Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on February 22, 2009 by Allahpundit
“We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Often, yes.
It’s so the man and wife can be together and so also can any children they’ve conceived together.
It’s not for the sole purpose of “mutual enjoyment.”
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Wrong. The supreme court in Loving v Virginia ruled that marriage, specifically heterosexual marriage is a right, and made no such proclamation that the state has no compelling interest.
Moreover, the EXACT same supreme court, by refusing to grant an appeal to the ruling in Baker v Nelson on the merits, let stand the ruling that gay marriage is not a right. That is the Constitutional law of the land.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 9:59 AM
The Constitution is designed to limit the laws that representatives of the people can enact. Some rights are endowed to men by their Creator rather than by the federal government.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM
American Elephant, Ghoul Aid –
Thank you for your reasoned, thoughtful, and Conservative arguments. You both have shown a lot of class in this thread. You’ll be in my prayers.
kingsjester on February 23, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Yes, freedom of association — your freedom to spend your life with whomever you want is an unalienable right that you already enjoy.
The “right” to have other people sanction and subsidize your relationship, or the “right” to force people to pretend that homosexuality provides the same function to society that heterosexuality does, are not.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM
So you’re in the business of deciding who has a right to what now? What are you, a liberal, where people can choose rights for others? How about this: if the actions of others don’t limit your freedoms in any way, you have no right to regulate them.
I’m married with eight children. I support and understand the importance of traditional marriage because I live it and enjoy it every day, but I don’t believe I have the right to tell others how to live s long as they live without harming or restricting others. So don’t frame my support for gay civil unions in a way that suggests I don’t understand the importance of marriage. Reframing my support in that way is ignorant and, as such, dangerous.
beatcanvas on February 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Thanks Kingsjester, much appreciated! :)
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM
In Loving the Court did more than OK interracial marriage. They identified marriage as a fundamental right–as they have with reproduction. Once fundamental rights are identified, legislative bodies then are restricted by some level of scrutiny when writing laws that restrict individuals pursuing these rights.
Zablocki v. Redhail is a subsequent case that deals with marriage outside of the racial discrimination issue. The following quote is from the majority opinion:
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Not any more than anyone else. But the constitution specifically says those rights not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the people to decide. And natural law tells us that your right to swing your arms ends at my face. Similarly, you are free to spend your life with whomever you wish, but when you start demanding government sanction and subsidize your relationship, you have started hitting everyone else in the face. My money and my approval are my own. You cannot and do not have a right to them.
NO ONE is telling you how to live. You are free to spend your life, draw up contracts, hold ceremonies with anyone who will have you. If anything YOU are the only one trying to dictate how others will live, YOU are demanding they approve of and subsidize your relationship.
What is ignorant and dangerous is allowing people to believe falsehoods about what the constitution means.
Persuade people that gay marriage is beneficial to society. That is the only way any policy should be approved.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM
If marriage weren’t a right, but a license that the state could grant based on its priorities, should a state face any restrictions if it wanted to require fertility tests?
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Dedalus,
You are barking up a dead tree. the issue of gay marriage as a constitutional right has been heard and rejected by the federal courts and rejected by the Supreme Court.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Funny…I have to approve and subsidize straight marriages. As for the Constitution, by withholding gay marriage, it’s a violation of the pursuit of happiness.
Tell me tho…How is gay marriage detrimental to society?
JetBoy on February 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM
No, you don’t: you certainly don’t “subsidize” them with any federal funds.
Nope, sorry.
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee marital rights to anyone.
Please!
It’s degenerate, immoral and works to spread STDs like AIDS, HIV and Hepatitis.
JetBoy on February 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Baker v. Nelson has nothing to do with your contention that marriage licenses can be managed by the state for the benefit the nuclear family.
Several state courts have found a right to gay marriage despite Baker. Maybe it will cause SCOTUS to take up the issue again. They did overturn Bowers v Hardwick with Lawrence v Texas in a short period of time.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Not true, and I gave you a clear example of that countering your assertion that gays enjoy all of the rights that straights do. They don’t have that right when they marry a foreign national who wants to move here to live together. Different freedoms? Is that the American way?
Your argument enters tricky ground when you center it on procreation. Dedalus is right when bringing up fertility tests. It’s not about procreation… where’s that in law?
beatcanvas on February 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM
BTW, Jetboy, how is it that you’ll take the Pope’s/Vatican’s dicta on indulgences seriously, but have no problem going against the Church when it comes to being homosexual?
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:38 AM
There are significant tax breaks for married couples that keep money out of the treasury. Gay couples pay that money in.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 10:39 AM
You people are really getting desperate when it comes down to citing weird “freedoms” like this that you homosexuals think are being abridged!
(Whatsa matter? Did the “can’t visit my partner in the hospital/can’t inherit when they die” arguments not work very well for you, as it’s obvious you can do both?)
The argument is implicit in the normal outcome of a man uniting with a woman>children.
Fertility tests? You’re grabbing at straws.
The aim of those who want same sex marriage isn’t “equal rights;” it’s to force acceptance and approval of their aberrant lifestyle and to also to destroy the traditional marriage and family.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:43 AM
You do! Because we decided democratically through our representatives that it was beneficial to society to do so.
Wrong on two counts. First of all, the “pursuit of happiness” is not mentioned in the Constitution, it comes from the Declaration of Independence. But more directly, no one is infringing on your God given right to PURSUE happiness. (Note how the founding fathers never said you have a right to happiness, only the right to pursue it.
For the umpteenth time, you are free to spend your life with whomever will have you, to hold a ceremony, live together, you are free to draw up contracts, free do do pretty much whatever you wish.
What you are not free to do is force others to approve of and support your relationship against their will. That would be infringing on their unalienable rights.
But you are free to try to persuade them that they should choose to sanction and subsidize your relationship. If that is your definition of happiness, you are 100% free to pursue it. Just not free to demand it.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Until recently, the IRS used to penalize you for being married.
Any tax breaks only came with children, which some couples humorously call their “little tax deductions.”
Not only homosexuals are paying that money in: so are a lot of singles, divorced and living together heterosexual people.
Same sex partners being allowed to get married so that they can get a tax break is too costly and deleterious to the culture and the society to merit being put into law.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Actually, Jenfidel,
Those diseases are more likely to be spread when gays are promiscuous. Encouraging gays to form monogamous lifelong relationships would DISCOURAGE their spread.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Children are only the product of a man uniting with a woman if the biology works–it can be thwarted by a number of factors.
I might disapprove of many marriages I see. Britney Spears is a famous example. She’s a disgrace, but the way our system is set up the state has very little ability to prevent her from marrying repeatedly–even if she were imprisoned. Despite that right she will likely never have the approval and acceptance of most people.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Good title. We all know that if we appease for the time being, they will eventually use that as an opening to blitz for gay marriage.
Gaunilon on February 23, 2009 at 10:50 AM
If you look at the spousal exemption for the inheritance tax, that is where the big money for couples can be at.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM
This they are doing with a vengeance and infringing on the inalienable rights of millions of Americans, not to mention the way the Gaystapo has outright terrorized those who supported Prop. 8!
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM
What rights of yours are being “infringed”?
As for this:
The truth comes out. It all boils down to your own selfish homophobia.
JetBoy on February 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM
You are insane!
The inheritance tax is killing whether you’re married, single, homosexual or heterosexual!
No-one has ever made any “big money” from or gotten married so that they could claim the spousal exemption for inheritance taxes.
(And again, you’ve cited another instance where the government makes an allowance for a traditional married couple because it’s presumed the benefit will inure to their children.)
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Don’t hate homosexuals–I just don’t want them to give me their diseases or get in my face with their deviant lifestyle.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM
You are free to spend your life with any American you wish. And you are free to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex from another country that you wish, the same as anyone else.
Right here:
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM
How come I’m selfish and you’re not?
You’re 2% of the population (and not all of that number want to get “married”) but you want to make a mockery of and destroy the traditional marriage and family that have served Mankind as institutions for thousands of years so that you can “feel better” about yourselves?
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM
No insanity involved. In fact it sounds like you agree that there is a government allowance for traditional couples where a husband can pass his estate to his wife tax-free. This isn’t available to gay couples whether they have children or not.
Usually, the house is the biggest asset and often one that has increased in value over many years. In order to raise cash to pay the 50% tax to the government, the house has to be sold or refinanced.
