Speaking of Constitutional Amendments
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/07/06 - 14:14 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | andydp wrote: | | Our Constitution is too precious to be used as a political tool. Leave it alone. Let the states handle this issue as they see fit. If New Mexico feels the need to allow it and South Dakota does not then so be it. |
So then, how is gay marriage any different then say abortion, gambling, prostitution, etc.? The Constitution is pretty clear on what the Federal Govt. can't do. All other rights are retained by the people. Why is this issue different?
If the folks in California, NY, and Mass. want to approve gay marriage - I say let them have it. But to mandate this from the federal/US Constitution level is silly/unnecessary. |
Thank you Sonny - Mandating morality is not the answer. We tried that with the 18th amendment and various other local laws. An interesting tidbit: Massachusetts has a much much lower that average divorce rate.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/07/06 - 16:17 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | Well, how about if my spouse and I own property together and file jointly, we can write off the interest on the mortgage as a deduction that benefits both of us, whereas if someone like Kelt and his SO live together, they can't get the same benefit jointly? |
I don't think you have to be married to have two person's names appear on the title to property (real estate). But I'm not sure.
| Quote: | | Another is: if I'm married and there are children, we claim them as a deduction jointly. If we're not married, we can't enjoy the deduction jointly. There are indeed tax benefits to being married. |
The IRS does not recognize common-law marriages? Social Security does (it depends, though, on a state-by-state basis) .If that's how you meant the above, obviously someone like Keltic and SO still would not benefit. If you meant not married as in separated/divorced then again I have to plead not being cognizant of the tax laws. |
I'm saying if you're not married, for whatever reason, both parents of a child don't get the full benefits (deductions) as recognized by the gov the way they would if they were married.
|
|
|
|
|
j1miller
Puppy Love!
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2002
Posts: 15447
Location: Lost on trail.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/07/06 - 21:34 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | j1miller wrote: | | gretriever wrote: | Not pertaining to the topic (directly), but a question for you, Go:
Tax benefits for married couples? Where? It seems that one of the big features of the Republican efforts for tax reform is to do away with the "marriage penalty". If so, doesn't that indicate that married couples don't have an advantage over un-married couples in that aspect? |
ok, I'm not Go, but I think she means more of the Social Security benefits that come into play for spouses upon the death of the other spouse.
There are a lot of financial benefits to being married. Joint filing of taxes is not one of them, but that does not preclude the others. |
Well, how about if my spouse and I own property together and file jointly, we can write off the interest on the mortgage as a deduction that benefits both of us, whereas if someone like Kelt and his SO live together, they can't get the same benefit jointly?
Another is: if I'm married and there are children, we claim them as a deduction jointly. If we're not married, we can't enjoy the deduction jointly. There are indeed tax benefits to being married. |
I guess I just think of it differently. My thought is that they most likely join incomes and live as one financially (as much as possible) and that the deduction is just taken by one, benefiting both in the long run. But, I see your point, too.
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/07/06 - 21:53 Post subject:
I don't understand how someone's right to be married offends another. What is the issue? I see the tax and other benefits of marriage, and I understand why everyone would want those rights and should be allowed them. I see all sorts of benefits to come for same-sex couples from mariage and nothing that is offensive. Don't people have more important things to worry about, like why thousands of people have been killed in a useless war? That's a lot more troubling and offensive to me and makes me look a lot worse as an American than if I said, "Hey, I am from America and we allow same-sex marriages". I'll bet most of the world would agree. We've got more important things to worry about, and I should think that "Christians" who are supposed to be supporting love for all of their fellow men/women would be supportive, not against, same-sex marriage. Isn't Christianity about loving and supporting others and not judging based on your own moral agenda? What can be more loving or Christian-like than supporting someone's decision to make a life-long committment to each other? I think that's wonderful.
(I am using "Christian" as the generalization for religion because that's what the religious right tends to use as their background. No offense meant to other religious groups; as a back-up of that, I am a Bhuddhist).
I don't understand what can possibly be offensive about a legal marriage between two people that love each other. That's beautiful, and should not be restricted. It's no one else's business except for the couple involved.
What's NOT beautiful is war and hate and prejudice.
I can't believe that shrub is even trying to take this to a constitutional amendment level. That is a waste of money and time, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 07:14 Post subject:
I think it is also a stop gap on issues such as polygamy, bigamy and other forms of "marriage" I think the amendment is also a clarification on what marriage really is, and that is a shame in this country. Marriage is a sacred institution and if it not clearly defined in this "country of laws" then people can define it as they wish.
