Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's the point: if government is going to give benefits to one, they should give to all."Gay marriage" is a euphemism for the 1138 Federal rights and benefits given to married couples. The marriage itself is a religious issue. The rights and benefits (e.g. survivorship, tax breaks, parental rights and obligations, etc) are a secular government issue....Well, when you said you support "gay marriage," I assumed you were referring to government marriage. Is that not the case?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
"Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."
Appendices 1-4 of the linked PDF list the benefits, rights and privileges.
Exactly, you are referring to government "benefits." Why would a libertarian believe that government should treat any of it's citizens differently than other citizens? What basis is pairing up, straight or gay, a reasonable basis for government to reward you with government perks?
There is nothing libertarian about marriage being a government function at all. And there is a better solution that would be available to every citizen for everything government marriage cures. Taxes should be flat, no one should pay a death tax, paternity should be based on genes not marriage certificates, etc. A private contract could specify any monetary agreement. There is nothing that government marriage is needed for. That is a lot more libertarian than government discrimination for people pairing up
Yup because you were being a trolling asshole. This is your life, Correll.Yep. Use of an accusation of homosexuality as a personal smear. That's homophobic, and vulgar and very rude and "nasty". And you pretend to be the aggrieved party. Troll.I am accusing you of being Trump stump sucker, as I believe many of you are.
what does bill Clintons womanizing have to do with your blatant homophobia ? ............jack shit that's what!bitch please! you and jimblowme are the very definition of homophobia
I'm not the one accusing other men of sucking dick as a personal attack.
That's Jake. Not me.
You libs are supposedly so concerned about bigotry, but when one of your own is doing it, suddenly you cant' even see it.
fail.
Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post.
Jake is accusing Trump supporters of sucking dick as a personal smear.
That's homophobia.....
That's ridiculous. No one thinks you are afraid to suck dick. Quite the contrary...
So anyway, no, he won't deport 11 million people.
I'm disappointed in you. I expect such behavior from Jake.
Your smear was homophobic too.
And if elected, I am sure he will try to deport 11 million illegals.
He might be stopped by the Courts or Congress, but that will be on them.
You are disappointed with Unkotares behavior?I'm disappointed in you. I expect such behavior from Jake.
Your smear was homophobic too.
And if elected, I am sure he will try to deport 11 million illegals.
He might be stopped by the Courts or Congress, but that will be on them.
Trump has NEVER knowingly hired an illegal worker. EVER! You fucking POS!Interesting that Trump would hinder the importation of his undocumented workers.Vandals is right.
If we thought there was a chance for completeing a 1900 mile wall, we would all be putting together "let's build a wall" companies on the boarder. We could employ a lot of our black, white, and hispanic poor folks on it.
But it is not going to happen.
Democrats wouldn't do that because they have no intention of controlling the border. When Trump gets elected, the preparations will commence.
ONCE a few years ago a contractor working on a Trump building project hired a few illegals.
When Trump found out he tore the contract up.
You are so fucking stupid you won't believe that if ANY unions who Trump MUST work with found out Trump was using illegal workers they would NEVER work for Trump again!
Fucking grow up!
Just a guess, but fixing E-Verify has to be cheaper than spending 10-15 Billion per year building, maintaining and staffing a 1900+ wall....E-Verify has problems, mostly regarding what employers can do when they think the documentation presented is hinky, but we need to do something of that sort, agreed.
You are a homophobic and racist troll. You just don't like being told the truth. So . . . don't do it.Yup because you were being a trolling asshole. This is your life, Correll.Yep. Use of an accusation of homosexuality as a personal smear. That's homophobic, and vulgar and very rude and "nasty". And you pretend to be the aggrieved party. Troll.I am accusing you of being Trump stump sucker, as I believe many of you are.
How exactly was I being a troll?
By pointing out that your sexual imagery did not reflect on us, but on you for using it?
That's not being a troll, that's calling you on your homophobic bullshit.
Plus catching those who have absolutely no intention of being caught.Just a guess, but fixing E-Verify has to be cheaper than spending 10-15 Billion per year building, maintaining and staffing a 1900+ wall....E-Verify has problems, mostly regarding what employers can do when they think the documentation presented is hinky, but we need to do something of that sort, agreed.
"Gay marriage" is a euphemism for the 1138 Federal rights and benefits given to married couples. The marriage itself is a religious issue. The rights and benefits (e.g. survivorship, tax breaks, parental rights and obligations, etc) are a secular government issue....Well, when you said you support "gay marriage," I assumed you were referring to government marriage. Is that not the case?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
"Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."
Appendices 1-4 of the linked PDF list the benefits, rights and privileges.
Exactly, you are referring to government "benefits." Why would a libertarian believe that government should treat any of it's citizens differently than other citizens? What basis is pairing up, straight or gay, a reasonable basis for government to reward you with government perks?
There is nothing libertarian about marriage being a government function at all. And there is a better solution that would be available to every citizen for everything government marriage cures. Taxes should be flat, no one should pay a death tax, paternity should be based on genes not marriage certificates, etc. A private contract could specify any monetary agreement. There is nothing that government marriage is needed for. That is a lot more libertarian than government discrimination for people pairing up
But marriage IS a legal contract. That's why a legal guarantor is needed.
CAN be, not IS.But marriage IS a legal contract. That's why a legal guarantor is needed.
Plus catching those who have absolutely no intention of being caught.
Today if they get married again, sure. Not only CAN BE but IS are the facts of the matter right now.CAN be, not IS.But marriage IS a legal contract. That's why a legal guarantor is needed.
I was at a gay wedding with my girlfriend (her friends) in Key West around 1995. After the ceremony, were they married or not?
I believe they were married. Just because the US government didn't recognize the marriage as "legal" and, therefore, refused to grant them tax breaks and other rights, benefits and privileges doesn't mean they weren't married.
We have an extensive layered defense now. Laws are being enforced. Add mandatory e-verify and draconian business enforcment plus dividend triple fines, and we would have no need for a wall.Plus catching those who have absolutely no intention of being caught.
What percentage of criminals intend to be caught?
IMO, a layered defense and enforcement of current laws would be both cheaper and more effective than a wall.
It's government laws and regulations. A contract is something you negotiate with someone. It's not something government dictates and can change at will
It's the LIB 'man-bun' fairies who are afraid of getting their hands dirty who won't take the jobs available.False!If I had to survive and have money to pay my bills, of course. Anyone would.
Illegal US Immigrants Pay Billions in Taxes, But Is It Enough? « All About America
Immigrants do jobs natives won’t do
Your liberal blogs don't carry any weight. Plenty of people would do those jobs. Jackass.
I've personally done many of the jobs they say Americans won't do.
And thus, can't imagine that someone else would.
what does bill Clintons womanizing have to do with your blatant homophobia ? ............jack shit that's what!bitch please! you and jimblowme are the very definition of homophobia
I'm not the one accusing other men of sucking dick as a personal attack.
That's Jake. Not me.
You libs are supposedly so concerned about bigotry, but when one of your own is doing it, suddenly you cant' even see it.
fail.
Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post.
Jake is accusing Trump supporters of sucking dick as a personal smear.
That's homophobia.....
That's ridiculous. No one thinks you are afraid to suck dick. Quite the contrary...
So anyway, no, he won't deport 11 million people.
I'm disappointed in you. I expect such behavior from Jake.....
It's the LIB 'man-bun' fairies who are afraid of getting their hands dirty who won't take the jobs available.
Your liberal blogs don't carry any weight. Plenty of people would do those jobs. Jackass.
I've personally done many of the jobs they say Americans won't do.
And thus, can't imagine that someone else would.
Since you and Dannyboys are old and obsolete .......... You don't have a clue what is going on on the job market. There are jobs available right now for Americans but where are they? Are they applying for these jobs? Some maybe but in general NO.
If this trend keep going.......... more and more companies and hospitals will hire foreign workers that will do janitors and cook like.............. TRUMP.
"Gay marriage" is a euphemism for the 1138 Federal rights and benefits given to married couples. The marriage itself is a religious issue. The rights and benefits (e.g. survivorship, tax breaks, parental rights and obligations, etc) are a secular government issue....Well, when you said you support "gay marriage," I assumed you were referring to government marriage. Is that not the case?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
"Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."
Appendices 1-4 of the linked PDF list the benefits, rights and privileges.
Exactly, you are referring to government "benefits." Why would a libertarian believe that government should treat any of it's citizens differently than other citizens? What basis is pairing up, straight or gay, a reasonable basis for government to reward you with government perks?
There is nothing libertarian about marriage being a government function at all. And there is a better solution that would be available to every citizen for everything government marriage cures. Taxes should be flat, no one should pay a death tax, paternity should be based on genes not marriage certificates, etc. A private contract could specify any monetary agreement. There is nothing that government marriage is needed for. That is a lot more libertarian than government discrimination for people pairing up
But marriage IS a legal contract. That's why a legal guarantor is needed.
It's government laws and regulations. A contract is something you negotiate with someone. It's not something government dictates and can change at will
CAN be, not IS....But marriage IS a legal contract. That's why a legal guarantor is needed.
