I can't fathom why gun ownership is such a value. I don't own a gun, so nobody should own one. Sometimes it ends in getting shot. Do you want to get shot?
The union legislation in California proves you wrong, and the California union legislation could be any state's legislation.
Unions do not get federal benefits of marriage.Don't get sloppy with you facts. Check out, for example, California's union legislation.
Why is this type of argument acceptable to those who want to limit guns, but when used by those, like me, who want to limit marriage, isn't appropriate?
Don't get sloppy with you facts. Check out, for example, California's union legislation.
Why is it acceptable for limiting marriage but not guns? You don't get to call someone a hypocrite while actively being a hypocrite.
Because might makes right. Majority rules. We won. Take your choice-- The liberals have told us all those are good enough reasons for something.
Really? Because on same-sex marriage, "will of the people" always comes out of the mouths of the conservatives. Until the majority votes for same-sex marriage, anyway. Then it changes to "FORCING THEIR BELIEFS ON US!"
Well until then in 29 states the will of the people is no same sex marriage and in a whole bunch of states, no gun bans is also the will of the people. Since the autocrats are gracious neither in victory nor defeat, and are ruthlessly pragmatic in their logic and reasoning, and are either willfully ignorant of or do not care about the societal cost of their sounds good policies, I wouldn't exactly be on my high horse about hypocrisy.
And the societal costw of gay marriage are what?
And the societal costw of gay marriage are what?
Well until then in 29 states the will of the people is no same sex marriage and in a whole bunch of states, no gun bans is also the will of the people. Since the autocrats are gracious neither in victory nor defeat, and are ruthlessly pragmatic in their logic and reasoning, and are either willfully ignorant of or do not care about the societal cost of their sounds good policies, I wouldn't exactly be on my high horse about hypocrisy.
I'm not concerned about the cost of gay marriage per se, I'm concerned about the cost of allowing life-tenured judges to substitute their political choices for those of the voters.
"will of the people" isn't my argument and never has been.
Societal cost. I'm glad you used that term.
Specify the "societal cost" of same-sex marriage.
Voters do not get to vote away someone else's freedom, Mr. So-called libertarian.
Do you think that all these financial benefits of marriage that gays allege they are denied do not have a cost, be it the spousal death benefit or family bonus pay for the military members and everything in between?
The voters don't get to violate the Constitution of the United States by voting unconstitutional policy into law.I'm not concerned about the cost of gay marriage per se, I'm concerned about the cost of allowing life-tenured judges to substitute their political choices for those of the voters.
Because might makes right. Majority rules. We won. Take your choice-- The liberals have told us all those are good enough reasons for something.
Do you think that all these financial benefits of marriage that gays allege they are denied do not have a cost, be it the spousal death benefit or family bonus pay for the military members and everything in between?
Studies have been done that prove that those costs are balanced out by the benefits of marriage to society, including individuals being covered under their spouses' medical and other benefits or having to claim both spouses' incomes when putting in for assistance programs and things of that nature. Even tax benefits are small.
And it still goes to fairness. What difference is it if we offer these benefits to opposite sex couples or to both opposite sex couples and same sex couples? Show the financial difference. Because Congress has already done at least one study that shows that the federal coffers are most likely to actually benefit from same sex couples being allowed to marry.
In a closed system such as an economy everything balances out.
So the financial considerations mean nothing here. It is balanced and should not be a consideration unless you can prove that allowing someone to marry a person of the same sex will somehow cause major damage to our economy. (And this means proof, not simply belief that it will. Most economists agree that allowing same sex couples to marry would in fact be beneficial to our economy.)
me paying you $5 makes no difference to the economy than me paying $5 to Walmart instead. When the government spends $5 on someone new that is $5 less it pays to some else which is a public cost. In the system as a whole, however, it makes no difference just like not extending the benefits makes no macro difference.
And that would be $5 to a person who is married to someone of the same sex rather than someone of the opposite sex.
But it has been studied and proven that even the government will benefit financially (most likely, at least a little bit) from same sex couples being recognized as married.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf
What Is the Fiscal Impact of Gay Marriage? - Bloomberg
How Gay Marriage Can Help Reduce America
Even if this just helped the states alone, and had no affect on the actual federal coffers directly, it would still help the country because states that are less likely to go under (aka, have more money) are also less likely to need help from the federal government.
Are you willing to cut whatever the added expense is out of the Food stamps or eliminate earned income credit to pay for it? .
Are you willing to cut whatever the added expense is out of the Food stamps or eliminate earned income credit to pay for it? If so, have at it. Have all the liberal programs you want just so long as they are paid for by cuts in other liberal programs.