The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

shakles and silhouette continue bound by their prejudices and hatreds.

Prop 8 is dead, a stake through its evil heart.

I think what Shack and Sil are trying to do is find a legal rationalization for their homophobia.

Well, we don't hate them queers, but we don't like the way it was done.

But we've been kind of doing it that way for centuries, really. The executive and judicial branches encrouch a bit on the perogatives of the legislative branch.

I hardly find providing a legitament argument towards where the line is drawn upon what is deemed "equal rights" shows any sign of homophobia. Only those who resort to such narrow-minded labels, shows a lack of capacity to engage in any real discussion on the issue. I have always advocated that the rights of same sex marriage should remain an individual state issue, for the politicians and their constituents who reside in that state to determine. You are free to refer to the terms homophobe, queer, etc, if that's the extent that your vocabulary adult conversation level can bring to the discussion. Personally, I'd rather look to the views of those like WorldWatcher who can engage in much more complex in depth levels of dialogue, beyond the mere simplistic and uninfluential rhetoric that's apparent here.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This statement shows a complete misinterpretation and twisting of what happened with the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

The Supreme Court didn't uphold Prop 8, they allowed the District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to stand, thereby allowing legal Same-sex Civil Marriages to restart.

If what you say is true, they would have vacated the District Court's decision. They didn't though. They didn't uphold the consensus of a State that said "No", they allowed Prop 8 to be overturned.
>>>>

No, they "punted" on the lower court decision. That doesn't mean their own Decision didn't overrule it. You understand overrule, right? If a higher court says "x" is allowed and a lower court says "x" is not allowed. "x" is allowed. Case closed.

In Ruling that each state has a constitutional right to consensus [a choice of the multitude of "yes" or "no"] on gay marriage, retroactive to the founding of the country, and by expressly reiterating over and over that gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states", the Court ruled that Prop 8 is valid and the law. California cannot be the one exception of the 50 states to this Constitutional Determination. Equal application amongst the 50. You remember high school poli-sci, right? And wouldn't you know, the CA constitution as of this date reflects that Holding:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Go to the link. That is the current advertised state of the CA constitution today, this very moment that you read this.

I'm just curious to understand where you get your interpretation of the ruling. If the United States Supreme Court fails to render a decision to stand as a majority to overturn a lower courts decision, how do you come up with the idea that the lower courts position becomes irrelevant? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm just curious to understand where you get your interpretation of the ruling. If the United States Supreme Court fails to render a decision to stand as a majority to overturn a lower courts decision, how do you come up with the idea that the lower courts position becomes irrelevant? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly?

He's going through a great deal of stretching, out of context snips, and misapplication of the law to try to make a case that Prop 8 was upheld (when in fact the standing ruling is that it was unconstitutional) and now a valid law in California by taking the DOMA decision and using it as star decisis in Prop 8.

Which is illogical since the two case were about different subjects: one a state ballot initiate to remove a right recognized by the state and the other federal law which prohibited recognition of valid Civil Marriages.



>>>>

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That depends on the science coming out on how homosexuality is gotten. Right now, with all we know about training sexual orientations across all mammal species, a trained affect is not a "minority". It's a behavior.


Marriage is a venue that is being "assaulted" in this very way. Since marriage has to do with shacking up with someone you're having sex with, naturally this deviant sexual behavior wants to lay claim to it. Will bulimics next lay claim to restaurants, insisting vomit urns be placed near each table so their "eating orientation" can be accomodated? Why should they be required to sneak off to the "closet" of a restroom to practice what has seemed natural to them since their childhood? Who are they hurting outside themselves?

Before blacks were accepted as equals and allowed to share in the everyday conveniences others take for granted, there can be found a time when association with them among whites was looked down upon and not accepted. There was a lot of hatred at that time, more than the thought or notion that these men bound in slavery could be considered as equals without the preconceived perceptions found through the eyes of racial barriers.

Setting a behavior as a special class outside religion is a very dangerous path to start down. Behaviors have taken men to very dark places one invisible step at a time. Just because those steps are invisible to those who practice them, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot see the stark and damaging future just on the horizon.

