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

[rightwinger]

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Correct, but they should not end at the time that they leave the home, they should continue through the life of the child (maybe at a lower rate).

Does anyone other than you give a fuck?
It ain't gunna happen and gay marriage will soon be the law of the land

 

[rightwinger]

Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.

Oh NOOooooooooo

Slippery slope

 

[Czernobog]

This is just a gross misuse of the separation of powers doctrine and blatantly ignoring the people's will. Seriously ask yourself: how much acceptance will gays have if gay marriage is just going to be rammed through by shenanigans like this? Let the Circuit Courts strike down duly passed constitutional amendments and state laws, and then the SCOTUS just lets those lower court rulings stand because it's easier than doing it themselves. And why is it okay to pick-and-choose when we're going to acknowledge the majority? When a poll says a majority supports gay marriage, it's hailed as the gospel. But when the majority actually votes and doesn't approve of it, it's okay to just get that overturned on principle. Somebody name me one other supposed "civil right" that has been enacted through judges essentially legislating from the bench.

You get that he court isn't about "acknowledging the majority", right? If "the majority" of Americans said "It is okay to shoot blond people on Sundays", the Court would still be obliged to say, "No, it isn't", because the Court's job is to decide if a law is constitutional, or not; not whether the majority of Americans like a particular law, or not.

 

[Pop23]

Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?

What does that mean?

If procreation is seen as a requirement for a marriage license, why does that standard get ignored when the elderly wed?

Child in home = credit

Child grows to maturity = credit

Simple nuff?

So it's performance based and not fertility based.

You didn't answer the question about the Dad though, do we just assume who the biological father is or is proof required?




So you loose the credit if the child dies before the age of 18?

But at the age of 18 then poof the tax credit is for the rest of your life?



>>>>

Id let congress handle the details ( I'm far to busy trying to figure out who the hells gonna make the NCAA playoffs), but in my opinion. The household gets the deduction.

In cases of adoption or invitro, and the household breaks apart, the deduction is applied 50/50 to the parents that were within the household when the child is brought home.

But you said "Child grows to maturity = credit".

So they get the tax credit at birth and raising the child to maturity isn't a factor?



>>>>

WW, if a child dies before maturity, how is the credit currently handled? Got it?

A credit (does not have to be the current child credit), should apply to those that survive to maturity and creates additional tax revenue.

Humming to my self the big hit. A brave new worlddddddddddd

No I don't "got it". Current tax credits last until they reach adulthood, you are one one that wants a new permanent tax credit for procreating.

You said that those that produce children under YOUR new plan would receive a tax credit forever (well as long as they are alive). Then you said "Child in home = credit, Child grows to maturity = credit" which changes things.

Either they get your tax credit for as long as they live once they have a child or they perpetual tax credit is dependent on their reaching the age of maturity.


Which is it?


>>>>

A credit to assist raising the future tax payer

Then a credit for raising the new tax payer successfully

It ain't really that hard to understand

 

[Pop23]

Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.

Oh NOOooooooooo

Slippery slope

But true, or is it icky

 

[Czernobog]

Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.

Personally, I don't give two shits about incest, or polygamy. If you wanna marry your sister, and your cousin, novasteve, feel froggy. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. Not really my thing, but, hey! Whatever pulls your pantyhose. You see, you just really don't get the concept of, "If it does not cause you harm, it is not any of your fucking business", do you?

 

[Czernobog]

Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.

Oh NOOooooooooo

Slippery slope

Welllll...and let's face it, RW; that slope isn't really all that slippery. I mean, I actually agree with him. So long as we are talking about he activities of two consenting adults, incest, and polygamy affect me just about as much as gay marriage. So, my reaction is kind of a great big, "Meh."

 

[Czernobog]

Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.

Oh NOOooooooooo

Slippery slope

But true, or is it icky

Both. although that's just my personal opinion. I kinda think incest is icky. However, his statement is also true. Since it has no affect on me, my personal morality, how I will personally live my life, or my personal sex life, i don't particularly give so much as a single flying fuck what two - or more, in the case of polygamy - consenting adults do in their personal lives.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

 

[Iceweasel]

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

That's a stupid question, but par for the course for the idiot left. Marriage has been for families since recorded history. It's what usually happens when men and women get together. The few that don't procreate don't really change what the male/female union, each with their special aspects of gender bring to the table. The big lie is that two fags mimic this somehow and we are all supposed to park our brains and go along with the fantasy.

The bigger story for me is that the fact that the Supremes refused to hear the case proves that is is not a Constitutional issue, which I and many have said all along. It isn't a matter of "equality" but a matter of states rights to decide what the definition of marriage is. Homosexual marriages will NEVER be seen the same, people may pretend to go along with it but it will always be a joke.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

Since the states choose to create laws that prevented such acts the states spoke. It was federal judges that made the change This is not over by a long SHOT.bang bang..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

bakers and photographers are subject to the same public accommodation laws as everyone else. they can be bigots in their own homes, however.

your

So when do you start a push to protect incest?

 

[Plasmaball]

Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something

this means nothing. You can't force a STATE to do anything even though you all love to stomp on the voters who lives in them and votes down homosexual marriage. scratch a liberal find a fascist

seriously punch yourself in the face for being this fucking stupid that you can't even grasp how our nation works.

 

[hipeter924]

Same-sex marriage should be legal in every state by the end of the decade, but for now there will be a lot of court battles and appeals. There are sure to be hold out states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To you who are still in denal: STFU, no one cares.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

That's a stupid question, but par for the course for the idiot left. Marriage has been for families since recorded history. It's what usually happens when men and women get together. The few that don't procreate don't really change what the male/female union, each with their special aspects of gender bring to the table. The big lie is that two fags mimic this somehow and we are all supposed to park our brains and go along with the fantasy.

The bigger story for me is that the fact that the Supremes refused to hear the case proves that is is not a Constitutional issue, which I and many have said all along. It isn't a matter of "equality" but a matter of states rights to decide what the definition of marriage is. Homosexual marriages will NEVER be seen the same, people may pretend to go along with it but it will always be a joke.

The states decided but the federal courts ruled other wise so it still in the courts eye not a state issue. At least not when the federal government appointed judges dictated otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

Immaterial, son.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The constitutional issues are always the feds' responsibility.

The ruling now is that states cannot prevent marriage equality.

Push will come to shove if a fed appellate court says a ban is legal.

If so, that will go to SCOTUS.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Well...not really. It's just going to be a slower process. The courts are letting it be done circuit by circuit. Guess what? That's working, too. It's just taking longer. That's fine with me. The activists who want to keep gays from enjoying the same rights, and privileges as everyone else are clearly losing this fight. Marriage equality will now clearly be the law of the land in well over half of the country. The rest is bound to follow.

I've read that the phrase "the law of the land" was prominently used by the kings court of England...which was part of the tyranny the founders fought to get out from under. I think the S Court today recognized the danger in gay-marriage as a "right" ....so they weaseled their way out. Pathetic really...but somewhat better than calling it a "right". Marshall justified judicial review in part by saying all cases should be heard.....not this bull shit, where even tho they have more clerks and bigger budgets than ever, they routinely turn down cases......It shows a need for judicial reform.

The Republican Party Convention in 2016 has a problem. Do they cling to endorsing a gay marriage ban that most of the nation opposes, just to appease their crazy base?

I am a registered Democrat that opposes gay-marriage...and the prop 8 vote in California demonstrates that many other Democrats do also. Opinion polls can be manipulated.

This is just a gross misuse of the separation of powers doctrine and blatantly ignoring the people's will. Seriously ask yourself: how much acceptance will gays have if gay marriage is just going to be rammed through by shenanigans like this? Let the Circuit Courts strike down duly passed constitutional amendments and state laws, and then the SCOTUS just lets those lower court rulings stand because it's easier than doing it themselves. And why is it okay to pick-and-choose when we're going to acknowledge the majority? When a poll says a majority supports gay marriage, it's hailed as the gospel. But when the majority actually votes and doesn't approve of it, it's okay to just get that overturned on principle. Somebody name me one other supposed "civil right" that has been enacted through judges essentially legislating from the bench.

Excellent post.

 

[Czernobog]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

Actually, the founders of this country pointedly remained silent on the issue of morality, while framing The Constitution. This would be because they did not feel it was the job of government to mandate morality.