Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Gadawg73]

You would be correct if you were referring to government preventing gays from being gay. The discussion is about what government recognizes as marriage. It does not limit your life, limit or pursuit of happiness for government to not recognize your union as marriage. No one has the right to demand things of others, including government. You have the right to be left alone from government without due process. Government not recognizing gay marriage as marriage has nothing to do with preventing people from living their own lives as they see fit. Ditto interracial marriage.

That is true but misses the crucial point and that is the equal application of law. By blessing hetero marriages with certain advantages and then not giving that same blessing to other marriages is not an equal application of the law. It is selectively applying law to a preferred group while excluding the non-preferred group. While your above argument works well in defending the position that government should be out of marriage entirely, it fails in limiting gay marriages while still recognizing hetero ones. Laws should never apply to one group or type of people without applying evenly to other people.

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

Heterosexual people can marry other heterosexual people.
Gay people CAN NOT marry other gay people.
That is not equal protection under the law no matter how hard you try to polish that turd.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please explain how you will be forced to pay for gay marriages. For that matter please explain how you think you paid for my marriage.

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

Yes, the feds provide a different tax rate to tax PAYERS for a portion of COMBINED INCOME. Yes that different tax rate is unfair to single people and unmarried couples.

No, it's a reduction in the taxes the couples already pay.

You guys need to get your answers straight.

If it provides a tax break then that means the rest of us will have to foot the bill for money the homos otherwise would have paid without the marital benefit.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is true but misses the crucial point and that is the equal application of law. By blessing hetero marriages with certain advantages and then not giving that same blessing to other marriages is not an equal application of the law. It is selectively applying law to a preferred group while excluding the non-preferred group. While your above argument works well in defending the position that government should be out of marriage entirely, it fails in limiting gay marriages while still recognizing hetero ones. Laws should never apply to one group or type of people without applying evenly to other people.

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

Heterosexual people can marry other heterosexual people.
Gay people CAN NOT marry other gay people.
That is not equal protection under the law no matter how hard you try to polish that turd.

Homosexual people can marry heterosexual people.
Heterosexual people cannot marry homosexual people.

It is perfect equality. There is nothing straight people can do that gay people cannot do.

 

[G.T.]

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

Yes, the feds provide a different tax rate to tax PAYERS for a portion of COMBINED INCOME. Yes that different tax rate is unfair to single people and unmarried couples.

No, it's a reduction in the taxes the couples already pay.

You guys need to get your answers straight.

If it provides a tax break then that means the rest of us will have to foot the bill for money the homos otherwise would have paid without the marital benefit.

If you don't have any deductions on your taxes, then you're quite the retard.

 

[Gadawg73]

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

Heterosexual people can marry other heterosexual people.
Gay people CAN NOT marry other gay people.
That is not equal protection under the law no matter how hard you try to polish that turd.

Homosexual people can marry heterosexual people.
Heterosexual people cannot marry homosexual people.

It is perfect equality. There is nothing straight people can do that gay people cannot do.

No dumbass, heterosexual people can marry homosexual people now.
Only homosexual people can not marry other homosexual people of the same sex.

 

[RKMBrown]

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

Yes, the feds provide a different tax rate to tax PAYERS for a portion of COMBINED INCOME. Yes that different tax rate is unfair to single people and unmarried couples.

No, it's a reduction in the taxes the couples already pay.

You guys need to get your answers straight.

If it provides a tax break then that means the rest of us will have to foot the bill for money the homos otherwise would have paid without the marital benefit.

Interesting, so you are saying YOU ARE FOOTING THE BILL for the poor based on the difference in tax rates and rules for the poor vs the evil rich. Interesting, are you a conservative?

At any rate, I said it correctly. It's a difference in tax rates and rules. Some idiots have called it the marriage penalty, other idiots have called it the marriage tax break, but it's really just a different set of tax rates / rules for people filing under the various types of tax returns. For example, "Although the joint return often produces lower taxes, the opposite is sometimes the case. To accommodate for such circumstances, married couples may decide to file separately for a taxable year." See Filing status - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, the feds provide a different tax rate to tax PAYERS for a portion of COMBINED INCOME. Yes that different tax rate is unfair to single people and unmarried couples.

No, it's a reduction in the taxes the couples already pay.

You guys need to get your answers straight.

If it provides a tax break then that means the rest of us will have to foot the bill for money the homos otherwise would have paid without the marital benefit.

If you don't have any deductions on your taxes, then you're quite the retard.

Or you are paying AMT, heh.

 

[The Rabbi]

Heterosexual people can marry other heterosexual people.
Gay people CAN NOT marry other gay people.
That is not equal protection under the law no matter how hard you try to polish that turd.

Homosexual people can marry heterosexual people.
Heterosexual people cannot marry homosexual people.

It is perfect equality. There is nothing straight people can do that gay people cannot do.

No dumbass, heterosexual people can marry homosexual people now.
Only homosexual people can not marry other homosexual people of the same sex.

Heterosexual people cannot marry heterosexual people of the same sex either.
See, no discrimination at all.
Dumbshit

 

[kaz]

That is true but misses the crucial point and that is the equal application of law. By blessing hetero marriages with certain advantages and then not giving that same blessing to other marriages is not an equal application of the law. It is selectively applying law to a preferred group while excluding the non-preferred group. While your above argument works well in defending the position that government should be out of marriage entirely, it fails in limiting gay marriages while still recognizing hetero ones. Laws should never apply to one group or type of people without applying evenly to other people.

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

wow... dude you've been drinking the bigot koolaid...

If a gay guy does not like your vile bigoted attack on his ability to marry another man he can just change his mind and start liking women? WTF is wrong with you people? How would you like it if the law said only gays can get married? That's applying the law equally right? What's wrong you can just go marry some gay guy if you don't like it.