Gay couples don’t get this benefit and it is one way in which they can’t replicate the financial advantages of marriage.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM
The right of the people to decide their own laws. The right of the people to encourage a behavior they deem beneficial to society and not sanction behaviors they may not wish to. The right of the people to design an institution that serves to encourage the nuclear family.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM
You’re missing the point. There are countries I could go to where I could marry mulitple partners and children as young as nine. If I brought them back to the US, those marriages would not be recognized. Where’s my freedom to do such things?
Nobody is stopping a gay man from marrying a foreign woman and thereby making her a citizen. Therefore, the gay man has the same rights as a straight man.
Marriage is not defined as “legal recognition of who you are having sex with.” If it were, you’d have a point.
Kafir on February 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I don’t think so.
I’ve never heard of it; in fact, just the opposite–many have had to sell the very assets they inherit to pay the inheritance taxes.
I’m not a tax lawyer or an accountant, but I’m fairly sure that you have to pay inheritance taxes whether you’re married or single, heterosexual or homosexual, black or white or purple.
Your marital status has nothing to do with it.
(What was I thinking above when I agree to your stipulation that a spouse gets a tax exemption on death taxes?)
Why do you think there’s such an outcry to do away with death taxes?
Because they’re punitive, regardless of status.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Yes! There are some financial advantages that gays cannot replicate because they are the specific financial arrangements that society has crafted to encourage men and women to marry. And they are subsidies. Because married couples don’t pay those taxes, the rest of us make up for it.
You are arguing that you are entitled to other people’s money.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Well done… I stand corrected. There is a court justice that cited procreation.
We’ll agree to disagree, but it strikes me as odd that a gay, such as you say you are, would not want the ability to have the same rights with their partner as hetero couples enjoy. Yes, you can certainly live with your partner and name them in your will, but you can’t deny the differences in the legal recognition of the relationship.
Why would you be okay, as a gay person, with not having the same rights?
beatcanvas on February 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM
+1
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM
And those differences would be what exactly?
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM
thank you kingjester. and jenfidel, they not only want to mock and destroy traditional marriage, they want and currently do mock jesus at each and every turn. and they mock people who have traditional values. please trust me that it is pure hell having to deal with the mind set of the militant gay. the reason they speak louder and seem to be the majority of gays IS BECAUSE SELF RESPECTING GAY MEN AND WOMEN WHO DO NOT HAVE A RAINBOW FLAG SHOVED UP THEIR ASS AND SPILLING OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS EVERY SECOND LIVE THEIR LIVES QUIETLY AND DO NOT SEEK ATTENTION AND ARE NOT DRAMA QUEENS. I HAVE BEEN AROUND THE MAINSTREAM GAY LIFESTYLE FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND THE MINDSET IS THIS: REJECT EVERY DECENT, TRADITIONAL VALUE AND BELIEF YOU WERE RAISED WITH AND TURN YOUR BACK ON GOD AND RELIGION ALL BECAUSE YOU WERE MADE FUN OF GROWING UP AND BOO HOO SOCIETY HATES YOU, THE CHURCH HATES YOU, YOU CAN’T MARRY YOUR LIMP WRISTED LIBERAL PIG OF A PARTNER. GROW THE F-CKING HELL UP ALREADY. I AM BEYOND SICK AND TIRED OF THESE SCREAMING BASTARDS THAT ARE INDEED TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF YOUR CHILDREN. NOT TO MOLEST THEIR BODIES, BUT THEIR MINDS. I HAVE NOT SUFFERED ONE BIT UNDER GEORGE BUSH. I LOVE MY GOD, JESUS, AND I CERTAINLY F-CKING LOVE MY PARENTS WHO RAISED ME WITH TRADITIONAL VALUES, MORALS, AND BELIEFS. AND YES, I CAN DO ALL THAT AND STILL HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MEN. WHAT A GOD DAMN F-CKING CONCEPT, HUH? AND FOR ALL OF THAT, I AM THE OUTCAST, THE FREAK AMONG THE GAY SOCIETY AT LARGE. AND ALL YOU OTHER “GAY” MEN AND WOMEN WHO POST ON HERE AND TELL ME ANYTHING DIFFERENT, YOU ARE FULL OF SH-T.
Ghoul aid on February 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Ah yes, gay marriage is completely equivalent to pedophilia and bigamy for you.
I’m not sure what so threatens you that love and commitment shared between two non-familial, consenting adults spurs you to such animosity, but it’s ugly to witness the gymnastics you go through to draw irrelevant comparisons to justify your prejudice.
beatcanvas on February 23, 2009 at 11:21 AM
You shouldn’t have to be a tax lawyer to be concerned with potential liabilities to the government. Couples with families often figure out the law or talk to a tax advisor. The advisor might tell them something like this, from findlaw.com:
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM
No, just refuting the point that has been made in comments above that gay couples in some states have all the rights of straight couples as long as they hire a lawyer and draw up private contracts.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Because the “rights” you are referring to are not rights. Those are benefits society crafted to encourage men and women to marry. I dont have a right to other people’s approval or other people’s money for doing something different than what they are trying to encourage in the first place.
If I want those, I have to persuade them. I don’t get to force them. Neither you nor I have that right
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM
I believe he is also gay.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM
If there is joint ownership in the home I don’t believe there is inheritance tax. Is this correct?
clarifides on February 23, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Anyway.
I’m done here. Just remember, your right to swing your arms ends at my nose. If you want to hit my nose, or my wallet, you have to persuade me its in my best interest. It isnt your right.
And on that note, I’m outta here.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM
SCOTUS has recognized straight marriage as a right not an artifice manufactured by municipal government. Marriage existed before the state, the United States or any other state. It will exist beyond as well.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Again, we’ll agree to disagree on the right/benefit to live in this country with the mate of my choice. I don’t think my government has the power to deny my spouse entry to my life. And I think Dedalus has handled the financial differences quite well as a matter of private property rights – not government benefit/allowance to keep my own property within my chosen family.
Agreed, so I look forward to arguing for freedom every day of the week. I wish you did, too.
beatcanvas on February 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
For married couples it doesn’t matter how the home ownership is structured. All assets in one spouse’s name can move to the other tax free upon death.
For a gay couple with joint home ownership, the surviving spouse would be taxed for the gain in ownership. It would be the same as acquiring additional shares in a corporation.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Why not just form personal LLC’s for the contractual purposes of “marriage”, joint ownership for community property, medical power of attorney for health issues, power of attorney for the financial and have a personal commitment ceremony.
clarifides on February 23, 2009 at 11:48 AM
As I told you, this is to benefit their natural children (and also harkens back to the time when most women didn’t work and their husbands usually died first).
Homosexual partners don’t produce natural children.
You can’t destroy traditional marriage so you can get an inheritance tax exemption upon the death of your partner: the cost to society– immeasurable in monetary terms–is way, way too high.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Uh, no.
There is no gain unless the house is sold and even when it is, if the home is claimed as a homestead, there is the one-time exemption for that.
Homosexuals can own homes jointly, just like a man and wife.
It’s not the same as acquiring additional shares in a corporation.
Homosexual partners in this case would be treated by the tax code like any other inheritors from a will, except for the spouse.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM
This is also wrong.
Many married couples own property separately and not jointly.
(Ever heard of prenups?)
Case in point are John and Cindy McCain: he didn’t know how many houses he owns because they’re all owned by Cindy.
He won’t inherit them all unless Cindy specifically leaves them to him in her will.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
You could create an LLC. I could create one with several partners and buy a bunch of properties (happened frequently a few years ago). Let’s say my wife was a member of the LLC.
If a partner died and his share of the LLC was distributed among surviving members we would all be taxed for the gain in ownership–my wife and I filing jointly would be taxed for two gains. Somewhat similar to a C-corp where you might get additional stock options at below the strike price.
Now assume my wife and I were the final two surviving members of the LLC. On my passing she would get 100% of the LLC tax free. If we weren’t married, just living together, she would pay tax on her increased ownership.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Same-sex marriage is, by definition, a contradiction in terms.
Let them scream like wusses. There are much more important topics to deal with than a bunch of fags wanting their lifestyle legitimized.
Bubba Redneck on February 23, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Translation: You dont think the people have the right to define marriage OR immigration laws.
You dont. You argue for the infringement of others freedoms at the expense of your own phony “rights”
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I thought LLC’s & S-Corp’s are taxed on income distributed to shareholders not on not on retained earnings and holdings
clarifides on February 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM
No, you just misrepresent their ruling. I already cited the case that proves you wrong. Baker v Nelson. I suggest you read it.
American Elephant on February 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM
It is correct with regard to the U.S. tax code. The tax code doesn’t determine who gets the inheritance. The McCains can have a prenup and Cindy can have a will.
