The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[bodecea]

Very well.

We shall see eventually.

Why do you insist that although you don't have to be subjected to the morals of others, others should have to be subjected to your lack of morals?

What are you talking about? What lack of morals?

 

[bodecea]

ALLIE! Where's my daily neg rep?????

 

[Foxfyre]

Very well.

It restored states rights to the states actually in the matter of marriage. States have always been able to set the rules and regs re legal marriage and the federal government has properly stayed out of that. But because all 50 states recognize marriages performed in other states, they were in danger of having ambitious courts use some distortion of precedence to force all states to recognize such marriages. All the federal government did was give legal protection of a people's right not to recognize such a marriage. And it did not prohibit them from recognize such a marriage if that is what the people wanted. That has always been the intent of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and then they would choose themselves what sort of society they wished to have.

It further defined the traditional marriage as what the federal government would recognize related to regs and law pertaining to marriage in the tax code and related matters.

So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA? How is that consistant application of the law?

State and Federal law was never intended to be consistent except where unalienable rights are concerned. The ONLY reason given for recognition of marriage in the tax code was to promote the general welfare, especially for children, that historically has been produced by marriage. Traditional families including mom, dad, and kids have historically produced more stable neighborhoods, less crime, better schools, more prosperity all which benefit everybody.

I personally think it was a stretch to include even traditional marriage as a special interest group in the tax code if we go by strict Constitutional intent. But because the included group is so broad and applied equitably across the board, I think it is less objectionable and harmful than is consideration of many other special interest groups.

There are many laws within the states that benefit the people of those states that the Federal Government should not be involved in any way.

 

[TheBrain]

We shall see eventually.

Why do you insist that although you don't have to be subjected to the morals of others, others should have to be subjected to your lack of morals?

What are you talking about? What lack of morals?

I've been led to believe you're gay? That is immoral behavior in my book. I realize that is going to upset you , but frankly I don't care. It's my moral code, and I am well within my rights in having it.

 

[bodecea]

It restored states rights to the states actually in the matter of marriage. States have always been able to set the rules and regs re legal marriage and the federal government has properly stayed out of that. But because all 50 states recognize marriages performed in other states, they were in danger of having ambitious courts use some distortion of precedence to force all states to recognize such marriages. All the federal government did was give legal protection of a people's right not to recognize such a marriage. And it did not prohibit them from recognize such a marriage if that is what the people wanted. That has always been the intent of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and then they would choose themselves what sort of society they wished to have.

It further defined the traditional marriage as what the federal government would recognize related to regs and law pertaining to marriage in the tax code and related matters.

So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA? How is that consistant application of the law?

State and Federal law was never intended to be consistent except where unalienable rights are concerned. The ONLY reason given for recognition of marriage in the tax code was to promote the general welfare, especially for children, that historically has been produced by marriage. Traditional families including mom, dad, and kids have historically produced more stable neighborhoods, less crime, better schools, more prosperity all which benefit everybody.I personally think it was a stretch to include even traditional marriage as a special interest group in the tax code if we go by strict Constitutional intent. But because the included group is so broad and applied equitably across the board, I think it is less objectionable and harmful than is consideration of many other special interest groups.

There are many laws within the states that benefit the people of those states that the Federal Government should not be involved in any way.

I hope you are not saying that gay families do not produce more stable neighborhoods, less crime, betters schools, and more prosperity with benefits everyone.

Or do our families not count in that equation? (I know you are not trying to be rude...I just am curious and would love to hash this out with you)

 

[TheBrain]

So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA? How is that consistant application of the law?

State and Federal law was never intended to be consistent except where unalienable rights are concerned. The ONLY reason given for recognition of marriage in the tax code was to promote the general welfare, especially for children, that historically has been produced by marriage. Traditional families including mom, dad, and kids have historically produced more stable neighborhoods, less crime, better schools, more prosperity all which benefit everybody.I personally think it was a stretch to include even traditional marriage as a special interest group in the tax code if we go by strict Constitutional intent. But because the included group is so broad and applied equitably across the board, I think it is less objectionable and harmful than is consideration of many other special interest groups.