What does this have to do with my post, asshole?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You said "the first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power."

It states the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID. The frigging OPPOSITE. You can't even read English. Learn to identify subjects and verbs. The tenth is a poke in the federal eye telling them to stay away from the powers not explicitly provided. It is not a limit on state powers, quite the contrary it is a massive inclusion of everything that is not explicitly agreed to by the states by amendment to the Constitution. We are, or at least were prior to the Civil War and the subsequent democratization of the senate, a republic of states.

No it doesn't. The 10th Amendment states what powers the States do and do not have.

Both.

Do you want to argue that states' powers are NOT limited?

Let's hear that argument, or your concession that yes, states' powers ARE limited.

The states' powers are not limited by the tenth (10th) amendment to the constitution.

Read that 10 times and come back when you understand the 10th amendment to the constitution.

You are confusing current law with respect to portions of the civil war amendments and the tenth amendment. Which means you don't know what the republic was about when it was formed.

Yes they are limited by the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment states specifically what powers the states have and don't have.

By stating what powers the states do not have, the 10th amendment is setting limits.

 

[Katzndogz]

Homosexual marriage poisons the well out of which all must drink. Now if there were provisions that those who have objections to same sex marriage were not required to participate in that marriage, I would tend to agree that what they do doesn't affect anyone else. But that's not the case. No matter how many objections or on what basis, people who do not wish to participate in same sex relationships are required to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexual marriage poisons the well out of which all must drink. Now if there were provisions that those who have objections to same sex marriage were not required to participate in that marriage, I would tend to agree that what they do doesn't affect anyone else. But that's not the case. No matter how many objections or on what basis, people who do not wish to participate in same sex relationships are required to do so.

That was too subtle for the brain dead, who will shortly be screaming for an explanation.

 

[G.T.]

required to participate? Them getting a tax benefit is not your participation.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it doesn't. The 10th Amendment states what powers the States do and do not have.

Both.

Do you want to argue that states' powers are NOT limited?

Let's hear that argument, or your concession that yes, states' powers ARE limited.

The states' powers are not limited by the tenth (10th) amendment to the constitution.

Read that 10 times and come back when you understand the 10th amendment to the constitution.

You are confusing current law with respect to portions of the civil war amendments and the tenth amendment. Which means you don't know what the republic was about when it was formed.

Yes they are limited by the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment states specifically what powers the states have and don't have.

By stating what powers the states do not have, the 10th amendment is setting limits.

I'm gonna guess you don't even know what the word specific means.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

wow... dude you've been drinking the bigot koolaid...

If a gay guy does not like your vile bigoted attack on his ability to marry another man he can just change his mind and start liking women? WTF is wrong with you people? How would you like it if the law said only gays can get married? That's applying the law equally right? What's wrong you can just go marry some gay guy if you don't like it.

What does this have to do with my post, asshole?

The fact that you don't know you are a bigot by your own words speaks volumes.

 

[RKMBrown]

Homosexual marriage poisons the well out of which all must drink. Now if there were provisions that those who have objections to same sex marriage were not required to participate in that marriage, I would tend to agree that what they do doesn't affect anyone else. But that's not the case. No matter how many objections or on what basis, people who do not wish to participate in same sex relationships are required to do so.

That was too subtle for the brain dead, who will shortly be screaming for an explanation.

You think the gays are gonna come to your house and swap wives or something? WTF?

 

[FA_Q2]

You would be correct if you were referring to government preventing gays from being gay. The discussion is about what government recognizes as marriage. It does not limit your life, limit or pursuit of happiness for government to not recognize your union as marriage. No one has the right to demand things of others, including government. You have the right to be left alone from government without due process. Government not recognizing gay marriage as marriage has nothing to do with preventing people from living their own lives as they see fit. Ditto interracial marriage.

That is true but misses the crucial point and that is the equal application of law. By blessing hetero marriages with certain advantages and then not giving that same blessing to other marriages is not an equal application of the law. It is selectively applying law to a preferred group while excluding the non-preferred group. While your above argument works well in defending the position that government should be out of marriage entirely, it fails in limiting gay marriages while still recognizing hetero ones. Laws should never apply to one group or type of people without applying evenly to other people.

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

Sorry, but no. Women can’t marry women is no different than saying that black cant marry white. You are twisting equal protection into something that it is not. Equal protection means, as you said, that all laws are applied in the same manner to all people. The fact is that the law is not being applied equally from one sex to another – a woman cannot marry another woman but a man can. A man cannot marry another man but a woman can. That is not equal protection; that is defining the application of the law based on the particular group that you belong to (in this case sex, in the former race).

 

[Gadawg73]

Homosexual people can marry heterosexual people.
Heterosexual people cannot marry homosexual people.

It is perfect equality. There is nothing straight people can do that gay people cannot do.

No dumbass, heterosexual people can marry homosexual people now.
Only homosexual people can not marry other homosexual people of the same sex.

Heterosexual people cannot marry heterosexual people of the same sex either.
See, no discrimination at all.
Dumbshit

Blacks could not marry whites.
And you would argue that meant whites could marry blacks.
Because the whites were not black.

 

[Gadawg73]

The gay boogeyman.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey folks, where does gay marriage fall on your list of national priorities?

States have spent millions on gay marriage referendums and there have been no referendums on balancing budgets in states, maybe a few.

So where is gay marriage on your list of priorities and that would mean we would spend time, effort and $$ attempting to solve the other things in government before we fought the gay boogeyman that will destroy the morality of Americans and the family unit.

Gay marriage is 137 on my list of priorities.

This question was asked at a Baptist Church 20 years ago when they were voting to have an accepting church. Many had gay marriage in their top 3.