Most states that have put it to the vote have passed marriage amendments handily.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 07:16 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | gretriever wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | Well, how about if my spouse and I own property together and file jointly, we can write off the interest on the mortgage as a deduction that benefits both of us, whereas if someone like Kelt and his SO live together, they can't get the same benefit jointly? |
I don't think you have to be married to have two person's names appear on the title to property (real estate). But I'm not sure.
| Quote: | | Another is: if I'm married and there are children, we claim them as a deduction jointly. If we're not married, we can't enjoy the deduction jointly. There are indeed tax benefits to being married. |
The IRS does not recognize common-law marriages? Social Security does (it depends, though, on a state-by-state basis) .If that's how you meant the above, obviously someone like Keltic and SO still would not benefit. If you meant not married as in separated/divorced then again I have to plead not being cognizant of the tax laws. |
I'm saying if you're not married, for whatever reason, both parents of a child don't get the full benefits (deductions) as recognized by the gov the way they would if they were married. |
Will married gays also be taxed at the marriage rate if they actually get the status. If they do not, then I am being discriminated against. It would have to be all or nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 07:17 Post subject:
| andydp wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | | andydp wrote: | | Our Constitution is too precious to be used as a political tool. Leave it alone. Let the states handle this issue as they see fit. If New Mexico feels the need to allow it and South Dakota does not then so be it. |
So then, how is gay marriage any different then say abortion, gambling, prostitution, etc.? The Constitution is pretty clear on what the Federal Govt. can't do. All other rights are retained by the people. Why is this issue different?
If the folks in California, NY, and Mass. want to approve gay marriage - I say let them have it. But to mandate this from the federal/US Constitution level is silly/unnecessary. |
Thank you Sonny - Mandating morality is not the answer. We tried that with the 18th amendment and various other local laws. An interesting tidbit: Massachusetts has a much much lower that average divorce rate. |
we also have the full faith and credit clause in the constitution since you want to cite the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 09:12 Post subject:
| copteacher wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | gretriever wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | Well, how about if my spouse and I own property together and file jointly, we can write off the interest on the mortgage as a deduction that benefits both of us, whereas if someone like Kelt and his SO live together, they can't get the same benefit jointly? |
I don't think you have to be married to have two person's names appear on the title to property (real estate). But I'm not sure.
| Quote: | | Another is: if I'm married and there are children, we claim them as a deduction jointly. If we're not married, we can't enjoy the deduction jointly. There are indeed tax benefits to being married. |
The IRS does not recognize common-law marriages? Social Security does (it depends, though, on a state-by-state basis) .If that's how you meant the above, obviously someone like Keltic and SO still would not benefit. If you meant not married as in separated/divorced then again I have to plead not being cognizant of the tax laws. |
I'm saying if you're not married, for whatever reason, both parents of a child don't get the full benefits (deductions) as recognized by the gov the way they would if they were married. |
Will married gays also be taxed at the marriage rate if they actually get the status. If they do not, then I am being discriminated against. It would have to be all or nothing. |
Of course they would be taxed at the marriage rate. They would be married, and as far as the government is concerned, that marriage would carry the exact same responsibilities and priveledges as any other marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Capt Kirk
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 120
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 10:44 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | copteacher wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | gretriever wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | Well, how about if my spouse and I own property together and file jointly, we can write off the interest on the mortgage as a deduction that benefits both of us, whereas if someone like Kelt and his SO live together, they can't get the same benefit jointly? |
I don't think you have to be married to have two person's names appear on the title to property (real estate). But I'm not sure.
| Quote: | | Another is: if I'm married and there are children, we claim them as a deduction jointly. If we're not married, we can't enjoy the deduction jointly. There are indeed tax benefits to being married. |
The IRS does not recognize common-law marriages? Social Security does (it depends, though, on a state-by-state basis) .If that's how you meant the above, obviously someone like Keltic and SO still would not benefit. If you meant not married as in separated/divorced then again I have to plead not being cognizant of the tax laws. |
I'm saying if you're not married, for whatever reason, both parents of a child don't get the full benefits (deductions) as recognized by the gov the way they would if they were married. |
Will married gays also be taxed at the marriage rate if they actually get the status. If they do not, then I am being discriminated against. It would have to be all or nothing. |
Of course they would be taxed at the marriage rate. They would be married, and as far as the government is concerned, that marriage would carry the exact same responsibilities and priveledges as any other marriage. |
I got a better idea: REFORM THE TAX CODE!!!!!
Flat Tax (or no Income Tax) with a National Sales Tax
No marriage penalty
No Estate / Death Taxes
No Alternative Minimum Tax
etc, etc, etc
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 11:07 Post subject:
National sales tax won't happen, as it would hit the poorest the hardest.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 11:39 Post subject:
| Capt Kirk wrote: |
I got a better idea: REFORM THE TAX CODE!!!!!
Flat Tax (or no Income Tax) with a National Sales Tax
No marriage penalty
No Estate / Death Taxes
No Alternative Minimum Tax
etc, etc, etc |
That solves only part of the problem. What about power of attorney, rights of survivorship, custody of children, hopsital visitation, funeral arrangements, insurance, and spousal benefits (if offered by employers) ?
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 11:56 Post subject:
| keltic63 wrote: | | Capt Kirk wrote: |
I got a better idea: REFORM THE TAX CODE!!!!!
Flat Tax (or no Income Tax) with a National Sales Tax
No marriage penalty
No Estate / Death Taxes
No Alternative Minimum Tax
etc, etc, etc |
That solves only part of the problem. What about power of attorney, rights of survivorship, custody of children, hopsital visitation, funeral arrangements, insurance, and spousal benefits (if offered by employers) ? |
If what you say is true, and marriage is essentially just "a contract", then what's to stop a gay couple from creating their own set of "contracts" regarding power of attorney, rights of survivorship, funerals, etc.? I don't get why this isn't/can't be done. As a business major I took my fair share of contract law studies in college, and people can draw up contracts for any/everything. Sure, recognizing gay-marriage would "automatically" make many of these things happen by default, but a gay couple can RIGHT NOW draw up paperwork and create legal documents for all these situations. Contractual law is powerful stuff, I don't get why it is used to establish priority in all these circumstances (children/custody might be a different matter, but of course, biologically a gay couple wouldn't have their own children anyway, so the other parent would always be in the picture and that couldn't be contracted out which makes sense).
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 12:21 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | keltic63 wrote: | | Capt Kirk wrote: |
I got a better idea: REFORM THE TAX CODE!!!!!
Flat Tax (or no Income Tax) with a National Sales Tax
No marriage penalty
No Estate / Death Taxes
No Alternative Minimum Tax
etc, etc, etc |
That solves only part of the problem. What about power of attorney, rights of survivorship, custody of children, hopsital visitation, funeral arrangements, insurance, and spousal benefits (if offered by employers) ? |
If what you say is true, and marriage is essentially just "a contract", then what's to stop a gay couple from creating their own set of "contracts" regarding power of attorney, rights of survivorship, funerals, etc.? I don't get why this isn't/can't be done. As a business major I took my fair share of contract law studies in college, and people can draw up contracts for any/everything. Sure, recognizing gay-marriage would "automatically" make many of these things happen by default, but a gay couple can RIGHT NOW draw up paperwork and create legal documents for all these situations. Contractual law is powerful stuff, I don't get why it is used to establish priority in all these circumstances (children/custody might be a different matter, but of course, biologically a gay couple wouldn't have their own children anyway, so the other parent would always be in the picture and that couldn't be contracted out which makes sense). |
Why should anyone get married? Why don't heterosexual couples do the same, draw up contracts or the other things you've suggested?
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 12:25 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: |
If what you say is true, and marriage is essentially just "a contract", then what's to stop a gay couple from creating their own set of "contracts" regarding power of attorney, rights of survivorship, funerals, etc.? I don't get why this isn't/can't be done. As a business major I took my fair share of contract law studies in college, and people can draw up contracts for any/everything. Sure, recognizing gay-marriage would "automatically" make many of these things happen by default, but a gay couple can RIGHT NOW draw up paperwork and create legal documents for all these situations. Contractual law is powerful stuff, I don't get why it is used to establish priority in all these circumstances (children/custody might be a different matter, but of course, biologically a gay couple wouldn't have their own children anyway, so the other parent would always be in the picture and that couldn't be contracted out which makes sense). |
some of it can be done legally, at a cost of thousands of dollars to the lawyers who draw up the paperwork. Right now, the amendments that are being created, not only federally, but at the state level as well, not only eliminate same sex marriage, but anything that resembles it. In other words, contracts that protect gay couples, giving them benefits similar to marriages, would also become illegal. This affects straight couples who choose to live together without getting married. It also affects non-married couples in need of protection from domestic violence. It has already happened in OHIO
Ohio AARP opposed that states marriage ban because it affected sr. citizens who often live together without getting married in order to collect more social security benefits/retirement benefits, etc.
Why is it not true that marriage, in the eyes of the govt, is a contract?
Plenty of gay couples have children that biologically belong to one of the parents. In a case of 2 women having moe than 1 child, very often each of the women has carried a child in turn. If a break up occurs, and both have been parenting those children, do you think each would just "give up" a kid?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/08/06 - 12:47 Post subject:
5 pages now, and has anyone answered how it affects any of you if keltic were allowed to marry his partner? You must have some sort of reason as to why it would be the downfall of society.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