There are many laws within the states that benefit the people of those states that the Federal Government should not be involved in any way.

I hope you are not saying that gay families do not produce more stable neighborhoods, less crime, betters schools, and more prosperity with benefits everyone.

Or do our families not count in that equation? (I know you are not trying to be rude...I just am curious and would love to hash this out with you)

Absolutely I do not think gay "families" produce anything that is good for society as a whole.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA? How is that consistant application of the law?

State and Federal law was never intended to be consistent except where unalienable rights are concerned. The ONLY reason given for recognition of marriage in the tax code was to promote the general welfare, especially for children, that historically has been produced by marriage. Traditional families including mom, dad, and kids have historically produced more stable neighborhoods, less crime, better schools, more prosperity all which benefit everybody.I personally think it was a stretch to include even traditional marriage as a special interest group in the tax code if we go by strict Constitutional intent. But because the included group is so broad and applied equitably across the board, I think it is less objectionable and harmful than is consideration of many other special interest groups.

There are many laws within the states that benefit the people of those states that the Federal Government should not be involved in any way.

I hope you are not saying that gay families do not produce more stable neighborhoods, less crime, betters schools, and more prosperity with benefits everyone.

Or do our families not count in that equation? (I know you are not trying to be rude...I just am curious and would love to hash this out with you)

I am saying nothing of the kind. Nor am I saying that singles and transvestites and accordian players do not produce stable neighborhoods. But historically, there is no evidence that these selective groups have consistently improved their neighborhoods and quality of life. I have a gay god son who has lived luxuriously with his beloved, one of my favorite Facebook game friends, in an upscale Connecticutt neighborhood for many years now. I know they are appreciated and beloved by their neighbors. But one family does not a statistical trend trend make.

Historically it has been traditional families that produce more stable, more prosperous, more quality of life neighborhoods and it is traditional families that are deemed to be the best circumstances for the rearing of children. It is therefore traditional families that were given special consideration in the tax code without respect to race, ethnicity, nation of origin, socioeconomic or political views, or sexual orientation for that matter.

 

[Spoonman]

We shall see eventually.

Why do you insist that although you don't have to be subjected to the morals of others, others should have to be subjected to your lack of morals?

What are you talking about? What lack of morals?

i think he means carpet munching

 

[Spoonman]

ALLIE! Where's my daily neg rep?????

you want me to pick up the slack for her?

 

[Spoonman]

Very well.

It restored states rights to the states actually in the matter of marriage. States have always been able to set the rules and regs re legal marriage and the federal government has properly stayed out of that. But because all 50 states recognize marriages performed in other states, they were in danger of having ambitious courts use some distortion of precedence to force all states to recognize such marriages. All the federal government did was give legal protection of a people's right not to recognize such a marriage. And it did not prohibit them from recognize such a marriage if that is what the people wanted. That has always been the intent of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and then they would choose themselves what sort of society they wished to have.

It further defined the traditional marriage as what the federal government would recognize related to regs and law pertaining to marriage in the tax code and related matters.

So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA? How is that consistant application of the law?

your wife? does that make you the husband?

 

[Spoonman]

Some did...not all....not even the majority. And those that did often did so in order to set up their own religious tyranny.

yea, the others were escaping the long arm of the law

Well, you also had the Proprietary Colonies like New York, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia.

well yes, but who settled them? people looking to get out of dodge for one reason or another. be it religion, trouble with the law, debt. and then you had the indentured servants.

wasn't there an east jersey and a west jersey?

 

[bodecea]

State and Federal law was never intended to be consistent except where unalienable rights are concerned. The ONLY reason given for recognition of marriage in the tax code was to promote the general welfare, especially for children, that historically has been produced by marriage. Traditional families including mom, dad, and kids have historically produced more stable neighborhoods, less crime, better schools, more prosperity all which benefit everybody.I personally think it was a stretch to include even traditional marriage as a special interest group in the tax code if we go by strict Constitutional intent. But because the included group is so broad and applied equitably across the board, I think it is less objectionable and harmful than is consideration of many other special interest groups.

There are many laws within the states that benefit the people of those states that the Federal Government should not be involved in any way.

I hope you are not saying that gay families do not produce more stable neighborhoods, less crime, betters schools, and more prosperity with benefits everyone.

Or do our families not count in that equation? (I know you are not trying to be rude...I just am curious and would love to hash this out with you)

Absolutely I do not think gay "families" produce anything that is good for society as a whole.

We don't work? We don't pay taxes? We don't raise kids? We don't put money into the economy? We don't volunteer?

What is it exactly that makes you say what you do?

 

[bodecea]

yea, the others were escaping the long arm of the law

Well, you also had the Proprietary Colonies like New York, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia.

well yes, but who settled them? people looking to get out of dodge for one reason or another. be it religion, trouble with the law, debt. and then you had the indentured servants.

wasn't there an east jersey and a west jersey?

Not that I know of, unless you are thinking of Delaware.

 

[bodecea]

It restored states rights to the states actually in the matter of marriage. States have always been able to set the rules and regs re legal marriage and the federal government has properly stayed out of that. But because all 50 states recognize marriages performed in other states, they were in danger of having ambitious courts use some distortion of precedence to force all states to recognize such marriages. All the federal government did was give legal protection of a people's right not to recognize such a marriage. And it did not prohibit them from recognize such a marriage if that is what the people wanted. That has always been the intent of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and then they would choose themselves what sort of society they wished to have.

It further defined the traditional marriage as what the federal government would recognize related to regs and law pertaining to marriage in the tax code and related matters.

So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA? How is that consistant application of the law?

your wife? does that make you the husband?

No, that makes me the wife too.

 

[Spoonman]

Well, you also had the Proprietary Colonies like New York, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia.

well yes, but who settled them? people looking to get out of dodge for one reason or another. be it religion, trouble with the law, debt. and then you had the indentured servants.

wasn't there an east jersey and a west jersey?

Not that I know of, unless you are thinking of Delaware.

my colonial history is a little rough. but i though NJ was original two separate charters, east and west. New Caesarea was one and I thought there was another but can't remember what it was. oh well, not important

 

[Spoonman]

So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA? How is that consistant application of the law?

your wife? does that make you the husband?

No, that makes me the wife too.

i'm just busting your chops.

do you have kids or anything? plans to?

 

[TheBrain]

I hope you are not saying that gay families do not produce more stable neighborhoods, less crime, betters schools, and more prosperity with benefits everyone.

Or do our families not count in that equation? (I know you are not trying to be rude...I just am curious and would love to hash this out with you)

Absolutely I do not think gay "families" produce anything that is good for society as a whole.

We don't work? We don't pay taxes? We don't raise kids? We don't put money into the economy? We don't volunteer?

What is it exactly that makes you say what you do?

Sure you do all those things, but you also live in a sinful lifestyle that is NOT equal to a traditional marriage, no matter how much you would like to pretend it does. And I say the EXACT same thing about heterosexuals that play house but aren't married. It is a sinful lifestyle that has a negative impact on society.

Also , I understand that you were in the Navy. Did you choose to become a lesbian after your naval career, or did you instead live a lie?

 

[bodecea]

your wife? does that make you the husband?

No, that makes me the wife too.

i'm just busting your chops.

do you have kids or anything? plans to?

Yes, a 17 year old....the Light of our lives....soon to go off to college *sob

 

[TheBrain]

No, that makes me the wife too.

i'm just busting your chops.

do you have kids or anything? plans to?

Yes, a 17 year old....the Light of our lives....soon to go off to college *sob

so at one time one of you weren't born gay? or you just had an experiment that went wrong or what?

 

[Spoonman]

No, that makes me the wife too.

i'm just busting your chops.

do you have kids or anything? plans to?

Yes, a 17 year old....the Light of our lives....soon to go off to college *sob

cool. both mine are in college now. 17? i thought you were younger. I guess we're about the same age. maybe not, i had kids later. get ready to fork out the bucks what are they going for?