• 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

Samhain said:
You mean like tax bracket definition differences?
Click to expand...

how does allowing gays to have the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples equal special treatment?
 
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...

Once again, the OP topic doesn't address state to state movement at all, that's not the issue here. This concerns federal regulations/benefits regardless if the married couple never moves from the state where they were married. It's not about portability, but which marriages/unions/contracts the Congress has determined will receive federal benefits.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, the OP topic doesn't address state to state movement at all, that's not the issue here. This concerns federal regulations/benefits regardless if the married couple never moves from the state where they were married. It's not about portability, but which marriages/unions/contracts the Congress has determined will receive federal benefits.
Click to expand...

its totally fine
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...
 
clownboy said:
Once again, the OP topic doesn't address state to state movement at all, that's not the issue here. This concerns federal regulations/benefits regardless if the married couple never moves from the state where they were married. It's not about portability, but which marriages/unions/contracts the Congress has determined will receive federal benefits.
Click to expand...

It concerns what the federal government recognizes as married couples. This wouldn't be an issue at all if all states simply obeyed the US Constitution and treated people equally under their laws, by removing gender restrictions within their marriage laws. The federal government recognizes people as married. Legal marriage certificate from any state gives legal marriage recognition to the couple under federal law, unless you want to show where it doesn't excluding same sex couples that legally marry as such.
 
AGENT J said:
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...

Precisely, and Holder and his boss have shown they believe they can make an end run. Their judgement is seriously flawed in this and not to be trusted.
 
clownboy said:
Precisely, and Holder and his boss have shown they believe they can make an end run. Their judgement is seriously flawed in this and not to be trusted.
Click to expand...

its legal so they are good :shrug:
your opinion after that are meaningless, i might even share them but they are meaningless none the less
 
AGENT J said:
lol not new at all theres only one accurate answer ;)
Click to expand...

I meant in this thread. This topic always branches out to absurd claims about homosexuality being unnatural or that someone can chose not to be gay. It's ridiculous.
 
roguenuke said:
It concerns what the federal government recognizes as married couples. This wouldn't be an issue at all if all states simply obeyed the US Constitution and treated people equally under their laws, by removing gender restrictions within their marriage laws. The federal government recognizes people as married. Legal marriage certificate from any state gives legal marriage recognition to the couple under federal law, unless you want to show where it doesn't excluding same sex couples that legally marry as such.
Click to expand...

I can show where there are exceptions to marriage portability. Washington state for example does not allow first cousin marriage. Marriages in states that do are not recognised in Washington.

"The general doctrine that a marriage valid where contracted is valid everywhere, has so often been declared by the courts and reiterated by text writers that it has become a maxim of the law. But there are exceptions to the rule as well established as the rule itself, viz: (1) incestuous and polygamous marriages prohibited by natural law; and (2) marriages prohibited by positive law." State v. Nakashima, 62 Wash. 686 (1911).

"Marriages in Washington are prohibited between parties nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, either of the whole or half blood, computing by the rules of the civil law. Wash. Code § 7151" [renumbered: RCW 26.04.020(1)(b)]. Nakashima, at 687.

The existence of positive law prohibiting a 1st cousin marriage in Washington State, under Washington law, would render a valid California marriage void. However, it is worth noting that ehe applicable case law I have provided is exactly 100 years old. The point being that the issue rarely arises -- and, since a marriage annulment requires a court order, unless and until you or your spouse were to challenge the marriage, it is unlikely to ever arise as an issue.

http://www.justanswer.com/family-law/5n8yz-married-1st-cousin-calif-legal-state-moved.html
Click to expand...
 
Mr.Nick said:
I agree but, homosexuality is not "normal" by any definition of the word - at least not generally. I'm sure there are plenty of cities in the US with a gay district where in that instance being gay would be "normal" but generally it's not.

Sure you can sign civil contracts and file joint taxes - hell my dad has to do it with my brothers ever since my grandmother passed and left all the assets to my dad and uncles.

If gays went about it the right way they could file joint taxes. It be a pain in the ass with a lot of paperwork and such but...

IMO, I don't hate gays either. I just wish they stop shoving their sexuality down peoples throats..... As far as I'm concerned (given my religion as a Catholic) gays making out in public and such is the equivalant of Islamophobes throwing bacon at Muslims just minding their own business. It's very offensive to some, but at the same time I have been in situations where I saw that happening and you know what I did? I got up and left.... Unlike a progressive who would have gone to the manager if they saw or heard something they disagree with....

You see that is real tolerance.
Click to expand...

Welll thats a little far fetched... that last bit.... it's more like an islamophobes eating bacon infront of a muslim.... the gay is not trying to kiss you or make out with you he is making out with someone he loves.... why can you make out with a girl? and I can't make out with my boyfriend..... thats kinda backwards imo but :) everyone has there opinion
 
clownboy said:
Precisely, and Holder and his boss have shown they believe they can make an end run. Their judgement is seriously flawed in this and not to be trusted.
Click to expand...

What precisely do you disagree with in this decision to extend federal rights to married same sex couples in states that do not recognize same sex marriage?
 
AGENT J said:
its legal so they are good :shrug:
your opinion after that are meaningless, i might even share them but they are meaningless none the less
Click to expand...

Not what the quote says, says they're reviewing what is legal for them to change and what is not. I question their ability to conduct that review accurately considering their track record.
 
CriticalThought said:
What precisely do you disagree with in this decision to extend federal rights to married same sex couples in states that do not recognize same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

The ability of the Justice Department and the Executive Branch as a whole to do so. Not their place.
 
clownboy said:
I can show where there are exceptions to marriage portability. Washington state for example does not allow first cousin marriage. Marriages in states that do are not recognised in Washington.
Click to expand...

Can you show where they are enforced (the state goes out of their way to figure out if an already married couple entering their state is also first cousins or some other type prohibited couple) or where the federal government stops recognizing those couples as married? I know that I've never been asked whether my husband and I were first cousins or whatever when we filed taxes in a different state than we were married in. Heck, no state so far has asked us anything. I doubt it is noted on a marriage license from those states that allow those things.

Plus, that also specifies that unless the couple challenges the marriage, the state simply won't care. Why would you figure the federal government would?
 
clownboy said:
1.)Not what the quote says, says they're reviewing what is legal for them to change and what is not.
2.)I question their ability to conduct that review accurately considering their track record.
Click to expand...
1.)thier review is what lead to this, its already reviewed
2.) again you are free to question but again your opinion of thier track record doesnt matter

its legal
 
clownboy said:
The ability of the Justice Department and the Executive Branch as a whole to do so. Not their place.
Click to expand...

It is the department responsible for the enforcement of federal law and the administration of justice. How is it not their place? If anything, this is exactly what they are suppose to do.
 
roguenuke said:
Can you show where they are enforced (the state goes out of their way to figure out if an already married couple entering their state is also first cousins or some other type prohibited couple) or where the federal government stops recognizing those couples as married? I know that I've never been asked whether my husband and I were first cousins or whatever when we filed taxes in a different state than we were married in. Heck, no state so far has asked us anything. I doubt it is noted on a marriage license from those states that allow those things.

Plus, that also specifies that unless the couple challenges the marriage, the state simply won't care. Why would you figure the federal government would?
Click to expand...

Again, doesn't matter. Washington isn't the only state that has exemptions to portability. Exemptions to portability do exist. That folks aren't being caught is another issue altogether.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is the department responsible for the enforcement of federal law and the administration of justice. How is it not their place? If anything, this is exactly what they are suppose to do.
Click to expand...

Congress makes the law that they are responsible for enforcing. It's not their place (Justice Department) to decide whether the law will be enforced or how it will be interpretted.
 
clownboy said:
Congress makes the law that they are responsible for enforcing. It's not their place (Justice Department) to decide whether the law will be enforced or how it will be interpretted.
Click to expand...

It is actually the duty of the Justice Department to enforce the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In this case the Justice Department is enforcing the Windsor Decision of SCOTUS which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which created the federal definition of marriage, because it violated the 5th Amendment. They are extending federal benefits to married same sex couples in line with the spirit of that decision.
 
clownboy said:
Again, doesn't matter. Washington isn't the only state that has exemptions to portability. Exemptions to portability do exist. That folks aren't being caught is another issue altogether.
Click to expand...

It does matter. In fact, how often the actual laws are put into play/enforced is an important factor when it comes to discriminatory practices. You cannot decide to enforce portability rules of marriage for one group while ignoring it for others. This is true whether related to state laws with marriage or federal laws with marriage.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is actually the duty of the Justice Department to enforce the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In this case the Justice Department is enforcing the Windsor Decision of SCOTUS which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which created the federal definition of marriage, because it violated the 5th Amendment. They are extending federal benefits to married same sex couples in line with the spirit of that decision.
Click to expand...

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:
 
roguenuke said:
It does matter. In fact, how often the actual laws are put into play/enforced is an important factor when it comes to discriminatory practices. You cannot decide to enforce portability rules of marriage for one group while ignoring it for others. This is true whether related to state laws with marriage or federal laws with marriage.
Click to expand...

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.
 
clownboy said:
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:
Click to expand...

Wrong. Without DOMA, that means the federal government is free to recognize marriages in accordance with past practices, and even current practices since even with DOMA in place, certain same sex marriages were still being recognized by the federal government, which means recognizing any marriage that basically has a valid marriage license from pretty much any state. As long as it is legal somewhere and no court order invalidates that marriage, then it is a legally recognized marriage. That is basically how the federal government has always recognized marriages. "Show us a legal marriage certificate and we will recognize your marriage as legal provided no other legal paperwork legally nulls or voids your particular marriage."
 
CriticalThought said:
It is actually the duty of the Justice Department to enforce the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In this case the Justice Department is enforcing the Windsor Decision of SCOTUS which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which created the federal definition of marriage, because it violated the 5th Amendment. They are extending federal benefits to married same sex couples in line with the spirit of that decision.
Click to expand...

correct the legality was reviewed and thats that

unless facts prove otherwise worthless speculation will only be that worthless speculation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom