• 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

Mr.Nick said:
In many states they're NOT.

Like I said this is a Tenth Amendment issue here because there is no amendment that even touches on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

there is no 10 issues here the 10 is fully intact
 
Mr.Nick said:
1. yes you can How to File Taxes When Your Spouse is Your Business Partner | Fox Small Business Center
Click to expand...

Did you read that article? If your "spouse" is your business partner? As in you have to be married to them.

2. yes there is - you can transfer anything you want to anyone you want just as long as it's free/gift. You don't even need a contract for that.
Click to expand...

That is limited to 10k before you have to claim it as income.

3. A will? how about try power of attorney?? (besides that **** is moot anyways with Obamas "death tax" in place now where they will rape everyones inheritance.
Click to expand...

This has been tested for years. Families who do not agree with or recognize the relationship have been known to contest POAs and wills in court between same sex couples and even to win in conservative states.
 
Mr.Nick said:
1. yes you can How to File Taxes When Your Spouse is Your Business Partner | Fox Small Business Center

2. yes there is - you can transfer anything you want to anyone you want just as long as it's free/gift. You don't even need a contract for that.

3. A will? how about try power of attorney?? (besides that **** is moot anyways with Obamas "death tax" in place now where they will rape everyones inheritance.

4. You're right there (sort of) see #1
Click to expand...

Are you unaware that there is a limit to how much "gift" a person can give to another who is not their spouse tax free?

The Limits On Tax-Free Gifts: What You Need To Know - Forbes

I can't give my parents say $50K without them having to pay taxes on it, but I can give that to my husband without any taxes being owed, even if it was me that earned the money.
 
Cardinal said:
No-one's shoving anything down your throat, relax. Are you angry because of the gay people already married? If so, it's completely nuts to let people who are doing things you can't even tangibly experience right now get to you this badly.

And yes, marriage does contribute to more stable households.
Click to expand...

Well I think gays making out in the street as if they're about to screw right then and there is "shoving it down my throat" and I also think when I watch a TV show (which I rarely do now) homosexuality is being shoved down my throat because almost every TV show revolves around race and sexuality and every show these days has to have a gay couple - as if every ****ing family knows a gay couple and allow them to get affectionate on their couch and they find it "cute" and an act of progress.

Like I said previously - I don't give a **** what people do or who they screw in their bedroom - just don't take your bedroom activities and display them in public to make a political statement in an attempt to piss people off.
 
Mr.Nick said:
In many states they're NOT.

Like I said this is a Tenth Amendment issue here because there is no amendment that even touches on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

14th overrules the 10th here, just as it did with interracial marriages (Loving v VA), inmate marriages (Turner v Safley), or those who owe child support marriages (Zablocki v Redhail).
 
roguenuke said:
Are you unaware that there is a limit to how much "gift" a person can give to another who is not their spouse tax free?

The Limits On Tax-Free Gifts: What You Need To Know - Forbes

I can't give my parents say $50K without them having to pay taxes on it, but I can give that to my husband without any taxes being owed, even if it was me that earned the money.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)Well I think gays making out in the street as if they're about to screw right then and there is "shoving it down my throat" and I also think when I watch a TV show (which I rarely do now) homosexuality is being shoved down my throat because almost every TV show revolves around race and sexuality and every show these days has to have a gay couple - as if every ****ing family knows a gay couple and allow them to get affectionate on their couch and they find it "cute" and an act of progress.

2.)Like I said previously - I don't give a **** what people do or who they screw in their bedroom - just don't take your bedroom activities and display them in public to make a political statement in an attempt to piss people off.
Click to expand...

1.) this is just stupid and illogical, i wonder if jews feel christmas/christians are shoved down their throats to then? do gays feel straights are shoved down their throats also?

2.) this is already the rule for ALL people lol

nobody buys your dishonest failed victim card
 
Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

there is factually no way to duplicate a marriage contract, this fact wont change
 
roguenuke said:
14th overrules the 10th here, just as it did with interracial marriages (Loving v VA), inmate marriages (Turner v Safley), or those who owe child support marriages (Zablocki v Redhail).
Click to expand...

