• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

roguenuke said:
The military currently roots out fraudulant marriages. They are one of the few government agencies that do (they may be one of the few that legally can given privacy rights). Male/female couples now hook up in marriage for bennies. They are generally referred to as "contract marriages". Now, it is rare because most people figure they either get BAH anyway (most are eligible by E-5 or E-6, depending on the branch) or they figure its not worth the risk since the person could always claim a legitimate marriage and take good portions of your money from a divorce. That little bit of BAH (which goes to your housing costs anyway, particularly if you weren't eligible for BAH prior to the marriage since most commands require E-5 and below that are married to live in housing and housing gets all of your BAH automatically) is nothing compared to being tied down in a marriage you have to pretend to. Plus, you can get into trouble for adultery if you are married in such a marriage and sleeping with other people and caught. Doing this sort of thing with someone of the same sex would be even more risky since they could easily look and see how many people knew the person or suspected they were gay (most didn't exactly hide it) prior to the marriage. It would look mighty suspicious.
Click to expand...

ty for the info
 
Texashonor said:
filing single
10% on taxable income from $0 to $9,075, plus
15% on taxable income over $9,075 to $36,900, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,900 to $89,350, plus
28% on taxable income over $89,350 to $186,350, plus
33% on taxable income over $186,350 to $405,100, plus
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $406,750.

filing married
10% on taxable income from $0 to $18,150, plus
15% on taxable income over $18,150 to $73,800, plus
25% on taxable income over $73,800 to $148,850, plus
28% on taxable income over $148,850 to $226,850, plus
33% on taxable income over $226,850 to $405,100, plus
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $457,600, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $457,600.

in the tax system you get penalized for being married 2 single people could file 406,749 x 2 people = $813,498 before they reached the top tax bracket where as it is only $457,600 when you file together so there is a disadvantage. The numbers at the bottom of the tax bracket are simply multiplied. 9,075 x 2 = $18,150. So the bottom of the tax bracket doesn't benefit at all and at the top of the tax bracket are at a disadvantage. We can argue any one point but this one is an obvious one chose 1 of your bullets and ill tell you why it isn't a benefit.
Click to expand...

Some people are penalized, some aren't. It is depends on the circumstances of the couple. I believe I read one where the major issues come when there are medical bills or other things that one has that the other doesn't and usually it involves both working where filing separately is better.

Is Filing Taxes Jointly a Good Idea? - ABC News

The Marriage Tax Penalty

The other benefits though for many people generally make up for any tax penalties they face for their marriage.
 
Paschendale said:
One thing that is actually really bothering me about a lot of these SSM cases is that they are holding that SSM bans don't meet the rational basis test. They are NOT holding that SSM is subject to strict scrutiny the way that interracial marriage is under Loving v Virginia. It's a way of hedging their bets and it's preventing any of these decisions from having national implications. The case that truly secures equality for sexual orientations will have to extend greater constitutional protection than rational basis. These cases are obviously a step in the right direction, but some judge is going to have to address the level of constitutional scrutiny that SSM should have before this will be settled.
Click to expand...

See, I don't think after the Zablocki (I think it was this one) decision that they could rule it under strict scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny sure, since the restriction is sex-based that means it should fall under intermediate scrutiny. But the SCOTUS even said that the Appeals Court in Zablocki got the decision wrong for striking it down under strict scrutiny but that the law itself didn't even meet the rational basis test anyway.
 
Shadow Serious said:
1. The problem is that marriage has religious elements in general though not in a specific case. Perhaps the legal marriage should not have such but I think that is the underlying assumption. Only civil marriages conducted before jurist or justice of the peace have no religious element. Only civil marriages themselves would religion be considered meaningless.

What I think is spurious is extra-constitutional reasonings to make such decisions.

That which is forced on States was just a dependent clause to clarify what the dominant clause was talking about.

That which the States are not willing to accept is just what is occurring in other States.
Click to expand...

No marriage only has religious elements to those who choose them. Religion does not own marriage. It started out as a social contract from the beginning, then in many places religion got involved. But no one in the US is required to have anything religious within their marriage. I don't. My marriage is religion free. My husband and I have our own beliefs and leave it at that. We had a Navy wife perform our wedding, which to us was a commitment ceremony to each other in front of our family and friends and a good party and family meetup time.

There is nothing "extra-constitutional" about using the EPC in the case of marriage. It was written to protect people from state laws restricting the people unfairly or being used to treat people differently without any state interest being served in that unequal treatment.
 
Texashonor said:
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

first one is a hospital rule not a Federal law and not all hospitals adhere to those rules that is an assumption not a fact.

•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Just as you can assign someone other then your spouse to make medical decisions for you so can you also have a legal document that gives someone the ability to make medical decisions if you are incapable of doing so yourself. So marriage is not needed to be allowed to make these decisions.
Click to expand...

Having to draw up an extra legal document to name your mate as your medical decision maker is part of the issue here. Legal spouses do not have to do that, but two people of the same sex are unable to become legal spouses due solely to their relative sexes.
 
Texashonor said:
@ Deuce

there are not as many Pros as there are Cons simple fact and the second argument goes to if you agree with Gays then how can you make Polygamy illegal. as long as things are consensual then why have them illegal?
Click to expand...

You need to provide exactly what the "cons" of allowing same sex couples would be.

Polygamy has absolutely no more chance of being legalized with same sex marriage legal than without. The same legal arguments exist for polygamists couples now as would exist with same sex couples allowed to marry. That is a slippery slope argument and invalid to actual cons that you may be able to associate with same sex couples being allowed to legally marry.
 
Texashonor said:
there can be a list just as you posted but here are the ones id like to debate.

1) If Gay marriage were legalized then if a church were to deny a marriage because it was against there beliefs then they would lose there "nonprofit" business license.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Name one Church that has lost their "nonprofit" status for any of the following:

1. Refusing to marry an interracial couple,

2. Refusing to marry an interfaith couple,

3. Refusing to marry a couple where one (or both) of the participants were divirced against the doctrines of that Chruch,

4. Since Same-sex Civil Marraige has existed for about 10-years in this country, one Church that has lost its "nonprofit" status for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.

Texashonor said:
2) In a military sense if you allowed gays to marry people would all be married to be allowed off post housing and BAH along with many other things which then needs to be changed and it couldn't be just changed for gays it would restructure the entire format of BaH and make it less accessible to the military as a whole.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you tried to say but, speaking as a miitary retiree... No changes are needed to BAH formats, get married, provide proof of a Civil Marriage and qualify.



>>>>
 
Texashonor said:
filing single
10% on taxable income from $0 to $9,075, plus
15% on taxable income over $9,075 to $36,900, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,900 to $89,350, plus
28% on taxable income over $89,350 to $186,350, plus
33% on taxable income over $186,350 to $405,100, plus
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $406,750.

filing married
10% on taxable income from $0 to $18,150, plus
15% on taxable income over $18,150 to $73,800, plus
25% on taxable income over $73,800 to $148,850, plus
28% on taxable income over $148,850 to $226,850, plus
33% on taxable income over $226,850 to $405,100, plus
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $457,600, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $457,600.

in the tax system you get penalized for being married 2 single people could file 406,749 x 2 people = $813,498 before they reached the top tax bracket where as it is only $457,600 when you file together so there is a disadvantage. The numbers at the bottom of the tax bracket are simply multiplied. 9,075 x 2 = $18,150. So the bottom of the tax bracket doesn't benefit at all and at the top of the tax bracket are at a disadvantage. We can argue any one point but this one is an obvious one chose 1 of your bullets and ill tell you why it isn't a benefit.
Click to expand...

That's cool, that's cool. I'm for making it fair. And by that I mean, you also give up child tax credits, you give up discounted rates on things like mortgages, single people are not charged for schooling your children, etc. Done and done.
 