Cindy could theoretically split her estate between John and a friend (let’s call the friend “Mindy”). John gets his half of the estate and no bill from the IRS. Mindy gets her half of the estate and the IRS sends here a bill for taxes owed on the inheritance. Mindy needs to write a check. If she doesn’t have the cash she’ll need to liquidate some assets.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I’m sorry – which part of “NO!” was unclear?
mojo on February 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM
I thought LLC’s & S-Corp’s are taxed on income distributed to shareholders not on
not onretained earnings and holdingsclarifides on February 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM
clarifides on February 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Well, they’d still need the consent of the women. Maybe plenty of men want a ton of wives, but I don’t know many women who want to be a second or third wife.
Or it would if technology hadn’t advanced to the point where sex is necessary for procreation.
Why though? If the argument is that gays should get to marry the person they love, then why shouldn’t that apply to everyone (consenting adults at least)? Yeah, it’s gross, but how does it hurt anyone if a consenting adult wants to marry his mother?
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
et al…
Where exactly are you getting those percentages? That gays only represent 1% or 2% of the population?
JetBoy on February 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
What if your mother’s too old for children? Or what if it’s two gay brothers who can’t have children anyway?
Or what about the fact that we haven’t made it illegal to make retarded babies anyway. Women who get pregnant after 40 are at a higher risk, much higher than incest, of having a child with some kind of handicap, but we don’t deny them the right to procreate.
I completely disagree. Life should also win, and I don’t understand people who disagree.
Are you really saying that one child dying is the same to you as the other being raped? WTF? Wouldn’t you at least prefer to have your daughter alive than dead even if it means she was defiled?
Some questions are hard. I get that, but this one really isn’t. Lives at stake should always trump whatever is against it.
Except that you don’t really believe that, not if the “partner of their choice” is a close relative or a second partner of choice.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
My point is that Baker doesn’t relate to straight marriages. Subsequent to Baker they have reaffirmed that marriage is a fundamental right, and in their rulings have addressed state laws that restrict the grant of a marriage license.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM
You should win a gold medal for the gymnastics you’re going to. “Two non-familial, consenting adults.” Basically, you’re saying “Make an exception for my deviation from the norm because it is not as disgusting as the others.”
Earlier, I listed the five rules for marriage. To me, anyone who wants to get rid of one of the rules is the same as anyone else who wants to get rid of one of the rules. The level of disgust I feel toward their sex practices is immaterial. If we allow one rule to be removed, the others are not far behind. Allowing the least disgusting will net us the most disgusting. It’s all the same to me.
Kafir on February 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Rape is more than just defilement, it is a lifelong suffering. This shouldn’t be an either or choice for anyone.
clarifides on February 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Keyes and Warren (and others on this thread) say that there is no comparison between straight and gay marriage, and reject the premise out of hand as though it were obvious why. But then, in an odd twist, they see no problem with drawing the comparison between gay marriage and incest/pedophilia/bigamy. Can’t have it both ways… if they feel the right to draw the comparison between marriage with just anyone, and they trot out the relationships that disgust them and anyone else in an effort to win their point by repulsing you, then marriage among anyone – straight, gay, animal, bigamist, incest, etc – is on the table. But they don’t want that. And when I draw the line on comparisons to two non-familial, consenting adults, they cry out in protest because I didn’t open it up all the way.
The marriage of battleoflepanto1571 to his mother – does it hurt anyone? Not directly, but you can make the argument that their offspring might be hurt.
American Elephant demands the right to the greater taxation on gays and somehow says that is swinging at his nose, when he’s simply using the same argument that liberals use for greater taxation when we in the conservative ranks say that taxation is a means wealth redistribution. When the gay couple gets less tax freedom than the hetero, suddenly that’s okay. Curious how social conservatism can lead people to government interventionist policies and hypocrisy.
beatcanvas on February 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Of course Life wins, always, but that wasn’t the hypothetical posed: it was posed as an either/or trade-off and both abortion and same sex marriage are evil.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Seems democratic enough.
I know you addressed inheritance, but regular taxes, there really is no advantage whatsoever. In fact, this year, my husband and I are paying more than we would be paying if we weren’t married. We’re actually getting penalized because we married.
To be fair, she’s under the impression that sex is only for procreation.
Then don’t have sex with them.
By that you mean, only socially acceptable “freedoms,” not freaky ones like incest.
