At least the part about the Federal Government not recognizing gay marriages.
Ruling announced today comes from case brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
This will lead to the rather ironic situation of far right conservatives supporting the Obama administration in arguing against state's rights at the supreme court. Interesting bedfellows indeed.
[ July 08, 2010, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: aeolusdallas ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, Democrats have the prospect of some fun highlighting states rights in AZ vs. federal rights in MA.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: far right conservatives supporting the Obama administration in arguing against state's rights at the supreme court. Interesting bedfellows indeed.
Indeed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I imagine it will go to SCOTUS, and I hope they agree to hear the case.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
There are actually two separate cases. Either of which could go to the Supreme Court.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: This will lead to the rather ironic situation of far right conservatives supporting the Obama administration in arguing against state's rights at the supreme court. Interesting bedfellows indeed.
it's not ironic so much as it is an exposure of their real standard.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
It's hypocritical in that they like to claim to support States Rights but not in in this instance. It's ironic that they will end up siding with the Obama administration in the case when it hit's the Supreme Court.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: This will lead to the rather ironic situation of far right conservatives supporting the Obama administration in arguing against state's rights at the supreme court. Interesting bedfellows indeed.
Just what I wanted to say. I really wish I could have heard Glenn Beck this morning.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Assuming, of course, Obama appeals.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, according to the original article, both of the plaintiffs expect an appeal from the Obama administration. I have no reason to doubt this, but explanations?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If Obama appeals and wins, DOMA is constitutional, and he's on record as viewing it as not. If Obama appeals and loses, same sex marriage is on much more legitimate grounds, and again, Obama opposes SSM. If he does nothing, DOMA is only overturned in Massachusetts.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If Obama appeals and wins, DOMA is constitutional, and he's on record as viewing it as not. If Obama appeals and loses, same sex marriage is on much more legitimate grounds, and again, Obama opposes SSM. If he does nothing, DOMA is only overturned in Massachusetts.
Looking at it that way, his administration is in a pickle.
Though if they do not appeal, there will be a huge uproar about Obama not defending current federal law, whether or not he personally supports it. This would be worse than appealing. I strongly suspect they are going to appeal.
In the unlikely event Obama's administration does not appeal, other parties will be given authority to appeal on DOMA's behalf in the same fashion that Prop 8 was defended in CA when Schwarzenegger refused to defend it.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: ...DOMA is only overturned in Massachusetts.
and the other states where same sex marriages are recognized: Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa and DC.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I like that the judge is a Republican appointed judge who is old enough to remember interracial marriage cases (he was a lawyer when those were an issue, so could actually remember them as an adult). I wonder if Obama will try to have someone else appeal it and claim, well, I don't need to defend because X is- though it looks like Obama did send in a brief supporting DOMA- which the judge dismissed with the claim that people said allowing interracial marriage would be hard on society, but congress didn't get involved then and it all worked out (but stated more judgely).
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Why does everyone keep saying Obama this and Obama that?
Obama is on record against the DOMA.
The justice department is fighting the case, not Obama. They have an obligation to defend any current statute if they feel they have a chance of winning. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, or if the current administration likes it or not. Obama can't tell them to stop fighting the case - even if he wanted to. As the head executive he can't say "don't defend the law".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me: ... As the head executive he can't say "don't defend the law".
Can you elaborate on this? It touches on my previous question. In Canada, thats precisely what happened, like so:
quote:Prime Minister Chrétien and his cabinet decided in June not to appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal to allow same-sex marriages in Ontario, Canada's most populous province.
Obviously, the US is a different system, so I guess I'm asking, what mechanism in the US takes away the choice not to appeal from the executive?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Yes, the justice department (under Kagan still, I believe) is defending the law. But as Obama is the head of the Executive branch, of course he takes the blame and/or the credit.
Defending current statutes is vital for a consistent, working federal government. It would be anarchy if each subsequent administration only upheld laws they agreed with.
We do have a rare example of an Executive branch abdicating its responsibility to defend not only a statute but a state constitutional amendment when Schwarzenegger and his attorney general refused to defend Prop 8.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Mucus, I don't believe there is any REQUIREMENT that the Justice Department appeals this decision. At this point they have only stated that they are currently "reviewing the decision" (without an immediate appeal). But there will be huge political and philosophical pressure to do so.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Does the DOJ appeal EVERY decision it loses? If not, then there's no philosophical pressure to do so.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
These cases (the judge issued two opinions in two related cases) are not about a state's right to define marriage for the purposes of its own laws. They are about whether a state can force the federal government to accept the state's definition for the purposes of federal law.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:These cases (the judge issued two opinions in two related cases) are not about a state's right to define marriage for the purposes of its own laws. They are about whether a state can force the federal government to accept the state's definition for the purposes of federal law.
Well, that's one flexible way of looking at it. Though I don't think other states, when they define marriage in differing (maybe even unique, in some cases) are 'forcing' the federal government to recognize them when it does so.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I've begun to reconsider my position on legally sanctioned marriage. The separation of church and state folks should be screaming that a religious union gets tax breaks and government benefits.
Now that we're going down the gay marriage road, I'm increasingly realizing that marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. The state should have nothing to do with marriage and offer no legal benefit to married couples. Under the law, people are people and couples are couples, despite the composition.
The government should sanction a contract between individuals and marriage should be left to the church. We have a freedom of religion, create your gay church. Marriage is a union under God. The state should have nothing to do with it. The government shouldn't legalize gay marriage, they should eliminate the government benefits of heterosexual marriage.
I've realized that government benefits according to marital status violates the establishment clause. "Marriage" isn't a legal term.
If you're married by a judge, you have a "civil union" and the law should ignore marriage in a church. One is a simple contract and the other a religious institution.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The separation of church and state folks should be screaming that a religious union gets tax breaks and government benefits.
And they would if it was strictly a religious union. But it's not. I can walk into a judge's chambers and get married without ever saying or hearing a word about religion. Marriage, as recognize the the state, is entirely a civil matter. That your church may recognize that civil ceremony for religious purposes as well is irrelevant.
It's like belonging to a church that considers double parking a sin. Sure, getting a parking ticket from the city might cause my parish to shun me, but that doesn't make the parking ticket a religious instrument which should be abolished to maintain a separation between church and state.
Now if the word "marriage" is all you're concerned about, more power to you. Once you can get the leading voices of the "protect marriage" movement behind a move to change all government marriages to civil unions you might have a shot at that. In the end everyone is still going to call themselves married except for the shrinking minority who will be insisting on seeing their neighbor's paperwork before they're willing to grant that courtesy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Now that we're going down the gay marriage road, I'm increasingly realizing that marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. The state should have nothing to do with marriage and offer no legal benefit to married couples. Under the law, people are people and couples are couples, despite the composition.
Of course you're realizing that now! What would your diverse Jamaican neighbors say, malanthrop?
'Separation of church and state folks' are 'screaming' about it. They want this crazy thing called a civil union.
quote: The government should sanction a contract between individuals and marriage should be left to the church. We have a freedom of religion, create your gay church. Marriage is a union under God. The state should have nothing to do with it. The government shouldn't legalize gay marriage, they should eliminate the government benefits of heterosexual marriage.
You think it's a union under God. So do I, incidentally. But it is not absolutely that for everyone - tricky thing God gave us called 'free will', means people get to disagree with you, and they don't have to use your definitions for things - and it's not absolutely that as far as human societies are concerned. Particularly secular ones like ours.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When you get married in a church, the pastor still has to submit the paperwork to city hall to make it count on tax day.
The hang up here is semantics. "Marriage" is and always has been the union of a man and a woman. I'm a Christian right wing fellow and I don't have a problem with a legal contract between individuals who decide to share their lives together. My father in-law conducted my marriage to his daughter. A day after we were "married" he noticed a discrepancy in the state paperwork and I had to resign. I was still "married" to his daughter but if the paperwork wasn't corrected, we wouldn't get the tax benefits of the "civil union"
Under the law, marriage is treated as a contract between individuals. "Marriage" predates alimony laws. Let individuals form civil unions. It makes great sense. Many heterosexual men have other heterosexual men for room mates in a rental apartment. Let two heterosexual men form a civil union to get tax breaks and protect the assets they both contribute to. There will never be gay "marriage" but there might be gay corporate partnerships. Legalize gay marriage and two male heterosexual womanizers will get married for the tax breaks and legal protection for their assets (roommates).
Better yet,
allow contracts and give no benefits to either. Unfortunately, the divorce industry makes a lot of money and contracts are more binding than marriages. There are far more divorce lawyers than "contract breaking" lawyers.
[ July 11, 2010, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: "Marriage" is and always has been the union of a man and a woman.
No, it has not.
It was originally a contract between two men over the exchange of property...some of that property being the daughter of one of the men.
It has also been the union of a man and many women.
Then, over time, it changed. And it's changing now.
Deal with it, buddy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The hang up here is semantics. "Marriage" is and always has been the union of a man and a woman.
