Gay Marriage, Gay this and Gay that.

[WDRacing]

Damn, I was reading this thread this afternoon when it was just a page long. 4 pages, and Ive yet to see anything political, since the first 3 or 4 posts. This topic is a huge can of worms, like a religion topic, should be kept off the boards.

This is an adult conversation about a touchy topic that has gone 4 pages without anyone freaking out. Why should it be kept off the boards? We're even keeping it light with humorous attacks of character This is exactly how I would expect a conversation to go if we were all sitting around a pool table.

FTMFW

[heliochrome85]

The image your after is more like ....

i believe the proper term for this would be the THUNDERCLAP

[stebo0728]

The image your after is more like ....

i believe the proper term for this would be the THUNDERCLAP

No the THUNDERCLAP starts with itching the next morning ...

[Bubba1]

No the THUNDERCLAP starts with itching the next morning ...

perhaps harpoon-tang?

The politically correct term is actually "Vagitarian".

[n00b240]

This is an adult conversation about a touchy topic that has gone 4 pages without anyone freaking out. Why should it be kept off the boards? We're even keeping it light with humorous attacks of character This is exactly how I would expect a conversation to go if we were all sitting around a pool table.

FTMFW

I guess I was expecting more of a political debate. Like alright, there is huge opposition to the gay marriage, what about a civil union? Why cant this be a substitute, or a domestic partnership. When I see this, I see [hetero] marriage legal in all states, but for whatever reason civil unions arent. You get the same rights as those in a marriage yet the civil union isnt recognized. To top that gay marriage isnt recognized

And then for whats missing, I can understand the beef with domestic partnership, as you get little to no rights, no hospital visitation, no power of attorney, no "widow" cash if your spouse dies. Civil unions you cant file joint tax returns. Marriage covers it all...for the hetero. So again, why the beef with the Civil union?

I mean is there more missing to the equation here? Ive tried to have this discussion before, and simply got labeled as a homophobe.

[WDRacing]

Honestly, the only thing keeping gays from being legally married is religion. Which is a total failure because one has nothing to do with the other if you truly have a separation of church and state. If this argument was based solely on Constitutional Law there would be no case at all.

As a Nation we should strive towards equal rights for all, regardless of religion. Remove religion and 80% of our major problems go away over night. By removal, I mean to say stop pushing your religious beliefs on others. You can be a devout worshiper without effecting others. I'm all about personal rights. When religion stands in the way of progress as a people, I have to ask wtf. You have the right to worship just about anything and do so with as much zeal as possible. From Catholics to people that cut up animals...all accepted in the USA. But gays can't be legally married? GTFO with that s***.

Everyone loves to say, "we're founded on Christianity" blah blah blah. You're just quoting history, that has nothing to do with the current issues at hand. If you don't understand that, then lets look at what the founding fathers penned up when they so graciously gave everyone the freedom of religion. The separation of church and state. Why do you figure they did that? Because without it you end up with the most popular religion trying to enforce their beliefs on the masses. From stem cells to gays, religion is the largest obstacle to progression.

That should stir things up a bit

AND STOP WITH THE RETARDED IMAGES, AND THEN QUOTING THE DAMN IMAGES LIKE WE ALL DIDN'T SEE IT WHEN WE SCROLLED DOWN.

WD

[n00b240]

... if you truly have a separation of church and state. If this argument was based solely on Constitutional Law there would be no case at all.

From stem cells to gays, religion is the largest obstacle to progression.

Nuggets of Troof, Well said,I agree 100%.

[IBCoupe]

WD, thanks for getting the conversation back on track.

...And for posting things that summarize my arguments very well. Except for the "founded on Christianity" bit, because the first amendment the Founders added ensured that we weren't.

[stebo0728]

WD, thanks for getting the conversation back on track.

...And for posting things that summarize my arguments very well. Except for the "founded on Christianity" bit, because the first amendment the Founders added ensured that we weren't.

Thats about like making a candle, and putting a sticker on it that says "Contains 0% Wax"

[IBCoupe]

Which part of "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" is so hard to comprehend?

If that weren't enough, try to keep in mind that the American Revolution wasn't born of Reformation - it was born of French and English Enlightenment. "Judeo-Christian values" need not apply.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, many of the intellectual leaders of the American colonies were drawn to the Enlightenment. The colonies may have been founded by leaders of various dogmatic religious persuasions, but when it became necessary to unite against England, it was apparent that no one of them could prevail over the others, and that the most desirable course was to agree to disagree. Nothing more powerfully impelled the movement toward the separation of church and state than the realization that no one church could dominate this new state.

Many of the most distinguished leaders of the American revolution--Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine--were powerfully influenced by English and--to a lesser extent--French Enlightenment thought. The God who underwrites the concept of equality in the Declaration of Independence is the same deist God Rousseau worshipped, not that venerated in the traditional churches which still supported and defended monarchies all over Europe. Jefferson and Franklin both spent time in France--a natural ally because it was a traditional enemy of England--absorbing the influence of the French Enlightenment. The language of natural law, of inherent freedoms, of self-determination which seeped so deeply into the American grain was the language of the Enlightenment, though often coated with a light glaze of traditional religion, what has been called our "civil religion."

This is one reason that Americans should study the Enlightenment. It is in their bones. It has defined part of what they have dreamed of, what they aim to become. Separated geographically from most of the aristocrats against whom they were rebelling, their revolution was to be far less corrosive--and at first less influential--than that in France.

(from http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html)

[audtatious]

Yeah, let's make the non-Christians happy and write out/ignore any influences in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. We can compose our own meaning to the establishment clause that makes us feel good and then take it with a dose of the "Danbury letter" as it which surely states there shall never be a religion allowed in the US.......Hell, let's mandate stoning of Christians while we are at it.

Just like everything else, keep saying it's true, keep pushing forth your version of events, keep dismissing anything you don't agree with, because it's you and all about you

Stupid religion.

[heliochrome85]

Yeah, let's make the non-Christians happy and write out/ignore any influences in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. We can compose our own meaning to the establishment clause that makes us feel good and then take it with a dose of the "Danbury letter" as it which surely states there shall never be a religion allowed in the US.......Hell, let's mandate stoning of Christians while we are at it.

Just like everything else, keep saying it's true, keep pushing forth your version of events, keep dismissing anything you don't agree with, because it's you and all about you

Stupid religion.

sing it matt.

[stebo0728]

Interesting Side Note: "Separation of Church and State" appears no where in either the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. The Establishment Clause is the ONLY thing that dabbles in the matter. And it was designed to keep any one religion from hi-jacking our government system. If you want to use the Establishment Clause as a means of introducing the notion of separation, understand this: The Establishment Clause was only designed to keep religion from corrupting government, it was NEVER designed to give government any jurisdiction over religion whatsoever, with exception of upholding law.

[audtatious]

sing it matt.

Good thing I have a wonderful voice

[audtatious]

Interesting Side Note: "Separation of Church and State" appears no where in either the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. The Establishment Clause is the ONLY thing that dabbles in the matter. And it was designed to keep any one religion from hi-jacking our government system. If you want to use the Establishment Clause as a means of introducing the notion of separation, understand this: The Establishment Clause was only designed to keep religion from corrupting government, it was NEVER designed to give government any jurisdiction over religion whatsoever, with exception of upholding law.

Oh, stop it. Let the anti-religious sleep better at night

[stebo0728]

Interesting Side Note: "Separation of Church and State" appears no where in either the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. The Establishment Clause is the ONLY thing that dabbles in the matter. And it was designed to keep any one religion from hi-jacking our government system. If you want to use the Establishment Clause as a means of introducing the notion of separation, understand this: The Establishment Clause was only designed to keep religion from corrupting government, it was NEVER designed to give government any jurisdiction over religion whatsoever, with exception of upholding law.

Oh, stop it. Let the anti-religious sleep better at night

Sorry, I have insomnia, I dont want anyone else sleeping either

[wingFeather]

The sacrament of marriage has been gone for years. The divorce rate in America is what, 75%?

The divorce rate in America is 41%. This number is so high because it includes non-religious people "married" by the government, not because God's marriage is flawed.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Let's fix marriage rather than make it worse. Get the government out of marriage & return it to the church. The government can offer civil unions if it wants, but marriage is between a man, woman and God.

[HashiriyaS14]

Marriage should go away, from a legal standpoint.

Everyone, gay and straight, should have "Civil Unions", all equal in the eyes of the law. Marriage should be something you do in your own church/synagogue/whatever, purely private, having nothing whatsoever to do with the laws and the state.


(IMO)

[WDRacing]

Marriage should go away, from a legal standpoint.

Everyone, gay and straight, should have "Civil Unions", all equal in the eyes of the law. Marriage should be something you do in your own church/synagogue/whatever, purely private, having nothing whatsoever to do with the laws and the state.


(IMO)

That's a pretty decent idea.

[IBCoupe]

...[the Establishment Clause] was NEVER designed to give government any jurisdiction over religion whatsoever, with exception of upholding law.

Is there anyone actually suggesting otherwise?

Of course government can't regulate your religion. No one, to my knowledge, is supposing it can. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing against. The framers were enlightenment deists, not "Christians" in the sense that those who care about it argue. They had qualms about letting the Church run the government, and took steps to keep it from doing so. But they were also very concerned about government having too much control over what you could say and think - remember, that's part of why they ditched the King. That's why the "Separation of Church and State" works both ways.

In any event, we are not a nation founded upon "Judeo-Christian" values, and even if we were, our Constitution would preclude us from caring about that when we're talking about our laws.

[IBCoupe]

Marriage should go away, from a legal standpoint.

Everyone, gay and straight, should have "Civil Unions", all equal in the eyes of the law. Marriage should be something you do in your own church/synagogue/whatever, purely private, having nothing whatsoever to do with the laws and the state.


(IMO)

That's a pretty decent idea.

It is, except that at this point our society has pretty much ingrained "marriage" into our common vocabulary. The kinds of benefits one receives go beyond government services, and into the realm of private contracts - like insurance and hospital policy, for example. It's just much easier to keep using the same word and to remind Churches that they don't have to marry any two people that they don't want to.

By keeping that in mind, we realize that they're just pissing in cheerios for nothing.

[audtatious]

Seems with the upcoming tax laws you will be penalized more if filing married. Guess it depends on the circumstances.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Marriage should go away, from a legal standpoint.

Everyone, gay and straight, should have "Civil Unions", all equal in the eyes of the law. Marriage should be something you do in your own church/synagogue/whatever, purely private, having nothing whatsoever to do with the laws and the state.


(IMO)

What? Who says the religious crazies get to have a monopoly on the word? Marriage isn't even a Christian-exclusive term...it was here way before Christianity. Religion only incorporated the concept of a stable partnership into their teachings, marriage did not come from religion. So I really don't get what all this argument is about. Just because your church teaches you that it's between a man and a woman does not mean you get to spoil it for everyone else.

[audtatious]

What ^^^ said, and there were gay animals on the planet WAY before humans so gays should be the ones to get any benefits first.

Sheesh.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

What ^^^ said, and there were gay animals on the planet WAY before humans so gays should be the ones to get any benefits first.

Sheesh.

I find no problems with this reasoning.

[IBCoupe]

Seems with the upcoming tax laws you will be penalized more if filing married. Guess it depends on the circumstances.

Always has. There's a story behind it that I was told in Federal Income Tax Law Class.

So, for a while, rich people looked for ways to minimize their taxes, and one way to try to do it was to spread out your income between you and your spouse. Two people making $50,000 will pay less in taxes than one person making $100,000, after all. But the IRS and the Courts agreed that this wasn't kosher - your income was your income, after all.

But some States, like Washington and Pennsylvania (but not originally California) were "community property" states, which said that the income of one spouse was to be income of the household. That meant that they effectively did get the 50/50 split. The Courts told the IRS that, because this was the State of Washington's choice, and not the taxpayer's, the taxpayer couldn't be held accountable for it, and that the 50/50 split was fine. Some states, like Oklahoma, tried to institute an optional "community property" law, where you could choose your income calculation method. But the Courts sided with the IRS because the elective nature of the OK law smacked of tax avoidance.

So, Truman, after being elected in 1948, went on to institute joint returns for federal income tax, because community property was super popular politics (especially among the wealthy), and it says that a married couple pays twice as much tax as a single person with half the cash income.

So, let me chart this out for you. Pre-Truman:
Single person with $10,000 income = $1,000 tax.
Single person with $20,000 income = $3,000 tax.
Married person (with a deadbeat spouse) with $20,000 income = $3,000 tax.

Post-Truman:
Single person with $10,000 income = $1,000 tax.
Single person with $20,000 income = $3,000 tax.
Married person (with deadbeat spouse) with $20,000 income = $2,000 tax.

So you can see that there was (until 1969) a major incentive to be married. If I make $150,000 and my wife makes $25,000 income, we would have paid taxes, as a couple, equal to what two people making $87,500 would have paid. If this keeps any of the cash from going up into a tax bracket where it would have been before, we've come out on top.

But, as you might have guessed, this changed a bit, and some of you might be familiar with married couples who don't get that benefit (they probably make about the same amount of cash). If there's an incentive for getting married, then it follows that there's somewhat of a penalty for failing to do so, right? Well, Vivian Kellers understood this, and being that after WWII there was a bit of a shortage of eligible men to marry, this penalty became something women couldn't really account for. So she went after the government, and got the individual rates down. But Congress didn't alter the married couple rates in the same way, so now, in some cases it's not in a couple's best interest to be married.

Let me illustrate. According to today's tables:
- A couple with $100,000 of taxable income, by whatever combination, pays $23,528.00 in federal income taxes.
- A married couple, each making $50,000 but filing separately, pays a combined $23,528.00 in federal income taxes, the same as filing jointly.
- Two single individuals, each making $50,000, would pay a combined $22,254.00 in federal income taxes, or $1,274 less than they would have paid as a married couple.