The 14th doesn't make any ****ing sense - the 14th is so vague it's almost a riddle.

I would love to repeal (or at least amend or add an addendum) the 14th to make it blatantly clear - that or just repeal the damn thing.
 
Mr.Nick said:
In many states they're NOT.

Like I said this is a Tenth Amendment issue here because there is no amendment that even touches on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It is also a Full Faith and Credit Clause issue because same sex marriages are effectively annulled simply by crossing state lines. DOMA creates that issue. The 10th does not give states the power to reject recognition of marriages performed in other states.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still some things that you can't do without being a legal spouse. There are still differences. And without being able to establish that legal kinship, then they are treated unequally. You are trying to get around the laws through tricks rather than admitting that there is a difference in treatment there.

Some more examples. You are not legally entitled to time off to go to the funeral of someone not viewed as legal family, which includes inlaws. So if your mate's mother or father dies, and you are not considered their spouse, their employer is not required to give you the required time for that. But if they are a legal spouse, that makes their family legally your family as well, covered by Family Leave Act.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The 14th doesn't make any ****ing sense - the 14th is so vague it's almost a riddle.

I would love to repeal (or at least amend or add an addendum) the 14th to make it blatantly clear - that or just repeal the damn thing.
Click to expand...

Sorry the Constitution is inconvenient for you.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The 14th doesn't make any ****ing sense - the 14th is so vague it's almost a riddle.

I would love to repeal (or at least amend or add an addendum) the 14th to make it blatantly clear - that or just repeal the damn thing.
Click to expand...

You don't have the support so you can just forget it. The 14th is staying. Most people approve of it. Just because you are unhappy with it, doesn't mean it is wrong.
 
Sorry, I'm done talking about gay marriage and offering loopholes around this nonsense. This is a boring subject that I don't really give a **** about when there are REAL problems and injustices happening in the United States, so I'm going to bounce from this topic.

I'll check it out later.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Actually SCOTUS made the call when they found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional last June. That simply returned the Federal government back to the previous status, recognizing legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Not the way it works. Congress enacts, the SCOTUS rules then Congress enacts again. The Executive's duties begin AFTER Congress enacts.
 
roguenuke said:
You don't have the support so you can just forget it. The 14th is staying. Most people approve of it. Just because you are unhappy with it, doesn't mean it is wrong.
Click to expand...

No one even has the support to amend the Constitution - not even in congress so...... I don't think either party even wants to - they like this social division - it's what they the government wanted in the first place....
 
clownboy said:
Not the way it works. Congress enacts, the SCOTUS rules then Congress enacts again. The Executive's duties begin AFTER Congress enacts.
Click to expand...

The laws are already there, already enacted for marriage. The states screw it up by not recognizing marriages from other states and that is the main issue. Do you really think that first cousins who marry in one state that it is allowed have to worry about their marriages not being recognized by the other state they move to or fully by the federal government? I'm willing to bet it doesn't become an issue because most likely the new state doesn't even check to see whether the two were first cousins or not. It is only an issue with same sex marriages because their sexes/genders are legally known to the state without any extra effort to find it out.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Sorry, I'm done talking about gay marriage and offering loopholes around this nonsense. This is a boring subject that I don't really give a **** about when there are REAL problems and injustices happening in the United States, so I'm going to bounce from this topic.

I'll check it out later.
Click to expand...

yeah fellow americans being discriminated against, denied equal rights and treated as lessers is no real problem or injustice <end sarcasm>

once again you expose yourself
 
Mr.Nick said:
No one even has the support to amend the Constitution - not even in congress so...... I don't think either party even wants to - they like this social division - it's what they the government wanted in the first place....
Click to expand...

