Texas Supreme Court rules gay couples not guaranteed spousal benefits

[joG]

My god and his commandments say I shouldn't have to pay for christian marriage, the military or roads. According to you it would be unconstitutional for the government to require me to pay for that in taxes. How can a society work where people can just arbitrarily stop paying taxes for anything they choose? Where in the constitution does it say this?

What I say is that you should amend the Constitution, if you don't like it. The way we have been handling it by redefinition is intellectually dishonest, legally dubious and highly dangerous to polsci theory for the citizens.

 

[joG]

this has **** to do with Public Finance. A tax break is letting somebody keep their money.

big deal. Charging them less isn't giving them anything.

As I said....

 

[CLAX1911]

That isn't the point and you have strayed into ridiculous libertarian crap akin to the constitution worshippers that inhabit this forum.

that is incorrect. Charging a person less isn't giving them anything. That's dog**** simple logic.

We are discussing what actually is, not a libertard utopian dream.

what actually is, is a tax break charging people less of their money.

If we agree to abide by the law and pay taxes then a tax code is put in place. If under that tax code you are given an exemption status that means you don't pay something that other people are expected to pay and you are effectively being given a rebate by the government. They are giving back money in the form of a tax break.

no there are simply not taking it. It was never theirs in the first place.

Are we going to go back to the old situation between us?

what would that be the belief that the government owns the wealth versus the people owning the wealth? Well one is capitalism and the other is not.

 

[CLAX1911]

As I said....

Incorrectly

As I corrected.

Being allowed to keep more of your money isn't anybody giving you anything.

That fact remains and it's one you cannot defeat.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

What I say is that you should amend the Constitution, if you don't like it. The way we have been handling it by redefinition is intellectually dishonest, legally dubious and highly dangerous to polsci theory for the citizens.

Let's say I like your interpretation and my god says I shouldn't pay for christian marriage, the military, roads, and many other things. How can I get my money back? Explain to me what forms I need to fill out so I can opt-out of uses of my taxes for things I've arbitrarily labelled sins.

You just pull random **** out of your ass like "taxes should never be used for things people consider sins, it's unconstitutional!" but can't explain how that would work or what legal basis it has.

 

[joG]

Incorrectly

As I corrected.

Being allowed to keep more of your money isn't anybody giving you anything.

That fact remains and it's one you cannot defeat.

Nope. It is not a well thought through argument; false actually. It is always a little difficult to image a simultaneous optimization of an economy before the mind's eye, but if you relax that for a moment and use the ceteris paribus convention for a moment, it is easy to see. If beforehand someone was paying taxes that were being uses for some public purpose and the person's tax is reduced, then c.p. the amount of money that can be spent is also reduced. The next step impact can be along the lines of reducing the money spent on the public good, increasing the tax for everyone or borrowing and so increasing everyone's debt. Everyone is affected and pays for the reduction in tax income.

 

[joG]

Let's say I like your interpretation and my god says I shouldn't pay for christian marriage, the military, roads, and many other things. How can I get my money back? Explain to me what forms I need to fill out so I can opt-out of uses of my taxes for things I've arbitrarily labelled sins.

You just pull random **** out of your ass like "taxes should never be used for things people consider sins, it's unconstitutional!" but can't explain how that would work or what legal basis it has.

Change the Constitution, if you do not like it.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope. It is not a well thought through argument; false actually.

Oh so the government owns the wealth and they just let you keep it? I didn't realise this nation was a socialist one.

It is always a little difficult to image a simultaneous optimization of an economy before the mind's eye, but if you relax that for a moment and use the ceteris paribus convention for a moment, it is easy to see. If beforehand someone was paying taxes that were being uses for some public purpose and the person's tax is reduced, then c.p. the amount of money that can be spent is also reduced.

So? This has nothing to do with what i said. The government taking less from you is them letting you keep more of your money. Its not them giving you anything.

The next step impact can be along the lines of reducing the money spent on the public good, increasing the tax for everyone or borrowing and so increasing everyone's debt. Everyone is affected and pays for the reduction in tax income.

So? Them not talking something of yours is not them giving you anything.

If a robber takes your wallet but not your watch he didn't give you a watch.