Ikari said:
That's cool, that's cool. I'm for making it fair. And by that I mean, you also give up child tax credits, you give up discounted rates on things like mortgages, single people are not charged for schooling your children, etc. Done and done.
Click to expand...

Well Politics is all about Compromise and tho you are saying that a gay person should have "equality" and gays try to stretch that into something as if they drink at a different water fountain or go to different schools. The simple fact and premise or this debate is that Gays want Federal and state financial benefits of being married. So equality meaning equal I would be more willing to remove all benefits that Heterosexual couples receive from the government then opening the door to allow anyone to abuse the system. Thus creating a equal state of being and also helping our financial state as Americans, due to our current debt.

Doing this would help our economic crisis we have in america as well as creating and absolute state of "equality" that you speak of.
 
Texashonor said:
Well Politics is all about Compromise and tho you are saying that a gay person should have "equality" and gays try to stretch that into something as if they drink at a different water fountain or go to different schools. The simple fact and premise or this debate is that Gays want Federal and state financial benefits of being married. So equality meaning equal I would be more willing to remove all benefits that Heterosexual couples receive from the government then opening the door to allow anyone to abuse the system. Thus creating a equal state of being and also helping our financial state as Americans, due to our current debt.

Doing this would help our economic crisis we have in america as well as creating and absolute state of "equality" that you speak of.
Click to expand...

How would homosexuals abuse it any more than heterosexuals?
 
Texashonor said:
@ Deuce

there are not as many Pros as there are Cons simple fact and the second argument goes to if you agree with Gays then how can you make Polygamy illegal. as long as things are consensual then why have them illegal?
Click to expand...

You need to identify those Cons. Tell me what specific harm is actually caused to anyone.

Second, if no harm can be identified for polygamy then you are absolutely right, it should be legal. Consensual adults should be able to enter legal contracts with each other. I morally disapprove of polygamy, but that disapproval is not grounds alone to make it illegal. If my moral disapproval were enough, Justin Bieber concerts would be illegal.
 
Texashonor said:
Well Politics is all about Compromise and tho you are saying that a gay person should have "equality" and gays try to stretch that into something as if they drink at a different water fountain or go to different schools. The simple fact and premise or this debate is that Gays want Federal and state financial benefits of being married. So equality meaning equal I would be more willing to remove all benefits that Heterosexual couples receive from the government then opening the door to allow anyone to abuse the system. Thus creating a equal state of being and also helping our financial state as Americans, due to our current debt.

Doing this would help our economic crisis we have in america as well as creating and absolute state of "equality" that you speak of.
Click to expand...

This is just ridiculous. We have studies that show that the country benefits financially from marriages, all 2 person marriages (can't really determine anything about more than 2 people for this country and economic impact). In fact, they did an analysis on this years ago and determined that legalizing same sex marriage would increase tax revenue slightly.

Why Marriage Equality Is Good For The Economy And The Budget
8 Ways Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Is Good For The Economy
Economic Impact of Same-Sex Marriage
Same-sex marriage ruling: Financial impact - Jun. 26, 2013

Most of the benefits are completely personal and cost no one else.

The same argument you are (wrongfully) trying to make here could have been used back in 1968 against legalizing interracial marriages.

But to answer your last question, it in no way harms the "economic crisis" and in fact just slightly benefits it with no provable harm. In fact, I doubt you could find a single reputable source out there that would tell you that same sex marriage would be anything but good for our economy, even if it is just a little bit.
 
Texashonor said:
Because it is true we can sit here and debate it all you want that's why i'm here, you can argue anything such as why cant we marry animals or why cant we have concubines... everything under the sun can be can be justifiable but again is comes to principle why do gay want to be "married" you have brought up a few things that we have broken down and seen no advantage or a separate route that can be taken to obtain the same thing in a manner that is as easy or easier then being married.
Click to expand...

Why do heterosexuals want to be married? If we allow heterosexual marriage we have to allow child marriage.
 