Malanthrop, I don't know if you've ever said something that was so plainly, and so easily, provably wrong. You're wrong again, malanthrop, can we please skip to the part where you pretend this part of the conversation never happened, never addressing it again?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I stand corrected...there are cultures where marriage was between a woman and many men.
If I didn't re-sign the document my marriage wouldn't be legally binding due to a typo. If the county clerk lost the paperwork my pastor submitted, would I still be married? This is the distinction between religion and law. Two opposite sex people show up at a court house and sign a contract in front of a judge, they aren't married, they have a contract. Gays should be able to do the same thing. I'm believe gays should be able to sign a legal contract but we are wrapped around the axle about semantics.
Having legal equality isn't enough. Maybe next they'll demand a dip in urine be recognized as "baptism", despite the fact their free to swim in urine.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Having legal equality isn't enough. Maybe next they'll demand a dip in urine be recognized as "baptism", despite the fact their free to swim in urine.
oh, those wacky gays, what will they hypothetically demand next
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: There are far more divorce lawyers than "contract breaking" lawyers.
No, there are not. Divorce law is a niche field. Contract law, on the other hand, touches a huge swath of the legal profession - everything from real estate to IP.
Perhaps you meant there are more advertisements for divorce lawyers. I assume that's the basis for your claim.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I don't know. Powers of attorney are more powerful than marriage. I know...the Navy cautions against giving unlimited powers of attorney to their wives during deployment. A gay can give limited power of attorney to be equal or even exceed the rights of marriage by giving unlimited powers of attorney.
Gays already have the legal equality. I've been arguing for them to get "joined" by a judge. They don't demand equal rights, they demand equal acceptance. They want to be called "married" while there are legal mechanism that make them equal to heterosexual couples. They have the legal mechanisms to be equal, they want the word.
Strict Catholics don't acknowledge court house marriages and the courts won't accept a marriage without the proper paperwork.
"Marriage" is religious. Two men can and should be able to sign whatever legal contract they want.....still not marriage.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Having legal equality isn't enough. Maybe next they'll demand a dip in urine be recognized as "baptism", despite the fact their free to swim in urine.
You really think we gays should swim in pee? Your imagery demonstrates the degree to which you believe gay marriage desecrates the holy institution. Point taken. I don't know any gay person, myself included, with such heinous intent as pissing on marriage. At least your analogy provides a glimpse into an aspect of how you respect the humanity of gay people.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Can I just say that "far right" conservatives aren't necessarily the same as "religious right" conservatives? I'm pretty far to the right on many issues, but I'm an atheist, and I fully support same sex marriage. I'm also a firm believer in state's rights. So, yeah. No cognitive dissonance for me on this issue.
(Generally speaking, my favored solution to the same-sex marriage issue is allowing civil unions for everyone and removing all instances of governmentally sanctioned "marriage")
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me: Why does everyone keep saying Obama this and Obama that?
Obama is on record against the DOMA.
The justice department is fighting the case, not Obama. They have an obligation to defend any current statute if they feel they have a chance of winning. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, or if the current administration likes it or not. Obama can't tell them to stop fighting the case - even if he wanted to. As the head executive he can't say "don't defend the law".
We know. We are just amused by the irony of his administration having to defend it and therefore being aligned with far right. It is an almost classic example of strange bedfellows
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I've begun to reconsider my position on legally sanctioned marriage. The separation of church and state folks should be screaming that a religious union gets tax breaks and government benefits.
Now that we're going down the gay marriage road, I'm increasingly realizing that marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. The state should have nothing to do with marriage and offer no legal benefit to married couples. Under the law, people are people and couples are couples, despite the composition.
The government should sanction a contract between individuals and marriage should be left to the church. We have a freedom of religion, create your gay church. Marriage is a union under God. The state should have nothing to do with it. The government shouldn't legalize gay marriage, they should eliminate the government benefits of heterosexual marriage.
I've realized that government benefits according to marital status violates the establishment clause. "Marriage" isn't a legal term.
If you're married by a judge, you have a "civil union" and the law should ignore marriage in a church. One is a simple contract and the other a religious institution.
That would be the logical solution. In the long run I am pretty confidant that that is how it will work out.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
In Germany, which is where i will be getting married in a week, marriage is exclusively conducted by the state. You cannot be legally married by a priest in a church etc.
There are fairly good reasons why you want to incentivize marriage, between any mishmash of the sexes. It gives people a reason to share resources and space, which is noramlly good for society in general. Not to mention is creates a legal situation that can protect the 'weaker' members of a couple, note that when I say weaker it has nothing to do with physical strength. In general it creates a stronger more stable society. I believe that any cultural group that does not have some form of 'legal' protection for partnership would face serious issues.
