Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[jillian]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.

Except that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"

Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.

The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures.

When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.

and blacks used to be 3/5 of a person and women didn't have the vote... and jim crow was legal...

and?

 

[Pop23]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

er... no.

er... Yes

so if someone is infertile they should have a different tax rate than someone who can have a child?

rightwingnuthackworld is funny

Where did that come from?

Do you actually read before insulting

Invitro or adoption are acceptable (see previous posts)

Good lord

 

[jillian]

I love how the right can't tolerate any effort to protect people from their bigotry.

but please, whine about how you aren't bigots and are "moral".

 

[jillian]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

er... no.

er... Yes

so if someone is infertile they should have a different tax rate than someone who can have a child?

rightwingnuthackworld is funny

Where did that come from?

Do you actually read before insulting

Invitro or adoption are acceptable (see previous posts)

Good lord

you're the one who made the idiotic comment. I just called you on it.

you always do that though... make absurd assertions and then when called on them try to pretend it wasn't what you said.

schizophrenic much?

 

[jillian]

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.

yeah, it's pretty clear you've never benefitted from classrooms

 

[Pop23]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

Okay. I'm okay with this. Although, I think, as someone already pointed out, we already do this. That's kinda what the Child Tax Credit is...

That ends when the child leaves. It should not.

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Equity brother, equity

Hmmm...I don't know about that. I mean the whole point of the tax credit is supposed to be about offsetting the cost of raising that "future tax payer". Just like the marriage deduction is to offset the costs of starting a family. We don't really have any individual tax breaks that are meant to be rewards simply for the sake of rewards. I mean we do have some corporate tax breaks that are for that purpose, but those are meant to be economic incentives. To my knowledge we don't have any personal tax breaks that are designed like that.

It's seems times have changed.

Why should I, who supplies the nurses and health care workers needed to care for others who do not supply the same for me, pay at the same rate?

Seems highly unfair brother

 

[OODA_Loop]

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

10th Amendment. Simple.

 

[martybegan]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.

Except that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"

Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.

The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures.

When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.

and blacks used to be 3/5 of a person and women didn't have the vote... and jim crow was legal...

and?

You keep wrongly equating government discrimination with private discrimination.

 

[Pop23]

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.

yeah, it's pretty clear you've never benefitted from classrooms

Thanks for making my point!

Children are great job creators!

Appreciate the help

 

[bodecea]

Low or no morals, eh? Who arbitrates morality in your world? Who has the final judgment? What law forces you to associate with anyone else? What rights have actually been eroded? Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Did those darkies muck up your world?.

In the world of people I associate with, I get to set the standard. I am forced to exist in a society where I may have to deal with any number of immoral individuals or at least people in positions they ought not be seen doing in a polite society because our society no longer has rules. Try to find a male bank teller when you need one. I lost out on a very nice career opportunity because it would have meant dealing with a female supervisor in an Engineering Department. Now imagine being a business owner trying to hire personnel or deal with customers if you have actual morals.

Good.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.

Except that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"

Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.

The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures.

When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.

and blacks used to be 3/5 of a person

They still are!

 

[Anathema]

yeah, it's pretty clear you've never benefitted from classrooms

Honestly, I learned more from my parents and family than I did in any public school.or university classroom. Maybe that's because both of my parents had been teachers but I bet part of it was the shitty quality of now passes fir education

 

[rightwinger]

So, now that gay marriage will become the law of the land.....who will Conservatives turn their hate to next?

 

[Pop23]

So, now that gay marriage will become the law of the land.....who will Conservatives turn their hate to next?

You, and only you

Feel special?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases. They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade. They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.

It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.

please stop commenting about things you haven't an ounce of understanding about.

Remind us on YOUR track record on this board in regards law and Justice.

 

[Katzndogz]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

Keep that in mind if you serve on a jury in a crime where the victim is gay. Keep that in mind when the perversion that this nation has become wants your patriotism.

 

[rightwinger]

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

10th Amendment. Simple.

Not when a state violates the Constitution

Simple

 

[rightwinger]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

Keep that in mind if you serve on a jury in a crime where the victim is gay. Keep that in mind when the perversion that this nation has become wants your patriotism.

Are you really this sick?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Equality is that those that produce/raise the future are taxed at a lower rate than those that do not.

Where do you assume that people are taxed at different rates based on being married or not?

The rate is determined by Adjust Gross Income. The rate of tax is determined by how much you make not really by whether someone is married or not. The deduction for a single person is $6,200. The deduction for a married couple is $12,400 for the two people.

The people that produce the "future" (assuming you mean children) get a deduction for each child - that deduction is not conditional on being married or single, straight or gay.

The "Marriage Penalty" has mostly been straightened out now, but it used to be that being married caused you to pay MORE in taxes.


>>>>