Thread: Should legally married same sex couples recieve federal benefits?

Regardless of how you feel about same sex marriage, one thing is true, ins some states it is legal. While most states have banned the practice, there is half a dozen states in which same sex marriage is recognized.

That being said, the federal government established the Defense of Marriage Act during Clinton's administration which bans the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages in states, even if those states legalize same sex marriage.

A major conservative principle is state's rights. When the federal government denies federal marriage benefits to same sex couples married in states that have legalized same sex marriage, they trample on those state's rights to define marriage as they please.

Recently a federal appeals court struck down unanimously the part of DOMA which restricts the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages in states in which the practice is legal.

Gay marriage fight likely heads to high court - BostonHerald.com

This issue is now headed directly to the Supreme Court.

I am curious. If I am legally married in my state to a same sex partner, then why shouldn't I receive federal benefits?

I'd rather see legally married hetero couples lose theirs.

Originally Posted by Gipper

I'd rather see legally married hetero couples lose theirs.

Why?

The rule of law is based on sophistication. If anything, parents having children out of wedlock should pay a penalty for making sophistication more difficult to maintain.

As for the OP, no. Homosexual couples can't internally have children. They shouldn't even be able to get married, and if they do, they should pay an additional fee for distorting the English language in redefining the meaning of "marriage".

Originally Posted by Gipper

I'd rather see legally married hetero couples lose theirs.

Well that's the true way to go; but not the way which shall be followed.

Originally Posted by Daktoria

Why?

The rule of law is based on sophistication. If anything, parents having children out of wedlock should pay a penalty for making sophistication more difficult to maintain.

As for the OP, no. Homosexual couples can't internally have children. They shouldn't even be able to get married, and if they do, they should pay an additional fee for distorting the English language in redefining the meaning of "marriage".

I think you should pay an extra fee for terrorizing my brain cells.

Say wuh...

Children are a non-factor in this. In fact, that's an entirely separate deduction/break entirely, as you don't need to be married to get a dependent credit.

Are you basing this on some sort of divine belief? I sure hope not. I'd be pissed if I went to McDonalds this Friday and they'd only sell me a Filet-o-Fish.

Originally Posted by Ikari

I think you should pay an extra fee for terrorizing my brain cells.

If you agree that expression and impression go hand in hand, it shouldn't be difficult to see the problem with letting homosexuals get "married".

Originally Posted by Gipper

Say wuh...

Children are a non-factor in this. In fact, that's an entirely separate deduction/break entirely, as you don't need to be married to get a dependent credit.

Excuse me?

The whole point of getting married is guaranteed assumption of risk in having kids.

Are you basing this on some sort of divine belief? I sure hope not. I'd be pissed if I went to McDonalds this Friday and they'd only sell me a Filet-o-Fish.

Actually the history of marriage precedes religion. It goes back to paleolithic times when paternity tests were impossible.

Last I checked, he doesn't have an issue with homosexuals getting married. It's just one thing to perform an action out of love and commitment, and another to perform it to weenie out of a tax bracket.

Originally Posted by Daktoria

Excuse me?

The whole point of getting married is guaranteed assumption of risk in having kids.

Whoa whoa whoa...

I personally do not intend to have kids, knock on wood. Does this mean I have no business getting married?

Frankly I don't have a problem with it, but what if the girl I wanna be with insists? Chicks do that, ya know. Yeah, I might find a woman who wants to be with me 40 years without a piece of paper and a white dress, but I'm hedging that bet.