiting the amount of people who get married?

 

[P@triot]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

What would be the "terrible consequences" of renaming the United States to the U.S.S.R., Apple to Banana, and water to beer? We could call males female now and females males. But at the end of the day, why?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Go form your own union, create a will for the benefits you people are obsessed with, and move on with your life.

 

[JWBooth]

Curious....
Until states started issuing certificates of permission to marry, back in the very late 1800's and early 1900's how did the world survive?
Did George and Martha Washington apply for permission from the King of England to marry? Why should anybody beg permission from the state to do so?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Curious....
Until states started issuing certificates of permission to marry, back in the very late 1800's and early 1900's how did the world survive?
Did George and Martha Washington apply for permission from the King of England to marry? Why should anybody beg permission from the state to do so?

Library of Virginia
Early Virginia Marriage Records

Marriage License:
This form was granted by public officials to couples intending to marry. The license indicated to the minister and the public that there were no impediments to the marriage. The governor originally granted marriage licenses; county clerks and commissioners were granted the authority to issue them in the seventeenth
century. By the 1670s marriage licenses could only be issued in the county in which the bride resided. Marriage by license was more expensive than marriage by publication of banns, but couples did not have to wait an extended period of time to marry​

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/Research_Note_26.pdf


So ya, since George and Martha were married in 1759 when Virginia (which is where they were married in New Kent, Virginia) and there was a marriage license issued by the county and the licenses where granted by the Governor who was appointed by the Kind - you could say that George and Martha had to get his permission.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Curious....
Until states started issuing certificates of permission to marry, back in the very late 1800's and early 1900's how did the world survive?
Did George and Martha Washington apply for permission from the King of England to marry? Why should anybody beg permission from the state to do so?

George and Martha never had children so it wasn't a "real" marriage

 

[JWBooth]

Curious....
Until states started issuing certificates of permission to marry, back in the very late 1800's and early 1900's how did the world survive?
Did George and Martha Washington apply for permission from the King of England to marry? Why should anybody beg permission from the state to do so?

Library of Virginia
Early Virginia Marriage Records

Marriage License:
This form was granted by public officials to couples intending to marry. The license indicated to the minister and the public that there were no impediments to the marriage. The governor originally granted marriage licenses; county clerks and commissioners were granted the authority to issue them in the seventeenth
century. By the 1670s marriage licenses could only be issued in the county in which the bride resided. Marriage by license was more expensive than marriage by publication of banns, but couples did not have to wait an extended period of time to marry​

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/Research_Note_26.pdf


So ya, since George and Martha were married in 1759 when Virginia (which is where they were married in New Kent, Virginia) and there was a marriage license issued by the county and the licenses where granted by the Governor who was appointed by the Kind - you could say that George and Martha had to get his permission.


>>>>

Learn something new every day

 

[P@triot]

This is NOT a bicycle:

This is NOT a bunny:

This is NOT an iPad:

And this is NOT a marriage:

And this is NOT a marriage:

It really is that simple

 

[JWBooth]

And this is NOT a marriage:

And this is NOT a marriage:

It really is that simple

Maybe not, but I want video of the honeymoon......

 

[WorldWatcher]

And this is NOT a marriage:

And this is NOT a marriage:

It really is that simple

Actually if performed in a number of other countries or in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, or the District of Columbia ....

.........................Ya, it is marriage.



>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

Hey their hot, let them get married.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Maybe not, but I want video of the honeymoon......

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hey their hot, let them get married.

I thought you always withheld final decision on hawtness until you got a look at the size of their ass?


>>>>

 

[ScreamingEagle]

this is a direct attack upon religion by the godless secular Left....

Religion has nothing to do with it. We already have equal access to religious marriage.

one minute you guys attack us for legislating religious morality....now you say religion has nothing to do with it? .......at least make up your minds....

....but then i suppose that's asking too much from wishy-washy anything-goes Seculars.....