Gay Marriage is a Lie: Honest or Disagree?

[nodoginnafight]

4 states and only 3 approved it and on very slim margins. Sorry, but there is no national concensus (sic) to sanction gay marriage.

But that's not what you said. You said NOWHERE. You didn't say there is no consensus. You said NOWHERE has the public voted in favor of gay marriage. That is called "moving the goalposts."

And judging by all the personal insults, it sure chaps your ass to have to admit you were wrong.

Here let ME show you how a person of integrity handles that situation:

I previously posted that if Redfish admitted his mistake, I would admit that I was wrong in saying that he/she would not.

I was flat out wrong. Redfish did admit his/her mistake.

great, we both have integrity

well, I know I do.

 

[Redfish]

But that's not what you said. You said NOWHERE. You didn't say there is no consensus. You said NOWHERE has the public voted in favor of gay marriage. That is called "moving the goalposts."

And judging by all the personal insults, it sure chaps your ass to have to admit you were wrong.

Here let ME show you how a person of integrity handles that situation:

I previously posted that if Redfish admitted his mistake, I would admit that I was wrong in saying that he/she would not.

I was flat out wrong. Redfish did admit his/her mistake.

great, we both have integrity

well, I know I do.

and I know that I do. thats what "both" means.

 

[Seawytch]

of course, if your proof is valid. I do think the there was a vote in favor in Vermont and DC. Got any others?

Read it and weep, Fishman.



Gay Marriage On The Ballot In 4 States (INTERACTIVE RESULTS)





Now, your turn to say you were wrong.

4 states and only 3 approved it and on very slim margins. Sorry, but there is no national concensus to sanction gay marriage.



But unlike any of you libtards, I will admit that I was wrong when I said that every state where it was on the ballot voted it down.



Now, will you please list the states where the will of the people has been overturned by activist liberal judges? No? I didn't think so.

Six. Only six of the seventeen were as a result if a judicial ruling...but it will be all 50 soon.

 

[kaz]

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

The Congress has the power to lay taxes on income. Spouses over the years put money into investments and since they are married it is considered community property, if they divorce each gets 50%. On the other hand if one dies the other inherits the others investment. The surviving spouse already owns 50%, the other 50% received as part of the estate is income based on "whatever source derived".

Any two people can make the investments together, however if they are not married and the deceased individual wills their part to the other, for the survivor it is income. Same for the spouse, but the spouse (because of Civil Marriage) receives and exception.

Just because it is Constitutional for Congress to lay a tax, does not mean they are required to - therefore their exception for spouses is perfectly Constitutional.


>>>>

First, I don't understand how you're confused by sections. They're even bolded now.

Second, the death tax isn't a tax on income, it's a tax on wealth, so it isn't covered by the sixteenth amendment.

Nice try but no. When wealth is transferred from one person to another to the receiving person that is income so ya actually it is covered by the 16th Amendment. Not saying the transfer of wealth from a deceased spouse for their part of community property to the other spouse should be taxes, just saying that Constitutionally it could under the 16th but Congress provides for an exception (which they can).

You should try to understand that there are two ways to discuss the law: what "should be", and "reality". Saying the transfer of wealth from one person to another isn't income is not accepting reality.

Personally I'd like to scrap the whole tax code and go to a Flat Tax with only three types: Federal, State, and Local. Repeal all hidden taxes (gas tax, etc.), progressive tax schemes (graduated tax rates), and loopholes. One Flat Tax by each level of government set on an annual basis to cover expenses. See that is my opinion of what "should be", yet I recognize that does not reflect the "reality" of what is.


>>>>

Wrong, you realize you're on the internet and could have Google? Income is payment for goods or services, it's not transfer of wealth. And conceptually that is consistent with our tax system because taxes are on economic activity, which income is and transfer of wealth isn't.

As I keep pointing out, this doesn't contradict me anyway, you're taking bullets from one section and applying it to another. I just said that the death tax is evil, it's not in the section I said was unconstitutional.

And none of this makes gay marriage necessary either, the death tax is evil and everyone should be exempted from it, not just people who have gay sex.

 

[kaz]

Nice try but no. When wealth is transferred from one person to another to the receiving person that is income so ya actually it is covered by the 16th Amendment. Not saying the transfer of wealth from a deceased spouse for their part of community property to the other spouse should be taxes, just saying that Constitutionally it could under the 16th but Congress provides for an exception (which they can).

You should try to understand that there are two ways to discuss the law: what "should be", and "reality". Saying the transfer of wealth from one person to another isn't income is not accepting reality.

Personally I'd like to scrap the whole tax code and go to a Flat Tax with only three types: Federal, State, and Local. Repeal all hidden taxes (gas tax, etc.), progressive tax schemes (graduated tax rates), and loopholes. One Flat Tax by each level of government set on an annual basis to cover expenses. See that is my opinion of what "should be", yet I recognize that does not reflect the "reality" of what is.


>>>>

what you don't get is that inherited money has already been taxed. either when it was earned as income or when it appreciated through capital gains. the death tax is a second tax on the same money.

Correct it was taxed when earned under the person that owned it. When passed to another person though it is new income for them.

I have an income earned either through work or investments, I paid taxes on that income and I'm not being taxed a second time. I walk up and hand you a check for $50,000 - that is new income for YOU.

Its wrong and should be repealed.

I don't disagree that it should be repealed, doesn't change the fact that it is a transfer or wealth and is considered income - which the Congress has exempted between spouses.

There are two ways to discuss the law: what "should be", and "reality". I'm talking about the way the law is (which is Constitutional under the 16th Amendment, which is where Kaz was initially incorrect), I agree that such laws "should be" that inherited wealth is not taxed - which it pretty much isn't for a spouse.


>>>>

At least you're consistent, you redefine words to justify bigger government. You redefine "income" from it's actual meaning of what you get in return for goods or services to mean any money transfer for any reason and even if someone is treated literally the same under the law, it's unequal treatment if they want something different.

 

[kaz]

The bakers who refused to server the gay couple lost their case in court, so your argument is full of shit. If the bakers have to serve the gay couple, then the hair dresser has to server the governor.

Show us the Public Accommodation law that says it's illegal to discriminate based on political views.

We'll wait.

What should be done to the gay hairdresser who has refused to do Gov Martinez' hair because she is against gay marriage?

fined?

forced to do her hair?

this shit has to work both ways.

Shouldn't he be charged with a hate crime?

 

[paperview]

More whackadoodlry.

 

[Gadawg73]

Republicans are lining up to support gay marriage in Wyoming, Utah and Kansas including Alan Simpson, Nancy Kassebaum, Governor Johnson of NM and GOP National Committee Chairman Kenneth Mehlman.
The BS anti gay hate show is over. Watch for the platform in 2016 NOT to include opposition to gay marriage.
Because only a dumb ass puts gay marriage as a priority.
But it will always OK for you folks to hate gay folks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Republicans are lining up to support gay marriage in Wyoming, Utah and Kansas including Alan Simpson, Nancy Kassebaum, Governor Johnson of NM and GOP National Committee Chairman Kenneth Mehlman.
The BS anti gay hate show is over. Watch for the platform in 2016 NOT to include opposition to gay marriage.
Because only a dumb ass puts gay marriage as a priority.
But it will always OK for you folks to hate gay folks.

Wanna bet my party fucks it up again in 2016? They'll drive the primary candidates so far to the right on social issues that they alienate the moderates of the GOP, again.

We're in a conundrum, 40% of the electorate is left, 40% is right, but it's the 20% toward the middle that really decide the election. However after the GOP beats each other up in the primaries, during the General Election moderates are shy away form the right.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Republicans are lining up to support gay marriage in Wyoming, Utah and Kansas including Alan Simpson, Nancy Kassebaum, Governor Johnson of NM and GOP National Committee Chairman Kenneth Mehlman.
The BS anti gay hate show is over. Watch for the platform in 2016 NOT to include opposition to gay marriage.
Because only a dumb ass puts gay marriage as a priority.
But it will always OK for you folks to hate gay folks.