The best place to fix these things is not in the SCOTUS, but in legislative bodies. I realize that people rarely have the patience to deal with society's less rational ideas, but there is a consequence to solving our social problems in the least democratic of our governmental institutions. Not to mention it takes a burden of leadership away from those individuals that sohuld be doing their fair share to make sure that America is a good place to live.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Having legal equality isn't enough. Maybe next they'll demand a dip in urine be recognized as "baptism", despite the fact their free to swim in urine.
Or maybe some folks will demand only baptism of believers (adult), when we all know the right way (the way our country's founders practiced it) is clearly infant baptism.. I personally believe we should baptize in utero. Lets get some holy water pumped into those holy rollers!
P'Shaw!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Power of attorney has been ignored by hospitals and the state for gay couples. It also costs thousands of dollars to attempt to legally get all the stuff that marriage for around $50 gives you.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
All these contentious arguments are about semantics. Illegal aliens are "undocumented workers", janitors are "sanitation engineers" and midgets are "little people". We don't have secretaries anymore, they are "executive assistants" and it's inappropriate to call the lady serving you a drink on the plane a "stewardess".
We have left the realm of reality and entered the one of PC talk. Gays can enter a court house and form a legal partnership more binding than any marriage. They don't want legal equality they want universal acceptance.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Midgets are people too and a janitor is an engineer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Gays can enter a court house and form a legal partnership more binding than any marriage.
I'm currently juggling my options. I mean, you're wrong, but is it worth it to try to show otherwise?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Two men can form a business...a partnership.
If the tax advantages of hetero marriage were bestowed upon any couple and I were a hetero man with a hetero roommate, I would take advantage of the situation. There are "life partners" that have nothing to do with sexuality. Many people support one another and have sex with others. Who's going to make sure the homosexual marriage isn't a farce? Get rid of the tax benefits of marriage. "Married" should be left to the church.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I stand corrected...there are cultures where marriage was between a woman and many men.
Malanthrop, you said 'marriage has always been between one man and one woman'. You were completely, flat-out wrong about that. Your 'counter-balance' doesn't counter anything. You were quite simply wrong.
It's pretty feeble of you to so consistently display an inability to admit you were wrong when it's proven to you in plain language. Though I suppose if you did, you wouldn't say much else.
Now can we get to the part where you pretend the blip never happened? Without a 'counter balance', I mean.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Midgets are people too and a janitor is an engineer.
Do you see that terminology as a problem? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well this was an interesting subject
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
If anyone would like to check out the official rulings, they are worth a read:
If only our Congress would have the same moxie to axe DOMA, then none of these lawsuits would be needed. In Argentina likely as many as 200,000 people demonstrated outside the senate protesting gay marriage, and even in the face of that lawmakers still passed it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Gays can enter a court house and form a legal partnership more binding than any marriage.
To repeat since you missed it earlier.
quote: Power of attorney has been ignored by hospitals and the state for gay couples. It also costs thousands of dollars to attempt to legally get all the stuff that marriage for around $50 gives you.
Same sex couples cannot form a legal partnership equal to a marriage between a man and a woman.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Two men can form a business...a partnership.
If the tax advantages of hetero marriage were bestowed upon any couple and I were a hetero man with a hetero roommate, I would take advantage of the situation. There are "life partners" that have nothing to do with sexuality. Many people support one another and have sex with others. Who's going to make sure the homosexual marriage isn't a farce? Get rid of the tax benefits of marriage. "Married" should be left to the church.
How remarkably spiteful.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Considering the source, it's spiteful, but not remarkably so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: It would be anarchy if each subsequent administration only upheld laws they agreed with.
This *is* what happens, to some extent, you are aware of that I assume.
And anyway, federal inaction has been used in the past by more than one administration in order to weaken outdated laws. Didn't Obama quite explicitly state that the federal government would stop enforcing anti-marijuana laws in California?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: It would be anarchy if each subsequent administration only upheld laws they agreed with.
This *is* what happens, to some extent, you are aware of that I assume.
And anyway, federal inaction has been used in the past by more than one administration in order to weaken outdated laws. Didn't Obama quite explicitly state that the federal government would stop enforcing anti-marijuana laws in California?
Good point. I hadn't thought about that. Yes, I think Obama did state that.
I guess it happens quite often on more than the Federal level. I can think of several statutes on the book here in Utah that aren't enforced/defended.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Two men can form a business...a partnership.