Boo Radley said:
How would homosexuals abuse it any more than heterosexuals?
Click to expand...

you open the door for allowing people to marry there best friend for the benefits not for actually being gay homo sexuality is such a minority... that for the benefits that would come to homosexuals is out weighed by the negatives, so I stick to my above noted compromise to create equality.
 
Texashonor said:
Well Politics is all about Compromise and tho you are saying that a gay person should have "equality" and gays try to stretch that into something as if they drink at a different water fountain or go to different schools. The simple fact and premise or this debate is that Gays want Federal and state financial benefits of being married. So equality meaning equal I would be more willing to remove all benefits that Heterosexual couples receive from the government then opening the door to allow anyone to abuse the system. Thus creating a equal state of being and also helping our financial state as Americans, due to our current debt.

Doing this would help our economic crisis we have in america as well as creating and absolute state of "equality" that you speak of.
Click to expand...

Holy **** literally being so mad that gay people might get tax benefits that he wants to get rid of them for everyone. Now that's s a grade-A childish hissy fit right there.

Face it: you never once gave a crap about people "abusing" the benefits of marriage until gay people started to get those benefits.

You still have not named a single bit of harm caused by two dudes getting married.
 
roguenuke said:
See, I don't think after the Zablocki (I think it was this one) decision that they could rule it under strict scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny sure, since the restriction is sex-based that means it should fall under intermediate scrutiny. But the SCOTUS even said that the Appeals Court in Zablocki got the decision wrong for striking it down under strict scrutiny but that the law itself didn't even meet the rational basis test anyway.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting idea, but Zablocki is pretty tangential to marriage cases, as opposed to Loving and Griswold, which protected marriage and marital privacy with strict scrutiny, and Lawrence, which eschews the more common forms of scrutiny, but most resembles strict.

Either way, I think the big thing that will be necessary to really protect SSM is for it to be afforded the same level of constitutional protections that heterosexual marriage enjoys. Rational basis simply won't cut it, and I think that will be the real moment when the debate comes to an end.
 
Texashonor said:
you open the door for allowing people to marry there best friend for the benefits not for actually being gay homo sexuality is such a minority... that for the benefits that would come to homosexuals is out weighed by the negatives, so I stick to my above noted compromise to create equality.
Click to expand...

Heteros do that now. I guess no more marriage for anyone.

You do know that movie was a comedy, right?
 
Texashonor said:
you open the door for allowing people to marry there best friend for the benefits not for actually being gay homo sexuality is such a minority... that for the benefits that would come to homosexuals is out weighed by the negatives, so I stick to my above noted compromise to create equality.
Click to expand...

Only a minority of people own assault rifles, so that should be illegal.
 
Everything being said is debating what is more beneficial. the simple logical fact is you cant have reduced taxes and more government handouts and at the same time also have more taxes for the government and less government spending. So I will just again say the compromise would be taking away any benefits that heterosexuals have in order to provide equality. it may not be what you want to create equality but is something that I am wiling to compromise on to make sure homosexuals are equal.
 
Texashonor said:
you open the door for allowing people to marry there best friend for the benefits not for actually being gay homo sexuality is such a minority... that for the benefits that would come to homosexuals is out weighed by the negatives, so I stick to my above noted compromise to create equality.
Click to expand...

That door is already completely open (and legal even) now by just allowing opposite sex couples to marry. Or are you going to claim that no one ever gets married now just for some benefits? We have movies where that is the very premise of the movie (of course normally the guy or gal ends up finding their love but still). The only difference is that I can have my pick of my guy friends to marry to get those benefits whereas I can't marry my best friend just because she is a woman. I love her much more than I do any guys I consider friends but I'm willing to bet some would marry me (if I weren't already married) just to get some of these "benefits" that you are claiming.

BTW, there are very few monetary benefits to marriage in comparison to the legal benefits of marriage, which really only matter to most people when they actually care for that person.
 
Texashonor said:
you open the door for allowing people to marry there best friend for the benefits not for actually being gay homo sexuality is such a minority... that for the benefits that would come to homosexuals is out weighed by the negatives, so I stick to my above noted compromise to create equality.
Click to expand...