I actually don’t get why some people who support gay marriage don’t support incest (provided all parties are legally able to consent to such a union).
As far as I’m concerned, I don’t even understand why the government needs to know something so private as who you have sex with. Why should financial issues like taxes and inheritance be linked to romantic relationships? Give churches marriage and have government let people decide who shares benefits, regardless of whether the relationship between the two is romantic in nature.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Which part of “it’s for the natural children created by the traditional marriage” don’t you understand?
Is this about being “in love” or you getting more and better tax exemptions?
Make up your mind.
If you’re so keen on tax exemptions, marry a woman (or beard) for IRS purposes and continue living with your homosexual partner!
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM
That’s my understanding. I file jointly with my wife, but haven’t worked through the calculations to know if I’m paying more or less. I could, but Tim Geithner tells me Turbo Tax is tricky.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Of course. Both are horrible but still, it’s life or death. It shouldn’t be difficult.
That is life or death. In the compromise you gain thousands of unborn.
And what about brothers marrying? They can’t have children anyway.
Or again, considering the risks to children are far worse for women who get pregnant after 40, shouldn’t we then be sterilizing women once they hit 40 if we’re to be consistent?
Beside, surely you know plenty of people who make the arguments that children in homosexual homes are harmed as well.
And singles also have less tax “freedoms” but somehow we’ve decided that too is OK. I don’t get your point here.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I just don’t want them to give me their diseases
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Then don’t have sex with them.
Quibble all you like, but seriously, their diseases spill over into the heterosexual/normal population.
The highest rising rate of new AIDS cases is among black women, because many black men are bisexual these days.
That is why many of those in the black community, including Obama himself, are completely against homosexual marriage–it’s destroying the black family.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
My husband seems to understand it well, but we’re still kinda poor, and for the last two years we’ve owed (he thought he had a dependent for some reason). So maybe you shouldn’t risk it.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Perhaps, but by allowing same sex marriage, you would do catastrophic damage to the society and the culture that couldn’t be measured in physical deaths, but would amount to a soul murder of millions in the end.
That’s not the offer on the table in real life, either, is it?
The homosexuals are not empowered to offer up abortion on demand as a sacrifice nor have they volunteered to do so; it was a silly hypothetical put up by SnarkVadar.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Hey – I’m for a flat tax, so you get no argument from me here. But he’s asserting that by the gay couple keeping more of what they earn it’s somehow hurting him and taking his money. No, it’s not. It’s them keeping more of what they earned, which is a pretty solid conservative principle, yes? Unless, like American Elephant, you oppose gay marriage. Then putting more of their money in the federal coffers is okay.
beatcanvas on February 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Reformatted:
Quibble all you like, but seriously, their diseases spill over into the heterosexual/normal population.
The highest rising rate of new AIDS cases is among black women, because many black men are bisexual these days.
That is why many of those in the black community, including Obama himself, are completely against homosexual marriage–it’s destroying the black family.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Because there’s a distinction between just having sex with whomever you please and committing to building an intimate life with someone. In your marriage to your husband, you make an investment into your shared life – you are both part of the reason for the other’s success. When either divorce or death hits, how that is parsed out becomes a legal matter.
beatcanvas on February 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM
You can’t put on price tag on morality and a righteous society that doesn’t condone and even promote deviancy and perversion.
Preserving America as a moral, predominantly Judeo-Christian country is more important to Conservatives than getting tax exemptions for homosexual partners (and soon thereafter, bigamists, polygamists and those who wish to marry their relatives and children).
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Still vacillating between love and tax breaks?
And for this, we rend the institution of traditional marriage apart that has served the human race so well almost since the days of the cave man?
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 1:15 PM
I think you would be taxed on the additional member interest you inherited. I can’t cite the tax code on this, but if the IRS didn’t have this covered I’d think everyone would move all their bank accounts into an LLC and there would be no more death tax.
I do know that some estate planning vehicles take advantage of gradual changes in member ownership over the years where parents pass a business to children. The IRS had some parameters for this, but I think they are tightening them.
A gay couple could possibly do this but would have to guess right on which partner would die first. Easier to guess when different generations are involved.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM
LLC’s are considered “separate entities” they are designed to continue until they are desolved or terminated.
