CNN Poll: Suck it, homophobes.

[IBCoupe]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... day-8.html

Nate Silver analyzes CNN's new poll, which finds majority support for marriage equality. The bigger picture: 

[T]his does put Republicans in a tricky position. Their traditional position on gay marriage is becoming less popular. But to the extent they disengage from the issue, they may lose even more ground. One way to read the trends of the past few years is that we have passed an inflection point wherein it is no longer politically advantageous for candidates to oppose same-sex marriage, which in turn softens opposition to it among the general public, creating a sort of feedback loop.

[Cold_Zero]

I would think that most states would be open to gay marriage so they can collect the license revenue. Question will be, how long will we live with a patch work of states with different laws?

[Cold_Zero]

1. Dividing property
2. Assigning custody
3. Collecting Licensing fees

That is pretty much the extent of the state's role in Marriage.

Pray tell, why is it homophobic because someone doenst support marriage of homosexuals to each other? Because it doesnt fit into YOUR paradigm of social norms. I resent your Subject line as polemic and nasty.

[IBCoupe]

I'm betting it will take a while. A town in North Carolina had its first integrated prom a few years ago. Absent a Court order, I wonder how long it would have taken States to ditch anti-miscegenation laws. I wonder, if the Court hadn't taken action in 2003, how long it would take for all 50 states to eliminate their sodomy laws.

[Bubba1]

I would think that most states would be open to gay marriage so they can collect the license revenue. Question will be, how long will we live with a patch work of states with different laws?

Sounds like it'll take a Supreme Court case to do it.


But it's not just the license revenue that makes it appealing to the states, it's all of the other tax revenues/business generated that go along with weddings, including catering, tux/gowns, jewelry, honeymoon destinations/travel, hotels, travel/accomodations for out of town guests, gifts, florists, photographers, videographers, musicians, and so on and so on. Not many realize the economic benefits of adding gay weddings.

[IBCoupe]

Think of all the money to be made in gay divorce, too! Hooray, lawyers!

[stebo0728]

Ditch sodomy laws? Hell they still havent all ditched their "dont spit on the sidewalk" laws. Anyway, laws are meant to be broken right? Just more sources of revenue?

[Cold_Zero]

Why I am not 'shaking in my boots' about a pretty little graph:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/how-prev ... ag=nl.e539

Wouldn’t be the first time someone gets a hold of a survey, disseminates the information to fit their agenda (or in the links case to sell services) and then push it out to the news outlets to announce it from the roof tops. *shrug* call me skeptical about these types of things.

[IBCoupe]

I don't get the comparison.

[srellim234]

I don't think the Republicans ever considered their stance means they are just fine with the heterosexual marriage of Britney Spears with Mike Tyson. Great argument, claiming those two are OK getting married because they can reproduce.

[Cold_Zero]

I don’t get that correlation. I always associated the stance that Marriage was for procreating to be Roman(ist) Catholic and not necessarily a Republican ideology.

[heliochrome85]

I don’t get that correlation. I always associated the stance that Marriage was for procreating to be Roman(ist) Catholic and not necessarily a Republican ideology.

man bud, what color is the sky in your world? Marriage is for A MAN AND A WOMAN. the GOP in several dozen states have defended it that way. your own congress (Boehner) has just appointed a private lawyer to the tune of 500k, to defend DOMA. It very much is a part of the GOP. Its part of their family values push, the very same values, seemingly few republicans are able to uphold in their own marriages.

[Cold_Zero]

I was speaking about the stance that marriage's only function is for procreation.

[heliochrome85]

I was speaking about the stance that marriage's only function is for procreation.

i understand, and im saying that that stance has been adopted by the GOP as the reason why marriage should be defined as between Man and a Woman.

[bigbadberry3]

Nobody has to be married to procreate?

Also, don't married couples get tax benefits?

[IBCoupe]

Depends on the couple, and their individual incomes. Two spouses making roughly the same amount of money? Tax penalty. Two spouses, one of whom making drastically more than the other? Tax benefit.

[Cold_Zero]

Question, on the second example, does it imply that one spouse makes radically less than the other?

[IBCoupe]

Yes. Imagine two households, each bringing in $100,000 in total each year. The first household has two spouses, each making $50,000. The second household has one spouse making $100,000, and the other spouse a stay-at-home parent.

Setting aside the matter of credits and deductions, the first household will pay more taxes than the second household. Further, that first household will pay more taxes than if the two spouses (plural = "spice?") hadn't been married, and had been filing separately.

[Cold_Zero]

Probably why turbo tax checks to see which option is better for you, file jointly or separately.

[IBCoupe]

Well, it's possible for it to pay off to file separately, but actually, when you're married, it's almost never going to be the case that filing separately pays off, even when you bring home identical salaries.

There's two types of people who are married and file separately:
1. Where one spouse has a great number of deductible expenses (uncompensated medical expenses, for example), filing separately would allow you to itemize your individual deductions to the point of almost eliminating your tax debt.

2. Where the two taxpayers are in the process of getting a divorce, they might prefer to keep their finances separate. This, of course, has nothing to do with saving money.