Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules, 5-4
- Thread starter -LEK-
- Start date
- Status
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
I have no plans on marrying another dude, so it doesn't affect me one way or the other. But it is the correct decision, IMHO.
Most of us have moved on to the struggle for acceptance of transgender illegal immigrants. http://www.people.com/article/transgender-woman-interrupted-president-obama-interview
I'm glad America is fixed for good.
Wonder which state/city/town will embarrassingly show its ass first and try to sue the gov't for the right to not give people marriage rights, or something?
Wonder which state/city/town will embarrassingly show its ass first and try to sue the gov't for the right to not give people marriage rights, or something?
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Roy Moore in Alabama may still oppose it and order judges not to issue licenses.
Time for Christians to pretend they are full of love by opposing equality, being judges of others, getting divorces of their own while talking about sanctity, and living in misery on something that affects them in absolutely no way.
Probably the same state/city/town crying about having their "heritage" taken down from the government buildings
Walmart can replace the lost revenue from Confederate Flags by adding Gay wedding accesories.
Any high net worth adult individuals full of spite for the government want to go ahead and marry their parent/children and transfer some assets around while refusing to pay estate/gift taxes?
I'll take the case for a nominal fee.
I'll take the case for a nominal fee.
If you are a business owner who does not provide same sex benefits, your employee benefit costs just went up. Those costs might get passed on to all of that business owner's employees in the form of higher payroll withholding.
Last edited:
Please list examples so I can address. Might take a while, but will certainly respond.
So a business owner who previously marginally benefited from not extending benefits to same sex couples due to discriminatory laws just marginally went up?
Your strategy is already being partially employed. I bet she pays no death tax on his money as daughter/wife.
Last edited:
So what's the purpose of a state passing its own laws again? Really, what's the point of having state governments at all?
Cosby is absolutely right, but nobody ever wants to touch that aspect.
Cosby is absolutely right, but nobody ever wants to touch that aspect.
For example, the states who did not recognize gay marriage for MFJ status are now going to have to revamp their laws/procedures to allow gay married people to enjoy the same MFJ status as straight married people. Or deny MFJ status.
So yeah, I'd imagine a whole bunch of straight people are going to be "impacted" by that process. From taxpayers to tax professionals to state tax departments.
This is what I tried to tell you all a long. Your emotional arguments about gay marriage ignored all the real issues. Tax law, family law, estate law, etc. It would have been much better to tackle those issues rather than just whining about not being able to marry the person you loved.
So yeah, I'd imagine a whole bunch of straight people are going to be "impacted" by that process. From taxpayers to tax professionals to state tax departments.
This is what I tried to tell you all a long. Your emotional arguments about gay marriage ignored all the real issues. Tax law, family law, estate law, etc. It would have been much better to tackle those issues rather than just whining about not being able to marry the person you loved.
States can pass all the laws they want as long as they're not unconstitutional as determined by SC. The USSC ruled that the US constitution guarantees the right for same sex marriage so any state law that specifically opposes that right is thus invalid. I thought that part was straightforward.
If you're argument lies with the justification of the USSC on their decision based on a federal constitution always open to interpretation then, well, that's another argument.
Here is a pretty big one. All same sex couples can now get social security retirement and disability benefits that they did not qualify for in the past (if their state did not recognize gay marriages). That puts more strain on our system which was already going bankrupt. There are wider consequences from this ruling than many believe.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/social-security-benefits-same-sex-marriage-1.aspx
That's true. Under this decision, what would prevent anyone(s) from being able to marry?
Legal or not it is f*ucking gross to see two guys together in a romantic relationship. Lipstick lesbians on the other hand is perfectly acceptable.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
That's what tax professionals and lawyers get paid to do. You act as if tax laws are static. We're giving them more business!
What a fantastic reach.
I guess we should keep all laws in place, whether just or not, to keep tax professionals, lawyers, and state departments focused on antiquated statutes. That's f'n ridiculous.
I think what Jack was getting at is that big gov has tied the hands of the state gov. There have been so many rulings, policies, laws, etc, that have reduced state gov powers. Basically, the central gov is telling the state gov, "Make all the moves you want.....as long as you stay within the 2 ft x 2 ft box we created for you.
In your opinion, is that a good reason to keep a whole group of people from enjoying the same freedoms that you enjoy?
That's what tax professionals get paid to do. That's a fantastic reach. You act as if tax laws are static.
I guess we should keep all laws in place, whether just or not, to keep tax professionals and state departments comfortable. That's f'n ridiculous.
I'm not the dumbass that ignorantly stated this impacts "0" people outside of the gays.
I didn't say tax professionals don't get paid. I didn't say all laws should remain in place.
You said this impacts no one. You are too caught up in the emotional arguments and fail to think the issue through.
I did not say that the ruling is good or bad. I am just proving that the decision will have an impact on all Americans not just those who are gay.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
Most states prohibit first cousins from marrying. I'd imagine all of them prohibit parents from marrying their children.
Good stuff. To be clear, this impacts no one "negatively".
Nope, thought the issue through, still laughing at the fact that this should be delayed or reconsidered for the good of the tax profession.
Or I guess you could now argue that this negatively impacts you and I since we're wasting time on discussing the "impact" this ruling has on tax professionals and estate lawyers who already deal with such matters and were fully aware of the direction of marriage rights and laws in our nation unless hopelessly incompetent.
Last edited:
Meh. You made an ignorant statement. In your past two posts you've completely made shit up that I've not argued in attempt to deflect.
But yeah, you've thought things through.
But yeah, you've thought things through.
I was being rhetorical and you made the point much better. Further, not only do they create the box, they choose which arguments to hear. Thus, there are no checks on their own ability to legislate.
Somehow I doubt the Framers intended that to happen.
Back to gay marriage: I can't help but be glad that gay people will have access to property rights. The problem lies in the unintended consequences, least of which is the obliteration of non-Federal control of the country.
Wasn't the most of the SCOTUS case based on a gay couple from Ohio who had an out of state marriage, dealing with the rights of one of the partners to the estate of his husband after death without a will naming the living as beneficiary? And the state of Ohio sued to block the inheritance and spousal benefits? That is how it climbed to the supreme court I thought, not the moral decision/definition of marriage?
I honestly thought the arguments in the case WERE about tax law, family law, estate law, etc. Or was your response just directed at the idiot who says the only people affected who's lives are ruined because gay couples can be married?
- Status