If the tax advantages of hetero marriage were bestowed upon any couple and I were a hetero man with a hetero roommate, I would take advantage of the situation. There are "life partners" that have nothing to do with sexuality. Many people support one another and have sex with others. Who's going to make sure the homosexual marriage isn't a farce? Get rid of the tax benefits of marriage. "Married" should be left to the church.
"Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because HETEROSEXUALS might abuse it!"
This is one of my favorite arguments. Evil-Bad heterosexuals!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Unsurprisingly, Mal's argument is nonsensical.
He says marriage is just religious, and that it exists without state sanction, as when his paperwork was incorrect.
He further says that gay couples should get to have civil unions that have the same rights as marriages, AND that they can make a gay church to marry them.
Guess what Mal? That's the exact definition you give straight marriages. You don't care if gay people get married, you just want it to be easy for you to descriminate against them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
- Same-sex partners do not receive Social Security payments on the death of a spouse, even though they pay the same payroll taxes.
- Most employers do not offer medical insurance for same-sex spouses (and the same-sex partners who are fortunate enough to receive it must pay federal income tax on it). Nor do same-sex spouses get family leave to care for their partners or their partner's children. Same-sex widow/ers do not get pension benefits from their deceased spouse's employers.
- A married person does not pay estate tax on the property of a deceased spouse. A same-sex partner would have to.
And a few others: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); 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; 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; 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...
Not a single one of those things can be acquired though a legal partnership or filing. Every one and about 1,400 more comes automatically with your $50 marriage license.
Of the 1,400 or so rights that come with marriage, about 1,000 are federal and are not granted even if you're married in a state that recognizes gay marriage.
[ July 16, 2010, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That is, of course, not counting all the emotional and social benefits (and responsibilities) that come with marriage.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Two men can form a business...a partnership.
If the tax advantages of hetero marriage were bestowed upon any couple and I were a hetero man with a hetero roommate, I would take advantage of the situation. There are "life partners" that have nothing to do with sexuality. Many people support one another and have sex with others. Who's going to make sure the homosexual marriage isn't a farce? Get rid of the tax benefits of marriage. "Married" should be left to the church.
"Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because HETEROSEXUALS might abuse it!"
This is one of my favorite arguments. Evil-Bad heterosexuals!
It's great to see you posting again, Pix! I hope you stick around. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In 1996 Rep. Henry Hyde asked the General Accounting Office "to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status." Their response runs 75 pages and identified 1,049 of them. You can read it here.
They did it again in 2009 and found 1,100.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lets take it one step further...
You and your business partner find out that there is worthwhile tax incentives to be married. You argue that if men were allowed to marry men, then you and your business partner would get married solely for those tax purposes.
What if your business partner is a woman? Right now you could marry them, and have a completely platonic relationship, and get your tax benefits. If you and your partner are booth men, or both women, then you could not. This is blatant discrimination by sex.
Of course, the fact that having a business partner that wasn't a man wasn't considered in your argument, and that no one seemed to notice, may say something about our society.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Two men can form a business...a partnership.
If the tax advantages of hetero marriage were bestowed upon any couple and I were a hetero man with a hetero roommate, I would take advantage of the situation. There are "life partners" that have nothing to do with sexuality. Many people support one another and have sex with others. Who's going to make sure the homosexual marriage isn't a farce? Get rid of the tax benefits of marriage. "Married" should be left to the church.
"Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because HETEROSEXUALS might abuse it!"
This is one of my favorite arguments. Evil-Bad heterosexuals!
Don't run away this time, we like you here! Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Great argument Mal! We should apply the 14th amendment to this situation so that all sexes can equally enter marriage contracts to evade higher taxes. No sense in letting only female and male partnerships escape taxes!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by just_me: ... As the head executive he can't say "don't defend the law".
Can you elaborate on this? It touches on my previous question. In Canada, thats precisely what happened, like so:
quote:Prime Minister Chrétien and his cabinet decided in June not to appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal to allow same-sex marriages in Ontario, Canada's most populous province.
Obviously, the US is a different system, so I guess I'm asking, what mechanism in the US takes away the choice not to appeal from the executive?
Cool.
quote:After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.
Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.
Reading my local paper's comment section makes me want to move. Obama is a dictator for not defending this law. It is illegal not to defend the law, we should arrest him. Congress passed the law, it should be enforced. Good to know this statement, which allows more freedom is the mark of a totalitarian regime.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Wait what? I read the article but I'm confused.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
seems like the Obama administration will no longer defend the constitutionality of the law.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Does anyone else find it rather hypocritical that a Republican said this? "While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel. They have never shown any hesitation at using wedge issues to get votes before.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)