Support has been there many times. The whole point of making it hard to amend the Constitution is so that it isn't done on a whim. That includes the 14th Amendment. It is important that states do not have the power to trample all over the rights of people just because they are states. It is stupid to allow a smaller form of tyranny of the majorities to exist in the form of states.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Well I think gays making out in the street as if they're about to screw right then and there is "shoving it down my throat" and I also think when I watch a TV show (which I rarely do now) homosexuality is being shoved down my throat because almost every TV show revolves around race and sexuality and every show these days has to have a gay couple - as if every ****ing family knows a gay couple and allow them to get affectionate on their couch and they find it "cute" and an act of progress.

Like I said previously - I don't give a **** what people do or who they screw in their bedroom - just don't take your bedroom activities and display them in public to make a political statement in an attempt to piss people off.
Click to expand...

Ah, so it would seem that not staying in the shadows and hiding what they are constitutes as "shoving it down your throat." Raw deal, man. But unfortunately you're going to have to tolerate them existing because they're not going anywhere, and the trend is increasing rights and tolerance for their existence.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Sorry, I'm done talking about gay marriage and offering loopholes around this nonsense. This is a boring subject that I don't really give a **** about when there are REAL problems and injustices happening in the United States, so I'm going to bounce from this topic.

I'll check it out later.
Click to expand...

Frankly. given how you describe yourself as a victim of the gays because they do not have the decency to hide their very existence from you and you are willing to reject portions of the Constitution that protect individual rights I somehow doubt your characterization of this issue as boring and not something you care about. It seems like your faith is in conflict with your reason and you are doing mental gymnastics to find some sort of middle ground compromise while making it abundantly clear how distasteful you find the politics around homosexuality and the very existence of gays.
 
roguenuke said:
The laws are already there, already enacted for marriage. The states screw it up by not recognizing marriages from other states and that is the main issue. Do you really think that first cousins who marry in one state that it is allowed have to worry about their marriages not being recognized by the other state they move to or fully by the federal government? I'm willing to bet it doesn't become an issue because most likely the new state doesn't even check to see whether the two were first cousins or not. It is only an issue with same sex marriages because their sexes/genders are legally known to the state without any extra effort to find it out.
Click to expand...

No, I get what you are trying to say, but this isn't about that at all. This is about FEDERAL benefits/regulations, not state benefits/regulations. Has nothing to do with state to state portability.
 
clownboy said:
No, I get what you are trying to say, but this isn't about that at all. This is about FEDERAL benefits/regulations, not state benefits/regulations.
Click to expand...

The federal laws are still there though, still written to cover marriages recognized by the federal government. And I specifically mentioned the federal government. Do first cousins lose their federal recognition as spouses if they are married and move to another state that does not allow them to marry or would not recognize their marriage? Can you show where this has happened? Heck, we know that the federal government doesn't even quit recognizing couples as married when one legally changes their sex/gender yet that makes them a same sex couple married in any state. It was a major flaw in the argument for DOMA before the federal definition of marriage part was struck down because the federal government actually did recognize some same sex couples because they could not simply stop recognizing couples that were already legally married.
 
roguenuke said:
The federal laws are still there though, still written to cover marriages recognized by the federal government. And I specifically mentioned the federal government. Do first cousins lose their federal recognition as spouses if they are married and move to another state that does not allow them to marry or would not recognize their marriage? Can you show where this has happened? Heck, we know that the federal government doesn't even quit recognizing couples as married when one legally changes their sex/gender yet that makes them a same sex couple married in any state. It was a major flaw in the argument for DOMA before the federal definition of marriage part was struck down because the federal government actually did recognize some same sex couples because they could not simply stop recognizing couples that were already legally married.
Click to expand...

correct, from my article and new actual news story and link

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...gal-benefits-services-same-sex-marriages.html
Same-Sex Spouses Get New Federal Rights, Holder Says - WSJ.com

The move is the latest in a series by the Obama administration to extend equal rights to those in legal same-sex marriages. It comes in the wake of the Supreme Court decision last year that struck down a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and woman. The Justice Department has been reviewing federal rules and regulations to see what it can legally change on its own without legislation from Congress.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom