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And anyway, federal inaction has been used in the past by more than one administration in order to weaken outdated laws.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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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And anyway, federal inaction has been used in the past by more than one administration in order to weaken outdated laws.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.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
- 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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is, of course, not counting all the emotional and social benefits (and responsibilities) that come with marriage.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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! Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