Wanna bet my party fucks it up again in 2016? They'll drive the primary candidates so far to the right on social issues that they alienate the moderates of the GOP, again.

We're in a conundrum, 40% of the electorate is left, 40% is right, but it's the 20% toward the middle that really decide the election. However after the GOP beats each other up in the primaries, during the General Election moderates are shy away form the right.


>>>>

Would be a safer bet than Broncos were.

 

[Gadawg73]

But it is coming as the young Republicans are more fiscal conservative than socially.
Same as the hysteria over gays in the military was a bunch of KOOKS spouting their ignorant rants same thing will happen with gay marriage.
They will have to find someone else to hate as Irish, German, Japanese, Jews, *******, Wops, Spicks, Wet Backs and Mud Mexicans and now gays will no longer be in vogue to hate.

 

[Silhouette]

Six. Only six of the seventeen were as a result if a judicial ruling...but it will be all 50 soon.

So the church of LGBT v Utah at SCOTUS is just a "mere formality" to you eh? They're going to simply overturn Windsor and usher in a new precedent in the 14th for an incomplete set of deviant sexual behaviors as a cult, right? Just like that. Without considering any of the long reaching effects of other self-diagnosed behavioral groupings that will use that precedent to ??? in the future? And they'll simply trash the language of Windsor that affirmed this is a state's consensus' right to decide. They must have affirmed that last part about 100 times in the dicta, iterating and reiterating it until the reader becomes weary of the sight.

All that will turn on a dime for the church of LGBT. I mean really, according to Seawytch, the case has already been heard and decided. I can see why she's confused as to that from one of the Justice's behavior this past New Year's eve on Times Square with Miley Cyrus as an opening act:

We all know how she is going to vote on Harvey Milk v Utah, obviously. But there are the other 7 to consider. Kagan of course isn't impartial on the matter either. It was odd that Sotomayor took up the stay on Utah though...even though she watered it down by referring it to the whole Court, who promptly issued the stay. I'm sure that means nothing though. Wonder why they refused the stay when California county clerks prayed for on on their appeal [that was also denied]? This Court is all over the place on this one. But if you read Windsor, well, ......just read it....

BTW, county clerks take an oath of office too. And they are sworn to uphold the law as it is duly enacted by the citizens in California. Why didn't they have standing and Utah did? ONLY an AG has standing to appeal the laws of a state? Really? Since when?

 

[paperview]

Sil, [aka segovia / larson / coronet ] as usual, shows ignorance.

Windsor is what is being cited to uphold as unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage.

And I've never seen anyone so utterly obsessed with Harvey Milk in my life.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil, [aka segovia / larson / coronet ] as usual, shows ignorance.

Windsor is what is being cited to uphold as unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage.

And I've never seen anyone so utterly obsessed with Harvey Milk in my life.

I'm thinkin' she eats a lot of Twinkies.

 

[Redfish]

Republicans are lining up to support gay marriage in Wyoming, Utah and Kansas including Alan Simpson, Nancy Kassebaum, Governor Johnson of NM and GOP National Committee Chairman Kenneth Mehlman.
The BS anti gay hate show is over. Watch for the platform in 2016 NOT to include opposition to gay marriage.
Because only a dumb ass puts gay marriage as a priority.
But it will always OK for you folks to hate gay folks.

NO one hates gays. What we hate is having the govt shove the gay lifestyle in our faces.

I don't give a crap what two adults do to each other in private, just don't make me watch it and don't demand that I call it normal.

 

[Redfish]

But it is coming as the young Republicans are more fiscal conservative than socially.
Same as the hysteria over gays in the military was a bunch of KOOKS spouting their ignorant rants same thing will happen with gay marriage.
They will have to find someone else to hate as Irish, German, Japanese, Jews, *******, Wops, Spicks, Wet Backs and Mud Mexicans and now gays will no longer be in vogue to hate.

what an ignorant rant. grow up.