I dont think you understand what taxes are. It's money that you earn that the government says you must pay. Regardless of what it's used for. Its yours they take part of it. That simple.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Change the Constitution, if you do not like it.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say tax dollars can't be used on things you consider a sin. Literally nowhere. You made that up and after 13 pages still refuse to provide one shred of evidence this is the case. Paying for christian marriage, roads, and the military is against my religion. Why am I still paying for it? Because you're ****ing wrong.

 

[joG]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say tax dollars can't be used on things you consider a sin. Literally nowhere. You made that up and after 13 pages still refuse to provide one shred of evidence this is the case. Paying for christian marriage, roads, and the military is against my religion. Why am I still paying for it? Because you're ****ing wrong.

Nope. You're right. It doesn't go into secondary law and only regulates, what the state may and may not do. In this case the relevant restriction is on, an area of societal interaction that Congress may not regulate.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Nope. You're right. It doesn't go into secondary law and only regulates, what the state may and may not do. In this case the relevant restriction is on, an area of societal interaction that Congress may not regulate.

Exactly, the government can't regulate marriage, therefore SSM is legal and will continue to be legal, and not a constitutional violation like you tried to claim before. Nice to see you come around. Whiny christians will just have to accept SSM like I'm forced to accept christian marriage.

 

[CLAX1911]

Exactly, the government can't regulate marriage, therefore SSM is legal and will continue to be legal, and not a constitutional violation like you tried to claim before. Nice to see you come around. Whiny christians will just have to accept SSM like I'm forced to accept christian marriage.

So all this nonsense from jog was an attempt to claim same sex marriage was unconstitutional?

Tangled webs...

 

[joG]

Exactly, the government can't regulate marriage, therefore SSM is legal and will continue to be legal, and not a constitutional violation like you tried to claim before. Nice to see you come around. Whiny christians will just have to accept SSM like I'm forced to accept christian marriage.

That misses the focal point totally. Nobody said ssm should be illegal. But Congress may not pass laws that create non voluntary pathes of participation such as financial ones like taxes are for third parties.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

So all this nonsense from jog was an attempt to claim same sex marriage was unconstitutional?

Tangled webs...

I don't think even he knew what his point was, just: SSM BAD!

That misses the focal point totally. Nobody said ssm should be illegal. But Congress may not pass laws that create non voluntary pathes of participation such as financial ones like taxes are for third parties.

So now you're back to your original position. Why are my taxes subsidizing christian marriage? That's a non-voluntary taxation for a third party that violates my religion. Should I take it to the supreme court? The constitution is being VIOLATED! OMG!!!

 

[joG]

So all this nonsense from jog was an attempt to claim same sex marriage was unconstitutional?

Tangled webs...

Nope. But the way it is practiced is. There is a difference between doing things right and on the sly, you see.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope. But the way it is practiced is.

Huh? So the way two ladies marry each other is unconstitutional? How?

There is a difference between doing things right and on the sly, you see.

I don't know what you mean by "the way it's practiced." Two homos go to the justice of the peace and request to be married.

So no I don't see.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't think even he knew what his point was, just: SSM BAD!



So now you're back to your original position. Why are my taxes subsidizing christian marriage? That's a non-voluntary taxation for a third party that violates my religion. Should I take it to the supreme court? The constitution is being VIOLATED! OMG!!!

Its amazing to me the efforts thumpers will go to in order to jam their doctrine into the constitution.

 

[ludin]

Its amazing to me the efforts thumpers will go to in order to jam their doctrine into the constitution.

same could be said of many many groups of people not just thumpers whoever they are.

 

[CLAX1911]

same could be said of many many groups of people not just thumpers whoever they are.

Yes, muslims that want to justify sharia law. Atheists who want to ban religious expression.

Social justice warriors are pretty useless.

 

[ludin]

Yes, muslims that want to justify sharia law. Atheists who want to ban religious expression.

Social justice warriors are pretty useless.

I am just saying your point applies to more than just thumpers.

 

[CLAX1911]

I am just saying your point applies to more than just thumpers.

Yes I agreed. It applies to many SJW social Marxist types.

 

[CriticalThought]

How would same sex people be harmed if the law was changed back?

It would create unprecedented legal havoc for millions of families.