I understand your perception on this from a purely "religious" viewpoint, however the world is going to continue to pursue what they feel is right and just in their eyes. They are not looking towards your approval. I used to look at everything from a moral perspective and how it all can have an effect to the world we live in. However, people of faith are not told to impose their beliefs upon the government, as Jesus never instructed Pilot or sought to force His teachings to change the course of Roman Empire. It will always be a personal choice, and pushing some religious moral value system is a task believers were never given.

 

[Silhouette]

Setting a behavior as a special class outside religion is a very dangerous path to start down. Behaviors have taken men to very dark places one invisible step at a time. Just because those steps are invisible to those who practice them, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot see the stark and damaging future just on the horizon.

I understand your perception on this from a purely "religious" viewpoint, however the world is going to continue to pursue what they feel is right and just in their eyes. They are not looking towards your approval. I used to look at everything from a moral perspective and how it all can have an effect to the world we live in. However, people of faith are not told to impose their beliefs upon the government, as Jesus never instructed Pilot or sought to force His teachings to change the course of Roman Empire. It will always be a personal choice, and pushing some religious moral value system is a task believers were never given.

What if "the world" considers "right and just" the elimination of upholding of homosexuality as "normal"? After all, "the world" [7 million voter majority] continued for a second time to define that homosexuality and polygamy were not "right" or "just" as "marriage" in California.

Define "the world"? Are you saying "the world" is an activist judge? Or a small cloister of influential media people?

In my reality as in hundreds of millions of others' reality, 'the world" is the constitutionally-protected majority consensus that banned gay and polygamy marriage in California [the most liberal state in the union] not once, but twice. And in that "world" gay marriage is still not legal.

As to your comparison of gays and blacks...Black skin is not the same as butt sex. If I was a black I'd be highly offended at the comparison. And indeed, polling shows that they are:

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – By a two-to-one margin, blacks reject the notion that homosexual rights compare with the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and '60s, according to a new poll commissioned by Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television.

The poll found that more blacks oppose redefining marriage and believe clergy are right to denounce homosexuality.

In all, 55 percent of blacks deny the idea “that equal rights for gays are the same as equal rights for African Americans.” Only 28 percent believe they are the same.

Despite the endorsement of prominent black leaders including the president, 42 percent of blacks still believe marriage should be “restricted to a man and a woman,”...

...Some of the attendees of the March for Marriage discussed the reasons blacks take umbrage at equating marriage “equality” and the broader question of gay rights with their own history in a video shot by TFP Student Action.

“It really saddens me and a lot of African-Americans, because definitely, there is no comparison to be made there,” a woman told John Ritchie of the Catholic group Tradition, Family, Property (TFP). “I just don't like the comparison, because to me there is absolutely none.”

A man drew one blatant difference. “Homosexuals weren't put in chains for 400 years. There's no equality there,” he said. “They're trying to equate unnatural behavior with natural behavior.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/blacks-dont-believe-gay-rights-are-the-same-as-civil-rights-poll/

It seems "the world" is a bit different than your hoped for portrayal..

 

[kaz]

I'm just curious to understand where you get your interpretation of the ruling. If the United States Supreme Court fails to render a decision to stand as a majority to overturn a lower courts decision, how do you come up with the idea that the lower courts position becomes irrelevant? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly?

What's wrong with this is the whole concept that people are arguing about courts dictatorial rulings at all. Gay marriage should be legal when the people elect legislatures to create it. Judges who make up law are criminals. With the attitude of the young, gay marriage would eventually be legal even without the crimes being committed by judges to circumvent the people and decree it. The process of circumventing our Constitution is in itself a great threat to and undermining of our liberty. The concept that judges can make law allows them to continue to make laws, and the belief that judges with that sort of power will only use that power for the benefit of the people is as asinine as that any other dictator will in the long run act in the interest of the people.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm just curious to understand where you get your interpretation of the ruling. If the United States Supreme Court fails to render a decision to stand as a majority to overturn a lower courts decision, how do you come up with the idea that the lower courts position becomes irrelevant? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly?

What's wrong with this is the whole concept that people are arguing about courts dictatorial rulings at all. Gay marriage should be legal when the people elect legislatures to create it. Judges who make up law are criminals. With the attitude of the young, gay marriage would eventually be legal even without the crimes being committed by judges to circumvent the people and decree it. The process of circumventing our Constitution is in itself a great threat to and undermining of our liberty. The concept that judges can make law allows them to continue to make laws, and the belief that judges with that sort of power will only use that power for the benefit of the people is as asinine as that any other dictator will in the long run act in the interest of the people.

Yeah fags...you'll get equality when Kaz and friends think you deserve it, not before!

Damn activist judges that ruled in Loving overstepped their authority too. Don't get me started on Brown v Education!

 

[kaz]

I'm just curious to understand where you get your interpretation of the ruling. If the United States Supreme Court fails to render a decision to stand as a majority to overturn a lower courts decision, how do you come up with the idea that the lower courts position becomes irrelevant? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly?

What's wrong with this is the whole concept that people are arguing about courts dictatorial rulings at all. Gay marriage should be legal when the people elect legislatures to create it. Judges who make up law are criminals. With the attitude of the young, gay marriage would eventually be legal even without the crimes being committed by judges to circumvent the people and decree it. The process of circumventing our Constitution is in itself a great threat to and undermining of our liberty. The concept that judges can make law allows them to continue to make laws, and the belief that judges with that sort of power will only use that power for the benefit of the people is as asinine as that any other dictator will in the long run act in the interest of the people.

Yeah fags...you'll get equality when Kaz and friends think you deserve it, not before!

Damn activist judges that ruled in Loving overstepped their authority too. Don't get me started on Brown v Education!

Loving and Brown are irrelevant to gay marriage, they both involved people being treated differently.

If Steve is like me but black, Loving and Brown were both cases where Steve was treated differently than me. You still haven't been able to name a single thing where if Steve is like me but gay that the law is applied any differently to us.

You've failed, utterly and profoundly. So you just keep going back to that gay Steve wants something different than me, which is irrelevant to logic and the law.

You're owned.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What's wrong with this is the whole concept that people are arguing about courts dictatorial rulings at all. Gay marriage should be legal when the people elect legislatures to create it. Judges who make up law are criminals. With the attitude of the young, gay marriage would eventually be legal even without the crimes being committed by judges to circumvent the people and decree it. The process of circumventing our Constitution is in itself a great threat to and undermining of our liberty. The concept that judges can make law allows them to continue to make laws, and the belief that judges with that sort of power will only use that power for the benefit of the people is as asinine as that any other dictator will in the long run act in the interest of the people.

I'm pretty sure you know Kaz, but just to point out to other readers...

66% of the legal entities with SSCM have done so legislatively or through approval of a direct ballot initiative.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What's wrong with this is the whole concept that people are arguing about courts dictatorial rulings at all. Gay marriage should be legal when the people elect legislatures to create it. Judges who make up law are criminals. With the attitude of the young, gay marriage would eventually be legal even without the crimes being committed by judges to circumvent the people and decree it. The process of circumventing our Constitution is in itself a great threat to and undermining of our liberty. The concept that judges can make law allows them to continue to make laws, and the belief that judges with that sort of power will only use that power for the benefit of the people is as asinine as that any other dictator will in the long run act in the interest of the people.

Yeah fags...you'll get equality when Kaz and friends think you deserve it, not before!

Damn activist judges that ruled in Loving overstepped their authority too. Don't get me started on Brown v Education!

Loving and Brown are irrelevant to gay marriage, they both involved people being treated differently.

If Steve is like me but black, Loving and Brown were both cases where Steve was treated differently than me. You still haven't been able to name a single thing where if Steve is like me but gay that the law is applied any differently to us.

You've failed, utterly and profoundly. So you just keep going back to that gay Steve wants something different than me, which is irrelevant to logic and the law.

You're owned.

If you are the same but you are female and Steve is male and there is a another person, call him David.

You as a female can marry David but Steve cannot. That is different treatment.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

What's wrong with this is the whole concept that people are arguing about courts dictatorial rulings at all. Gay marriage should be legal when the people elect legislatures to create it. Judges who make up law are criminals. With the attitude of the young, gay marriage would eventually be legal even without the crimes being committed by judges to circumvent the people and decree it. The process of circumventing our Constitution is in itself a great threat to and undermining of our liberty. The concept that judges can make law allows them to continue to make laws, and the belief that judges with that sort of power will only use that power for the benefit of the people is as asinine as that any other dictator will in the long run act in the interest of the people.

I'm pretty sure you know Kaz, but just to point out to other readers...

66% of the legal entities with SSCM have done so legislatively or through approval of a direct ballot initiative.



>>>>

I didn't know the percent, but yes, I'm aware that not all gay marriage has been implemented through the courts and your point is valid that I'm only referring to those cases where it was implemented through the courts.

I'd eliminate all government marriage, but in the cases where it was done through the legislature or a direct ballot, then gay marriage is no different to me than heterosexual marriage.

 

[kaz]

Yeah fags...you'll get equality when Kaz and friends think you deserve it, not before!

Damn activist judges that ruled in Loving overstepped their authority too. Don't get me started on Brown v Education!

Loving and Brown are irrelevant to gay marriage, they both involved people being treated differently.

If Steve is like me but black, Loving and Brown were both cases where Steve was treated differently than me. You still haven't been able to name a single thing where if Steve is like me but gay that the law is applied any differently to us.

You've failed, utterly and profoundly. So you just keep going back to that gay Steve wants something different than me, which is irrelevant to logic and the law.

You're owned.

If you are the same but you are female and Steve is male and there is a another person, call him David.

You as a female can marry David but Steve cannot. That is different treatment.



>>>>

Word parsing. We can all enter into a man/woman marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we need to view the country as unisex. No one is denied access to man/woman marriage based on their sexual orientation.

And don't go to the lame race argument. Race marriage restriction allows some men to marry some women and not others. All Americans can enter into a man/woman marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil and Shakles are simply spilling the water for their side.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Loving and Brown are irrelevant to gay marriage, they both involved people being treated differently.

If Steve is like me but black, Loving and Brown were both cases where Steve was treated differently than me. You still haven't been able to name a single thing where if Steve is like me but gay that the law is applied any differently to us.

You've failed, utterly and profoundly. So you just keep going back to that gay Steve wants something different than me, which is irrelevant to logic and the law.

You're owned.

If you are the same but you are female and Steve is male and there is a another person, call him David.

You as a female can marry David but Steve cannot. That is different treatment.



>>>>

Word parsing. We can all enter into a man/woman marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we need to view the country as unisex. No one is denied access to man/woman marriage based on their sexual orientation.

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same argument (structurally speaking) that since both parties were treated the same, that there was no denial of access to marriage.

The courts didn't buy it then either and more and more people aren't buying it now.

The issue is, at it's core, is whether there is a compelling government reason to treat citizens different based on gender (remember all these laws are written in terms of gender) for like situated conditions.

So give it a shot, what is the compelling government interest in treating law abiding, US Citizen, Taxpayer, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship differently law abiding, US Citizen, Taxpayer, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship differently then those in a same sex relationship.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

If you are the same but you are female and Steve is male and there is a another person, call him David.

You as a female can marry David but Steve cannot. That is different treatment.



>>>>

Word parsing. We can all enter into a man/woman marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we need to view the country as unisex. No one is denied access to man/woman marriage based on their sexual orientation.

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same argument (structurally speaking) that since both parties were treated the same, that there was no denial of access to marriage.

The courts didn't buy it then either and more and more people aren't buying it now.

The issue is, at it's core, is whether there is a compelling government reason to treat citizens different based on gender (remember all these laws are written in terms of gender) for like situated conditions.

So give it a shot, what is the compelling government interest in treating law abiding, US Citizen, Taxpayer, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship differently law abiding, US Citizen, Taxpayer, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship differently then those in a same sex relationship.



>>>>

If you want a unisex country, get that implemented in the law. However, that we are not unisex is irrelevant to the gay versus straight question.

When you can tell me as a straight person what I can do that a gay can't, let me know. And don't go back to that gays can't marry someone of the same sex because I can't either.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Word parsing. We can all enter into a man/woman marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we need to view the country as unisex. No one is denied access to man/woman marriage based on their sexual orientation.

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same argument (structurally speaking) that since both parties were treated the same, that there was no denial of access to marriage.

The courts didn't buy it then either and more and more people aren't buying it now.

The issue is, at it's core, is whether there is a compelling government reason to treat citizens different based on gender (remember all these laws are written in terms of gender) for like situated conditions.

So give it a shot, what is the compelling government interest in treating law abiding, US Citizen, Taxpayer, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship differently law abiding, US Citizen, Taxpayer, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship differently then those in a same sex relationship.



>>>>

If you want a unisex country, get that implemented in the law. However, that we are not unisex is irrelevant to the gay versus straight question.

When you can tell me as a straight person what I can do that a gay can't, let me know. And don't go back to that gays can't marry someone of the same sex because I can't either.

Coloreds couldn't marry white and white couldn't marry colored, they were treated both equally. At least that's what the Commonwealth of Virginia argued.

Similar argument structure.


Treating people the same whether they be men or women is not making a "unisex country". I do however expect the government to present a compelling government interest as to why like situated groups must be treated differently if the government is going to discriminate.

I'm an old fashioned fart, most of the time I walk around the car and open the door for my wife when she exits or enters the vehicle. That is my choice based on the way I was raised. No way in hell I'd expect the government to implement a law requiring me open her door because she's female.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same argument (structurally speaking) that since both parties were treated the same, that there was no denial of access to marriage.

The courts didn't buy it then either and more and more people aren't buying it now.

The issue is, at it's core, is whether there is a compelling government reason to treat citizens different based on gender (remember all these laws are written in terms of gender) for like situated conditions.

So give it a shot, what is the compelling government interest in treating law abiding, US Citizen, Taxpayer, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship differently law abiding, US Citizen, Taxpayer, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship differently then those in a same sex relationship.



>>>>

If you want a unisex country, get that implemented in the law. However, that we are not unisex is irrelevant to the gay versus straight question.

When you can tell me as a straight person what I can do that a gay can't, let me know. And don't go back to that gays can't marry someone of the same sex because I can't either.

Coloreds couldn't marry white and white couldn't marry colored, they were treated both equally. At least that's what the Commonwealth of Virginia argued.

Similar argument structure.


Treating people the same whether they be men or women is not making a "unisex country". I do however expect the government to present a compelling government interest as to why like situated groups must be treated differently if the government is going to discriminate.

I'm an old fashioned fart, most of the time I walk around the car and open the door for my wife when she exits or enters the vehicle. That is my choice based on the way I was raised. No way in hell I'd expect the government to implement a law requiring me open her door because she's female.



>>>>

The courts making law isn't justified by the courts saying they can make law.

In Virginia in Loving, being black changes who you can marry. In Brown, being black changes the school you can go to. You have no example where being gay changes anything. When you do, get back to me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you want a unisex country, get that implemented in the law. However, that we are not unisex is irrelevant to the gay versus straight question.

When you can tell me as a straight person what I can do that a gay can't, let me know. And don't go back to that gays can't marry someone of the same sex because I can't either.

Coloreds couldn't marry white and white couldn't marry colored, they were treated both equally. At least that's what the Commonwealth of Virginia argued.

Similar argument structure.


Treating people the same whether they be men or women is not making a "unisex country". I do however expect the government to present a compelling government interest as to why like situated groups must be treated differently if the government is going to discriminate.

I'm an old fashioned fart, most of the time I walk around the car and open the door for my wife when she exits or enters the vehicle. That is my choice based on the way I was raised. No way in hell I'd expect the government to implement a law requiring me open her door because she's female.



>>>>

The courts making law isn't justified by the courts saying they can make law.

In Virginia in Loving, being black changes who you can marry. In Brown, being black changes the school you can go to.

In Loving if being black changes who you can marry...

The Mildred Jeter (Black) couldn't marry Richard Loving (White). Mildred could still have married John (Black). So the law defined who they could marry, but there was no compelling government interest in that definition.



Doesn't then gender also define who you can marry?

Steven (male) and Amy (female) can get married, but Amy (female) and Joan (female) cannot. The law is again about who they could marry, but there was no compelling government interest in that definition.

You have no example where being gay changes anything. When you do, get back to me.

Technically speaking the laws are written in terms of gender, not specifically sexual orientation.

However here is an example Elisabeth Windsor was charged over $350,000 in inheritance taxes when her legal spouse died because the Federal government was discriminating against their lesbian legal marriage. That discrimination resulted in Windsor v. United States and now the government has to pay the money back.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Coloreds couldn't marry white and white couldn't marry colored, they were treated both equally. At least that's what the Commonwealth of Virginia argued.

Similar argument structure.


Treating people the same whether they be men or women is not making a "unisex country". I do however expect the government to present a compelling government interest as to why like situated groups must be treated differently if the government is going to discriminate.

I'm an old fashioned fart, most of the time I walk around the car and open the door for my wife when she exits or enters the vehicle. That is my choice based on the way I was raised. No way in hell I'd expect the government to implement a law requiring me open her door because she's female.



>>>>

The courts making law isn't justified by the courts saying they can make law.

In Virginia in Loving, being black changes who you can marry. In Brown, being black changes the school you can go to.

In Loving if being black changes who you can marry...

The Mildred Jeter (Black) couldn't marry Richard Loving (White). Mildred could still have married John (Black). So the law defined who they could marry, but there was no compelling government interest in that definition.



Doesn't then gender also define who you can marry?

Steven (male) and Amy (female) can get married, but Amy (female) and Joan (female) cannot. The law is again about who they could marry, but there was no compelling government interest in that definition.

Can you show me the basis for your argument that our country is unisex under the law?

You have no example where being gay changes anything. When you do, get back to me.

Technically speaking the laws are written in terms of gender, not specifically sexual orientation.

However here is an example Elisabeth Windsor was charged over $350,000 in inheritance taxes when her legal spouse died because the Federal government was discriminating against their lesbian legal marriage. That discrimination resulted in Windsor v. United States and now the government has to pay the money back.


>>>>

Again, court activism doesn't justify court activism. The fact that Elisabeth Windsor was gay didn't change the taxes, if she had been straight she would have been charged the same.

Inheritance taxes are true evil, eliminate them and end that travesty for everyone.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can you show me the basis for your argument that our country is unisex under the law?

I have made no such basis for my argument.

The can treat the sexes differently, however as a function of law - if challenged - there would be a need to provide a compelling government reason for different treatment.

Let's take a couple of examples:

#1 Women in combat - there are justifiable reasons that women have been excluded as a class of persons from front line combat roles because of statistically physical differences between the sexes. Not saying whether women should or shouldn't be excluded from a philosophical standpoint, just pointing out that the differences impact performance in the field.

#2 Different voting ages for women (Say 18 for males and 21 for females) - there would be no compelling government interest for having a different voting age for females as opposed to males.​

The 14th Amendment lays out the principal that government should treat all persons the same and that they should be afforded due process and equal protection under the law. That such protections are a right and then can only be removed if their is a compelling government interest to justify the discriminatory conduct.

Again, court activism doesn't justify court activism. The fact that Elisabeth Windsor was gay didn't change the taxes, if she had been straight she would have been charged the same.

Inheritance taxes are true evil, eliminate them and end that travesty for everyone.

If she were straight she'd have married a man and wouldn't have been subject to the tax.


BTW - I agree with the last point but that is a subject for another thread.


>>>>>