• 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!

More Federal Privileges to Extend to Same-Sex Couples

Again, no it doesn't. Not enforcing pot laws does not make pot legal. Not to mention it creates a state of lack of uniform enforcement.

Not the same thing as marriage laws in any way, shape, or form. We are talking about enforcement that is done based solely on specific traits of people. Plus, one is civil laws, the other criminal laws. Enforcement of marriage laws is about recognition of marriage. Enforcement of pot laws is about punishment for someone for doing something wrong. Two different things.
 
Not the same thing as marriage laws in any way, shape, or form. We are talking about enforcement that is done based solely on specific traits of people. Plus, one is civil laws, the other criminal laws. Enforcement of marriage laws is about recognition of marriage. Enforcement of pot laws is about punishment for someone for doing something wrong. Two different things.

Section 3 may have been nuked by the SCOTUS, but Section 2 was left standing:

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, clearing the way for same-sex couples legally married at the state level to receive federal marriage benefits. But Section 2 of DOMA remains in effect. It says: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
 
No but you can have a joint bank account, you can buy a home jointly ......

Don't talk to me about taxes because I'm an "accountant" well I was - I don't do it anymore.


You would think that someone that claims they were an "accountant" would know that a joint bank account does not relieve the individuals on that account from reporting the income that was deposited in that account - and of course taxes are based on income not deposits and that if such an account is used to tranfer money from one individual to another that such tranfers over (IIRC) $14,000 as of 2013 would then be considred a gift and therefore subject to a Gift Tax.

Something that does not apply to Civilly Married couples. Gender no longer matters in that case now since DOMA Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional and Civilly Married couples (of all genders) fall under Federal Tax laws.



>>>>
 
Last edited:
Section 3 may have been nuked by the SCOTUS, but Section 2 was left standing:

Section 2 is still standing and has no bearing on whether the federal government recognizes the marriages or not though. Whether the state recognizes the marriage really hasn't stopped the federal government from recognizing a marriage. There has never really been an issue before states simply don't care enough to search into other marriages until an issue arises or one of the two within the marriage challenge the marriage. They simply see a valid marriage license from a state and "ta da" couple recognized as married. This is even how it worked in the military. All I had to do was show a valid marriage license, stamped by any state, not the one I lived in at the time of the marriage.
 
Section 3 may have been nuked by the SCOTUS, but Section 2 was left standing:

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, clearing the way for same-sex couples legally married at the state level to receive federal marriage benefits. But Section 2 of DOMA remains in effect. It says: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”


You may want to check the Thread Title and OP: "More Federal Privileges to Extend to Same-Sex Couples".


The case in your quote was United States v. Windsor and had to do with Federal recognition, not the States.


>>>>
 
You would think that someone that claims they were an "accountant" would know that a joint bank account does not relieve the individuals on that account from reporting the income that was deposited in that account - and of course taxes are based on income not deposits and that if such an account is used to tranfer money from one individual to another that such tranfers over (IIRC) $14,000 as of 2013 would then be considred a gift and therefore subject to a Gift Tax.

Something that does not apply to Civilly Married couples. Gender no longer matters in that case now since DOMA Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional and Civilly Married couples (of all genders) fall under Federal Tax laws.



>>>>

If it matters I do forensic accounting.
 
People have the right to criticize Christians. It's that first amendment thing.

People particularly have the right to criticize Christians who actively work to suppress the civil rights of others.

People who think we all hate gay people are ignorant. It is no different than saying all Muslims are terrorists.
 
You would think that someone that claims they were an "accountant" would know that a joint bank account does not relieve the individuals on that account from reporting the income that was deposited in that account - and of course taxes are based on income not deposits and that if such an account is used to tranfer money from one individual to another that such tranfers over (IIRC) $14,000 as of 2013 would then be considred a gift and therefore subject to a Gift Tax.

Something that does not apply to Civilly Married couples. Gender no longer matters in that case now since DOMA Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional and Civilly Married couples (of all genders) fall under Federal Tax laws.



>>>>
) I'm a forensic accountant and B).......
 
People who think we all hate gay people are ignorant. It is no different than saying all Muslims are terrorists.

Nobody said that all Christians hate gay people.
 
GTFO Dude. You know damn well we have people here who claim to want equal treatment for all while blocking Christian conservatives as a single entity.
 
correct in fact the majority support equal rights for gays

Of course, according to founder of the prominent conservative blog Redstate.com, former CNN and current Fox News contributor Erick Erickson, Christians who support equal rights for gays aren't real Christians.

f you want to make some sort of argument about sin, please stop embarrassing yourself by trying to make it Levitical. And please understand that when you trot out the shibboleths of the damned, actual Christians immediately recognize your ignorance and start praying for your soul.

One last note on this. For those of you who claim to be a Christian who worship your own personal Jesus instead of the real one — many of you too rely on the shibboleths of the damned and those of us committed to the gospel really must wonder if you’re sincerely a Christian or just posing as one out of some sense of tradition, standing in your community, or just maliciously posing to undermine the faith.

And if at this point you think I’m judging you and crying about it, let me go on and say you really aren’t a Christian or, more charitably, you are too ignorant of your faith to have standing in these cases.
 
Of course, according to founder of the prominent conservative blog Redstate.com, former CNN and current Fox News contributor Erick Erickson, Christians who support equal rights for gays aren't real Christians.

of course

no different then the loons around here that argue who is really pro-life and who isnt

you have people that are personally pro-life but understand you should be allowed to do what you want and their choice shouldn't be forced on you

not good enough for some

then you have the ones that want it mostly banned accept for life of mother and rape

thats not even good enough for some unless its complete y banned and they say the other groups arent really pro-life


all crap and made up
 
Nope, there's a middle step, Congress must then redefine federal marriage in accordance with the SCOTUS decision. There is nothing for the JD to interpret. Those regulations that depend upon Section 3 of DOMA no longer exist, are void constitutionally.

Otherwise we'd have legislation from the bench, something the framers abhorred entirely. Oh wait...:shock:


It sounds to me like your problem is with the SCOTUS and not the Justice Department. If you take issue with the powers of judicial review that have been in place since 1803 then amend the Constitution to strip that power from the SCOTUS.
 
Allowing couples tax benefits is special treatment.

True, but then that isn't going to change. So allowing gay couples that are married the same right as heterosexual married couples is only logical. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the feds and the state getting involved with marriage.
 
Allowing couples tax benefits is special treatment.

It is, and denying those benefits on the basis of gender is unconstitutional.

"Single" isn't a protected classification, but you are free to raise a court case on the matter.
 
Section 3 may have been nuked by the SCOTUS, but Section 2 was left standing:

Yes, a state does not currently have to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

But a state can choose to recognize them.
 
GTFO Dude. You know damn well we have people here who claim to want equal treatment for all while blocking Christian conservatives as a single entity.

What do you mean "blocking Christian conservatives as a single entity?" Is there some equal treatment for Christians you think people want to deny?
 
GTFO Dude. You know damn well we have people here who claim to want equal treatment for all while blocking Christian conservatives as a single entity.

blocking how?
 
It sounds to me like your problem is with the SCOTUS and not the Justice Department. If you take issue with the powers of judicial review that have been in place since 1803 then amend the Constitution to strip that power from the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS never had the power constitutionally to begin with. They took the power to themselves despite that the founders themselves said they did not have such a grant.
 
Gay marriage makes my Vegas marriage to Britney Spears seem hollow now. Damn gays, destroying my sanctity.
 
Blocking. Batching. Considering them all the same and identifying them as such.

Specific examples? Or is this just pick out Rush Limbaugh rhetoric day?
 
Back
Top Bottom