So obviously, being married when two people make roughly the same amount of money is not a benefit, as far as taxes are concerned. But if we're talking about two very different incomes, say $80,000 and $20,000, it's a very different story.
- A couple with $100,000 of taxable income will still pay $23,528.00 in federal income taxes.
- If they were not married, that couple would send to the government a combined $24,449, or $921 more.
- If they were married but filing separately, they would pay a combined $26,165.75, or $2,637.75 more than if they were filing jointly.

In short: unless you've got a lot of individually deductible items and you plan to itemize (like if you've got a s***-ton of uncompensated medical expenses), it's not worth it to ever file separately. Most people who do don't even do it for that reason: it's because they're getting a divorce and they don't want their soon-to-be-ex-spouse to know how much cash they bring home.

Anyways, I'm not sure what the new bill would do, but I do know how it stands today - some people are penalized for getting married. By the way, this was awesome review for my tax final on Wednesday. Any more questions? Fringe Benefits? Prizes? Capital Gains?

[audtatious]

Actually, last year was the first year my wife and I filed joint as it made sense. Prior years we got more of our money back by filing married/separate. Unfortunately, now that we have filed joint we are stuck there.

Yeah, I don't know how the new bill will change things either. One way the Gov can look at marriage is that the married couple have an unfair advantage over an individual as "by law" they have each others income to use as additional support in case they lose a job or whatever, whereas a single individual would be outta luck. So....You have a married couple making $50k together (20k wife, 30k husband) vs. a single person making $50k. Should the wife lose her job the married couple still has income but should the single person lose their job they are screwed. Thus, in this case, the married couple have a "marriage benefit" and should pay more in taxes. I don't see things this way but I have heard others who do. I think it's BS.

At this point, why would people want to get married?

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

At this point, why would people want to get married?

Because they'll got to Hell if they don't?

[IBCoupe]

Actually, last year was the first year my wife and I filed joint as it made sense. Prior years we got more of our money back by filing married/separate. Unfortunately, now that we have filed joint we are stuck there.

How so? Lots of deductibles on one side or the other? And you can file separately any time; you don't have to file joint from now on - simply don't elect to file a joint return, and you won't.

Yeah, I don't know how the new bill will change things either. One way the Gov can look at marriage is that the married couple have an unfair advantage over an individual as "by law" they have each others income to use as additional support in case they lose a job or whatever, whereas a single individual would be outta luck. So....You have a married couple making $50k together (20k wife, 30k husband) vs. a single person making $50k. Should the wife lose her job the married couple still has income but should the single person lose their job they are screwed. Thus, in this case, the married couple have a "marriage benefit" and should pay more in taxes. I don't see things this way but I have heard others who do. I think it's BS.

I'm trying really hard to follow this, and it may just be that I'm tired. There's all kinds of imputed income that we don't tax, and the kind of marriage benefit you're illustrating here seems like even more of a stretch. I haven't seen anything in the tax code that tries to tax that kind of thing, and I don't see how the government would be able to. I don't doubt that you've run into people who suggest that this is plausible, but I side with you: not only is it crap, but it's not very likely.

At this point, why would people want to get married?

Honestly, I don't worry about that. If the $1000 or so more (at middle-class income levels) that you'd pay in taxes per year is enough to keep you from marrying the person you would otherwise marry, I might suggest that you explore counseling to make sure that you should be getting married in the first place. Taxes shouldn't be your driving factor in that decision, and if it is, maybe you might want to look at the impacts on other factors, like personal happiness, devotion, and the possibility of raising children together, as it might be a sign.

[audtatious]

How so? Lots of deductibles on one side or the other? And you can file separately any time; you don't have to file joint from now on - simply don't elect to file a joint return, and you won't.

Depends on viable deductions. When you make above a set amount there are some deductions you can't use. My wife was able to get additional deductions filing separate which she can't get now, like child tax credits and such. Now that her salary is over those levels it does not really matter.

I'm trying really hard to follow this, and it may just be that I'm tired. There's all kinds of imputed income that we don't tax, and the kind of marriage benefit you're illustrating here seems like even more of a stretch. I haven't seen anything in the tax code that tries to tax that kind of thing, and I don't see how the government would be able to. I don't doubt that you've run into people who suggest that this is plausible, but I side with you: not only is it crap, but it's not very likely.

Not very likely means nothing today. 20 years ago I would not have thought a lot of things would be likely. Lots of politicians are striving to give more and more to the "struggling" single person these days.

Honestly, I don't worry about that. If the $1000 or so more (at middle-class income levels) that you'd pay in taxes per year is enough to keep you from marrying the person you would otherwise marry, I might suggest that you explore counseling to make sure that you should be getting married in the first place. Taxes shouldn't be your driving factor in that decision, and if it is, maybe you might want to look at the impacts on other factors, like personal happiness, devotion, and the possibility of raising children together, as it might be a sign.

I thought people only got married so they can have tax breaks and such, it's what the gay rights organizations seem to think
Yes, I trolled that one.