I am not opposed to people taking care of their loved ones after they are gone, if this is about “benefits” I am sure there are vehicles to make this happen.
clarifides on February 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM
You know that even without marriage, gays are still gay. We’re not talking about a law that would change that behavior.
Obviously it’s a hypothetical question. You aren’t actually given a choice in the matter anyway.
No, it wasn’t. It shows exactly where some people stand. They hate homosexuality more than the murder of the unborn.
For everyone, not just for people who are married. That’s an entirely different conversation.
You’ve missed my point. For one, no, there isn’t, not if you’re using marriage as the “intimate life” because in truth, you can marry someone you don’t plan on building a life with. Vegas marriages aren’t generally built to last.
For another, what I mean is that it shouldn’t just be limited to people you sleep with. I see no reason why two best friends can’t be “partners” for legal purposes if they have no one else.
And you’ve still not explained why you’re against two brothers marrying or why the government should have a say in who can and who cannot reproduce.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I’m not certain the current tax code allows for it. One other issue with an LLC and a primary residence is that the LLC wouldn’t get the home mortgage interest deduction.
However, perhaps we would agree that a theoretical domestic partnership structure that had the same legal and financial status as marriage would be an acceptable compromise on the issue.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Agreed. This would not have to enter into the realm of marriage
clarifides on February 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM
As do single heterosexual couples. There is alot of very talented twisting of logic, reason and fact going on here in the advocacy of supra-rights for a group of people who define thier existance by thier misuse of thier genitals and alimentary canals. The only thing anyone needs to know about inventing a state called “gay marriage” is what everyone here, including those who consider themselves gay, knew when they were six years old and deep down know today; men marrying men and women marrying women is silly.
peacenprosperity on February 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM
OUCH!!!
right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM
They are both an abomination and a defilement of a holy thing.
I couldn’t choose which is the lesser evil and thank God, I’m not being asked to!
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM
+1 (Thank you for saying what needed to be said and getting us out of Tax Law 101!)
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM
You can’t tell if murder is worse than giving gay people government benefits for the relationships they’re already having? Really?
Murder vs. benefits for people in a lifestyle you disagree with but don’t seem intent on making illegal.
Yeah, the question is telling.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Taxes are what the founders went to war with King George over, and many Americans who pay taxes believe that they should be treated equally by the government. Gay Americans are not an exception in this regard.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM
True but then what about single Americans?
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Straight ones have the option to marry and get the tax advantage. For the most part, I’m opposed to tax breaks and using the tax code for social engineering. The purpose behind the code probably has its roots in widows who were left with kids to feed and bills to pay–having the government take part of their wealth was a non-starter politically.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 5:42 PM
How about really ugly or unloveable personality-wise people? They don’t get the tax break if they don’t get married either.
peacenprosperity on February 23, 2009 at 5:46 PM
It’s about equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes. :-)
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Exactly. If a guy decides not to ever marry a woman he doesn’t get the married tax cut. Se la vie (if that’s spelled correctly)
peacenprosperity on February 23, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Then technically gays have that same opportunity as they too can marry if all they want is a tax cut.
A female couple and a male couple could get together and switch. It’d be like my high school prom, where me and my date were seniors who bought tickets for two juniors so they could go together as a couple.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Sounds subversive. Where were the prom police?
One could limit the marriage exemption to blondes or redheads. It wouldn’t be fair to those who fell in love with brunettes.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Just happy that we weren’t stuck having it in the gym. We actually had issues raising enough money, so buying two extra tickets wasn’t a big deal.
It was a lot of high school drama at the time though, because my date had already asked someone (the junior girl) to prom right before I told him I’d just been dumped (by a guy who didn’t realize when I said we were just friends that I meant it, so he went with a girl he thought would sleep with him or something). So getting tickets for her and her actual boyfriend was the compromise he came up with so he didn’t look like a jerk for dumping her.
And even though the junior was actually dating someone else, she flipped because she used to have a crush on my date and was looking forward to going to prom with him, but considering I eventually married the guy, I figure it was justified.
That’s why God invented bleach.
Obviously I get where you’re going with this, but so long as we don’t get complete free reign (friends, family, whatever), someone will always be left out.
Plus, I wonder about the purposes of tax breaks. Why does the government want to encourage marriage? What does the government get out of it? And do they get that out of all stable monogamous relationships or just some? If the answer is only some, is it wrong to encourage those relationships over others?
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »