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.
[
You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.
Tell that to your conservative pals who want to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to narrowly define marriage.
Marriage is defined by the Natural Human Physiological Design; wherein One Man is Joined with One Woman.
No it's not. Civil Marriage is defined by whatever the government says it's defined as. Since in the US we have a government of the People,
the People define marriage.
That's no it doesn't and that little technicality can be fixed, but you leftist want to redefine the definition of marriage ..How many sexes are there again?You asked for a link and I provided it.
Say thank you.
"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith
That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.
The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.
it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms
No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.
Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B
According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.
Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:
Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.
Civil unions do that...so how many sexes are there again?
No, the don't...
What Is Marriage?
Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.
What Is a Civil Union?
A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united.
What Are the Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions?
There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions, including:
Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
Tax benefits available to married couples only
Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance
- See more at: Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library
I'm an American.
And you?
So why do you leftist make excuses for the islamonazis ?NONE of that is socialism...
You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...
My laughter has reached uncontainable levels and my sides are now hurdling through the atmosphere at the light speed...
Maybe you should stop laughing...it is ironic that YOUR beliefs are the same as Hitler..
Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) in Germany, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazis and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, (such as those from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, run by Jewish gay rights campaigner Magnus Hirschfeld) and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."
Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps
State government not the federal governementMarriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government.
There's the problem right there. Government should not be defining it at all.
Of course government SHOULD. PLEASE explain how divorce would be handled without government laws and protections? HOW would shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids be handled?
That's your problem. You think government should be involved with everyone and everything--parsing out property, making children decide between one parent or the other, splitting families in two--when you have government defining marriage, then you will have it defining anything it wants in whatever way it wants, if it isn't doing so already.
The divorce by itself has done the damage. Government simply douses it with gasoline and lights the match to watch the family burn, figuratively speaking. If anything, the government should be doing something to promote the integrity of the family, not doing things to abet its disintegration.
Now, that was my rant.
You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.
Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.
Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.
Were you even reading my posts? Defining and regulating are two separate things. Recognizing that two individuals are married is simple enough. That's it. No delineation on what the nature of the marriage is.
Government should only be involved when those individuals ask for it to be. Where in the Constitution did the founders allow for government to define (or regulate) marriage? Perhaps you weren't reading the 10th Amendment.
Marriage laws are state laws. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from making laws that conflict with the Constitution. Therefore, a state law on marriage that violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Leftist kill millions of unborn babies they'd kill more if they could "over population" and stuffReasonable people understand when tolerance is appropriate, and when it's not.
Yes... Which is why I pointed out that Americans do not demand that tolerance is sacrosanct as does that cult of children and fools on the Left.
To tolerate intolerance is to be intolerant.
Reader, Recall that my position is that The Left holds up "Tolerance" as sacrosanct, while being among the most intolerant cult in Human History. Recall, that just 60 years ago, the Ideological Left murdered 150 MILLION innocent human beings, whose only crime was that they were not inclined to accept communism.
Atrocities which stand unparalleled in human history and set the Left's "Tolerance" at roughly equal to that of EBOLA.
Truly, in every sense of the word, "Left-think" ... is a disorder of the human mind; OKA: a Disease.
Who on the left in America today wants to kill 150 million people?
Name names. Name a thousand names.
Shut up you bigoted moron.Reader, Recall that my position is that The Left holds up "Tolerance" as sacrosanct, while being among the most intolerant cult in Human History. Recall, that just 60 years ago, the Ideological Left murdered 150 MILLION innocent human beings, whose only crime was that they were not inclined to accept communism.
Atrocities which stand unparalleled in human history and set the Left's "Tolerance" at roughly equal to that of EBOLA.
Truly, in every sense of the word, "Left-think" ... is a disorder of the human mind; OKA: a Disease.
Who on the left in America today wants to kill 150 million people?
Name names. Name a thousand names.
Waldo Frank’s analysis in 1934:
"The NRA is the beginning of American Fascism. But unlikeItaly and Germany, democratic parliamentarianism has for generations been strong in the Anglo-Saxon world; it is a tribal institution. Therefore, a Fascism that disposes of it, rather than
sharpens and exploits it, is not to be expected in North Americaor Britain. Fascism may be so gradual in the United Statesthat most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will bejudicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and WalterLippmann."
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-facism/page/7/0
Just as you Progressives has no compunction with respect to forced sterilizations and concentration camps for the Japanese-Americans, when the time comes, and the orders from above, you'll fall in line and nod 'yes sir, yes sir.'
That is the outcome when you worship the collective.
How did you determine that I support forced sterilization and concentration camps?
Or are you just lying as usual?
As you are a Liberal/Progressive, you cannot run from the stain.
As you are a Korean, you cannot run from those stains.
Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.
Were you even reading my posts? Defining and regulating are two separate things. Recognizing that two individuals are married is simple enough. That's it. No delineation on what the nature of the marriage is.
Government should only be involved when those individuals ask for it to be. Where in the Constitution did the founders allow for government to define (or regulate) marriage? Perhaps you weren't reading the 10th Amendment.
Marriage laws are state laws. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from making laws that conflict with the Constitution. Therefore, a state law on marriage that violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution is unconstitutional.
LOL.... the idiot is trying to sound intelligent. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage
Waldo Frank’s analysis in 1934:
"The NRA is the beginning of American Fascism. But unlikeItaly and Germany, democratic parliamentarianism has for generations been strong in the Anglo-Saxon world; it is a tribal institution. Therefore, a Fascism that disposes of it, rather than
sharpens and exploits it, is not to be expected in North Americaor Britain. Fascism may be so gradual in the United Statesthat most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will bejudicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and WalterLippmann."
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-facism/page/7/0
Just as you Progressives has no compunction with respect to forced sterilizations and concentration camps for the Japanese-Americans, when the time comes, and the orders from above, you'll fall in line and nod 'yes sir, yes sir.'
That is the outcome when you worship the collective.
How did you determine that I support forced sterilization and concentration camps?
Or are you just lying as usual?
As you are a Liberal/Progressive, you cannot run from the stain.
Have you apologized for this?
American chaplain prays over American soldiers executed by the Korean monkeys.
I'm an American.
And you?
You cannot, by your own standard, escape the stain of your horrible people.
Have you apologized for this?
American chaplain prays over American soldiers executed by the Korean monkeys.
I'm an American.
And you?
You cannot, by your own standard, escape the stain of your horrible people.
I've really made you sensitive about being known as a serial liar, huh?
Great.
I reduce you to another monkey jabber.
When will you apologize for your role in the brutal murder of American soldiers in Korea?
As I said, I'm an American.
Interesting you won't respond to 'what are you?'
The Ideological Left has slaughtered HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS.I'm an American.
And you?
You cannot, by your own standard, escape the stain of your horrible people.
I've really made you sensitive about being known as a serial liar, huh?
Great.
I reduce you to another monkey jabber.
When will you apologize for your role in the brutal murder of American soldiers in Korea?
As I said, I'm an American.
Interesting you won't respond to 'what are you?'
He's a Marxist. His kind are responsible for the slaughter of many millions
Shut up you bigoted moron.Who on the left in America today wants to kill 150 million people?
Name names. Name a thousand names.
Waldo Frank’s analysis in 1934:
"The NRA is the beginning of American Fascism. But unlikeItaly and Germany, democratic parliamentarianism has for generations been strong in the Anglo-Saxon world; it is a tribal institution. Therefore, a Fascism that disposes of it, rather than
sharpens and exploits it, is not to be expected in North Americaor Britain. Fascism may be so gradual in the United Statesthat most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will bejudicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and WalterLippmann."
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-facism/page/7/0
Just as you Progressives has no compunction with respect to forced sterilizations and concentration camps for the Japanese-Americans, when the time comes, and the orders from above, you'll fall in line and nod 'yes sir, yes sir.'
That is the outcome when you worship the collective.
How did you determine that I support forced sterilization and concentration camps?
Or are you just lying as usual?
As you are a Liberal/Progressive, you cannot run from the stain.
As you are a Korean, you cannot run from those stains.
[
As I said, I'm an American.
'
That's no it doesn't and that little technicality can be fixed, but you leftist want to redefine the definition of marriage ..How many sexes are there again?That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.
The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.
it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms
No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.
Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B
According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.
Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:
Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.
Civil unions do that...so how many sexes are there again?
No, the don't...
What Is Marriage?
Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.
What Is a Civil Union?
A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united.
What Are the Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions?
There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions, including:
Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
Tax benefits available to married couples only
Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance
- See more at: Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library
State government not the federal governementMarriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government.
There's the problem right there. Government should not be defining it at all.
Of course government SHOULD. PLEASE explain how divorce would be handled without government laws and protections? HOW would shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids be handled?
That's your problem. You think government should be involved with everyone and everything--parsing out property, making children decide between one parent or the other, splitting families in two--when you have government defining marriage, then you will have it defining anything it wants in whatever way it wants, if it isn't doing so already.
The divorce by itself has done the damage. Government simply douses it with gasoline and lights the match to watch the family burn, figuratively speaking. If anything, the government should be doing something to promote the integrity of the family, not doing things to abet its disintegration.
Now, that was my rant.
You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.
Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.
That's no it doesn't and that little technicality can be fixed, but you leftist want to redefine the definition of marriage ..How many sexes are there again?it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms
No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.
Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B
According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.
Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:
Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.
Civil unions do that...so how many sexes are there again?
No, the don't...
What Is Marriage?
Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.
What Is a Civil Union?
A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united.
What Are the Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions?
There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions, including:
Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
Tax benefits available to married couples only
Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance
- See more at: Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library
There is no fixing separate but equal other than full equality. If you don't want gays getting married, you must change the civil institution for everyone, straight or gay. Civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the dictionary definition of separate but equal...which is unconstitutional.
That's no it doesn't and that little technicality can be fixed, but you leftist want to redefine the definition of marriage ..How many sexes are there again?No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.
Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B
According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.
Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:
Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.
Civil unions do that...so how many sexes are there again?
No, the don't...
What Is Marriage?
Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.
What Is a Civil Union?
A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united.
What Are the Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions?
There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions, including:
Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
Tax benefits available to married couples only
Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance
- See more at: Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library
There is no fixing separate but equal other than full equality. If you don't want gays getting married, you must change the civil institution for everyone, straight or gay. Civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the dictionary definition of separate but equal...which is unconstitutional.
if you accept the premise that gay people are a separate class of people i guess that would be true. Id liked to have 3 wives would that make me a separate class of people? Do you think "transsexuals" are a separate class or is that a behavior issue? Should segregated rest rooms be eliminated to accommodated them?
That's no it doesn't and that little technicality can be fixed, but you leftist want to redefine the definition of marriage ..How many sexes are there again?Civil unions do that...so how many sexes are there again?
No, the don't...
What Is Marriage?
Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.
What Is a Civil Union?
A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united.
What Are the Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions?
There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions, including:
Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
Tax benefits available to married couples only
Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance
- See more at: Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library
There is no fixing separate but equal other than full equality. If you don't want gays getting married, you must change the civil institution for everyone, straight or gay. Civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the dictionary definition of separate but equal...which is unconstitutional.
if you accept the premise that gay people are a separate class of people i guess that would be true. Id liked to have 3 wives would that make me a separate class of people? Do you think "transsexuals" are a separate class or is that a behavior issue? Should segregated rest rooms be eliminated to accommodated them?
It is already established that gays are a protected minority group. (Romer v Evans)
Do you believe the religion is a protected class? (it is)
."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This case is activist because judges relied on the so-called Living Constitution to make the Constitution comport with their self-described enlightened sensibilities. The majority opinion failed to even mention the precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court case that declared that it is permissible for states to make homosexual conduct a crime. Bowers was reversed seven years after Romer in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to ensure that the states and their agents would secure the full and equal benefit of the laws for all persons without arbitrarily enforcing laws against individuals; it was not intended to grant certain individuals or groups special status that trumps the rights of others that are explicitly protection by our laws, such as the right of association.
The Court claims that the amendment lacked a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest, the lowest standard for a challenged state law to meet. The outcome therefore suggests an ideological thumb placed on the scale. The dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia artfully explains the majority’s mischaracterization of the government purpose of Amendment 2: “The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite.” Despite the Court’s accusations of “animus,” the state was preserving the ability of its citizens to debate a cultural issue while refraining from enforcing a certain position in the debate. In granting constitutional status to an issue on which the Constitution is silent, the Court seized the right of the American people to debate and decide this issue through the democratic process.
Wow... The US judiciary disputes the obvious.State government not the federal governementThere's the problem right there. Government should not be defining it at all.
Of course government SHOULD. PLEASE explain how divorce would be handled without government laws and protections? HOW would shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids be handled?
That's your problem. You think government should be involved with everyone and everything--parsing out property, making children decide between one parent or the other, splitting families in two--when you have government defining marriage, then you will have it defining anything it wants in whatever way it wants, if it isn't doing so already.
The divorce by itself has done the damage. Government simply douses it with gasoline and lights the match to watch the family burn, figuratively speaking. If anything, the government should be doing something to promote the integrity of the family, not doing things to abet its disintegration.
Now, that was my rant.
You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.
Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.
Three Supreme Court cases dispute your claim. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail.