That door was always open. Marriages for green cards, or to get your opposite sex friend on your insurance policy, or additional military benefits. If people taking advantage of the system were such a concern, then marriage would have been dropped decades ago.

The really funny thing is, if I don't get married I can claim a whole host of government benefits as a non working single mom. If I am married I have to claim my spouses income, and would not qualify. So, you know what? Have it your way. Ban me from marrying my fiancee, and we will both take advantage of EVERY SINGLE governmnet welfare benefit there is, since legally we are both single mothers.
 
Texashonor said:
you open the door for allowing people to marry there best friend for the benefits not for actually being gay homo sexuality is such a minority... that for the benefits that would come to homosexuals is out weighed by the negatives, so I stick to my above noted compromise to create equality.
Click to expand...

um cant you just marry some one for the benefits of marriage now? you don't have to be hetero or homo sexual to get married to some one of the other or the same gender

not seeing the con hear'
though your instance that we cant have gay marriage because it makes marriage to popular is interesting
 
Texashonor said:
Everything being said is debating what is more beneficial. the simple logical fact is you cant have reduced taxes and more government handouts and at the same time also have more taxes for the government and less government spending. So I will just again say the compromise would be taking away any benefits that heterosexuals have in order to provide equality. it may not be what you want to create equality but is something that I am wiling to compromise on to make sure homosexuals are equal.
Click to expand...

Except you fail to recognize that there exists a marriage penalty for some marriages that makes up for almost any money that other couples get from tax breaks in their marriage and that weddings and marriages themselves provide extra revenue to numerous businesses that then pay taxes for that. Married people tend to be more responsible than single people, meaning they are more likely to provide for themselves/each other, rather than relying on others to provide for them. Married people tend to buy larger ticket items together, such as houses rather than living in apartments. This means multiple more revenue streams for the state. The sexes/genders of those involved in the marriages doesn't change these facts.

Those links I provided plus so many more explain these things much better and why your logic fails. You are thinking of this way too simplistically, likely because you don't (for whatever real reason) don't want same sex couples to get married and it really has nothing to do with this feigned concern for the economic or financial impact of allowing same sex marriage.
 
wolfsgirl said:
That door was always open. Marriages for green cards, or to get your opposite sex friend on your insurance policy, or additional military benefits. If people taking advantage of the system were such a concern, then marriage would have been dropped decades ago.

The really funny thing is, if I don't get married I can claim a whole host of government benefits as a non working single mom. If I am married I have to claim my spouses income, and would not qualify. So, you know what? Have it your way. Ban me from marrying my fiancee, and we will both take advantage of EVERY SINGLE governmnet welfare benefit there is, since legally we are both single mothers.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that some couple tried this (and in fact got away with it for years) up in Washington. The woman claimed she was a single mother renting part of a house (a rather large house) from this man (who was claimed to be just her landlord and nothing more) in Washington state. The state paid her rent and some utilities plus she got extras. The state eventually found out that she was in fact married to the man she was "renting" from and that they had defrauded the government out of millions (that I believe they have to pay back, I know they got into major trouble for it). Such a scam though would easily work if the couple simply doesn't get married. They could even set up private contracts to cover some of the stuff done through marriage.
 
wolfsgirl said:
That door was always open. Marriages for green cards, or to get your opposite sex friend on your insurance policy, or additional military benefits. If people taking advantage of the system were such a concern, then marriage would have been dropped decades ago.

The really funny thing is, if I don't get married I can claim a whole host of government benefits as a non working single mom. If I am married I have to claim my spouses income, and would not qualify. So, you know what? Have it your way. Ban me from marrying my fiancee, and we will both take advantage of EVERY SINGLE governmnet welfare benefit there is, since legally we are both single mothers.
Click to expand...

your statement is exactly why I would take away benefits, people marry now days for the strict financial benefits. In a free society people should not be dependent on the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom