(05-13-2012 08:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  explain this...(FEDERAL taxes)

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/26/pf/taxes.../index.htm

6,000 bucks a year seems like quite the benefit to me..

Depends on the situation. Basically, if you have one working person and one non-working person, the working person pays taxes at a higher single rate and the non-working person neither pays nor benefits. On the other hand, if you have two working people, you're usually better off single than married. That's the "marriage penalty" that Shrub tried to eliminate as part of the "Bush tax cuts." But what they did was basically a bunch of BS, since truly eliminating the "marriage penalty" would have "cost too much" in terms of reduced tax revenues.

Civil unions for any two consenting adults to take care of the legal needs. Return marriage to the churches. And give taxpayers in a civil union the option to file a joint return or file as two single individuals. Problem solved.

(05-13-2012 07:22 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Recently in Georgia the Referrendum to allow Sunday Beer and Liquor Sales at Stores passed overwhelmingly despite total opposition from "Big Religion."

I can buy beer down Fury's Ferry in Richmond County on Sundays now. Woohoo! They're waiting in CC because a special election would be too costly. We vote on it next month. They rode the issue on an existing election in RC. Never made sense to me. I could get soused at a restaurant but couldn't buy any for home consumption. The issue will pass in CC.

(05-13-2012 08:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-13-2012 08:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  explain this...(FEDERAL taxes)

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/26/pf/taxes.../index.htm

6,000 bucks a year seems like quite the benefit to me..

Depends on the situation. Basically, if you have one working person and one non-working person, the working person pays taxes at a higher single rate and the non-working person neither pays nor benefits. On the other hand, if you have two working people, you're usually better off single than married. That's the "marriage penalty" that Shrub tried to eliminate as part of the "Bush tax cuts." But what they did was basically a bunch of BS, since truly eliminating the "marriage penalty" would have "cost too much" in terms of reduced tax revenues.

Civil unions for any two consenting adults to take care of the legal needs. no they don't...they can't as long as DOMA is around...it's not hard to understand Return marriage to the churches. And give taxpayers in a civil union the option to file a joint return or file as two single individuals. why? plenty of churches would and will marry gay people...if that happens gay marriage will be nationwide Problem solved.

(05-14-2012 12:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-13-2012 08:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-13-2012 08:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  explain this...(FEDERAL taxes)

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/26/pf/taxes.../index.htm

6,000 bucks a year seems like quite the benefit to me..

Depends on the situation. Basically, if you have one working person and one non-working person, the working person pays taxes at a higher single rate and the non-working person neither pays nor benefits. On the other hand, if you have two working people, you're usually better off single than married. That's the "marriage penalty" that Shrub tried to eliminate as part of the "Bush tax cuts." But what they did was basically a bunch of BS, since truly eliminating the "marriage penalty" would have "cost too much" in terms of reduced tax revenues.

Civil unions for any two consenting adults to take care of the legal needs. no they don't...they can't as long as DOMA is around...it's not hard to understand Return marriage to the churches. And give taxpayers in a civil union the option to file a joint return or file as two single individuals. why? plenty of churches would and will marry gay people...if that happens gay marriage will be nationwide Problem solved.

Are you too dense to comprehend that when I propose a solution, I'm proposing that existing law be changed?

(05-14-2012 03:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 12:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-13-2012 08:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-13-2012 08:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  explain this...(FEDERAL taxes)

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/26/pf/taxes.../index.htm

6,000 bucks a year seems like quite the benefit to me..

Depends on the situation. Basically, if you have one working person and one non-working person, the working person pays taxes at a higher single rate and the non-working person neither pays nor benefits. On the other hand, if you have two working people, you're usually better off single than married. That's the "marriage penalty" that Shrub tried to eliminate as part of the "Bush tax cuts." But what they did was basically a bunch of BS, since truly eliminating the "marriage penalty" would have "cost too much" in terms of reduced tax revenues.

Civil unions for any two consenting adults to take care of the legal needs. no they don't...they can't as long as DOMA is around...it's not hard to understand Return marriage to the churches. And give taxpayers in a civil union the option to file a joint return or file as two single individuals. why? plenty of churches would and will marry gay people...if that happens gay marriage will be nationwide Problem solved.

Are you too dense to comprehend that when I propose a solution, I'm proposing that existing law be changed?

as long as DOMA goes away...i would agree ALL marriages should become civil unions...and the government should leave it up to churches to decide who is married.

honestly, any conservative should agree...that's smaller government.

Anyone anywhere may "marry" whoever they choose. The government recognizes only those between one man and one woman. There is no "ban" on marriage.

(05-14-2012 09:40 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  Anyone anywhere may "marry" whoever they choose. The government recognizes only those between one man and one woman. There is no "ban" on marriage.

You're out of your league here, I would just back up and mosey on home.

(05-14-2012 09:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 09:40 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  Anyone anywhere may "marry" whoever they choose. The government recognizes only those between one man and one woman. There is no "ban" on marriage.

You're out of your league here, I would just back up and mosey on home.

Very insightful. Thanks for the contribution.

(05-14-2012 10:43 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 09:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 09:40 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  Anyone anywhere may "marry" whoever they choose. The government recognizes only those between one man and one woman. There is no "ban" on marriage.

You're out of your league here, I would just back up and mosey on home.

Very insightful. Thanks for the contribution.

The ability for someone to claim that they're 'married' without it being recognized by the state and granted the benefits that other married couples is irrelevant to the issue at hand, not to mention an idiotic notion. It's like saying that those in a theocracy have freedom of religion, because they can choose to believe they want to despite being persecuted if they choose wrong. I'd call your view simplistic, but that gives simplistic persons a bad name.

(05-14-2012 09:40 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  Anyone anywhere may "marry" whoever they choose. The government recognizes only those between one man and one woman. There is no "ban" on marriage.

talk about a day late and a dollar short.

(05-15-2012 12:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The ability for someone to claim that they're 'married' without it being recognized by the state and granted the benefits that other married couples is irrelevant to the issue at hand, not to mention an idiotic notion. It's like saying that those in a theocracy have freedom of religion, because they can choose to believe they want to despite being persecuted if they choose wrong. I'd call your view simplistic, but that gives simplistic persons a bad name.

It's only irrelevant if words are irrelevant. How the argument is formed is important. No one is being deprived the right to love whom they wish. No one is being deprived of the ability to make personal choices. Those two things are implied with the language of a marriage "ban" is used. What they are being deprived of is a benefit, not a right. Whether or not the benefit should be available at any level is another discussion.

You can call my view what you wish. Your ad hominem may impress UMemphis, but it's not a valid argument.

(05-15-2012 09:19 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 12:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The ability for someone to claim that they're 'married' without it being recognized by the state and granted the benefits that other married couples is irrelevant to the issue at hand, not to mention an idiotic notion. It's like saying that those in a theocracy have freedom of religion, because they can choose to believe they want to despite being persecuted if they choose wrong. I'd call your view simplistic, but that gives simplistic persons a bad name.

It's only irrelevant if words are irrelevant. How the argument is formed is important. No one is being deprived the right to love whom they wish. No one is being deprived of the ability to make personal choices. Those two things are implied with the language of a marriage "ban" is used. What they are being deprived of is a benefit, not a right. Whether or not the benefit should be available at any level is another discussion.

You can call my view what you wish. Your ad hominem may impress UMemphis, but it's not a valid argument.

It is utterly irrelevant in this discussion as no one is arguing that they cannot call themselves or personally consider themselves married; that has literally never come up in this discussion before you. It is a non-issue, an accepted truth, and a perfect example of constitutionally protected rights enumerated in the first amendment. Therefore it is completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion that the adults are having in this thread. Furthermore, your semantic argument based upon the term 'ban' doesn't hold up either, as my earlier post demonstrated.

Furthermore, as we've already discussed in this thread, the deprivation of a benefit can absolutely be seen as an infringement of ones rights; the onus usually being on the government to prove a compelling state interest in limiting the benefits by such criteria.

The adults? Hahahaha! That's awesome. Perhaps the adults should at least consider the issue as it is being discussed outside of this thread (where adults with more demanding jobs discuss things).

Deprivation of a benefit, in this case, is not the same as being deprived of a right. Certainly not a constitutionally protected right.

(05-15-2012 09:39 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  The adults? Hahahaha! That's awesome. Perhaps the adults should at least consider the issue as it is being discussed outside of this thread (where adults with more demanding jobs discuss things).

Deprivation of a benefit, in this case, is not the same as being deprived of a right. Certainly not a constitutionally protected right.

...you actually consider this the issue? Jesus christ man, you're worse off than I thought. Take the time to read the thread, you're embarrassing yourself.

And again, that's your opinion on the subject, which oddly enough does not coincide with SCOTUS -

Quote:Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis... embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality....is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

(05-15-2012 09:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 09:39 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  The adults? Hahahaha! That's awesome. Perhaps the adults should at least consider the issue as it is being discussed outside of this thread (where adults with more demanding jobs discuss things).

Deprivation of a benefit, in this case, is not the same as being deprived of a right. Certainly not a constitutionally protected right.

...you actually consider this the issue? Jesus christ man, you're worse off than I thought. Take the time to read the thread, you're embarrassing yourself.

And again, that's your opinion on the subject, which oddly enough does not coincide with SCOTUS -

Quote:Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis... embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality....is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

It can't be separated from the issue. It is a part of the issue. I never claimed it was the whole issue. The SCOTUS (which I often disagree with) quote is interesting. You think they are saying that the governmental benefit (which you are claiming is the issue) is the basic right of man? We're endowed by our creator with a more favorable tax return? Single people and divorcees should be up in arms!

You're trying to have it both ways.

(05-15-2012 09:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  SCOTUS -

Quote:Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis... embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality....is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

The bold would seem to suggest they are talking about actual marriage - a man and a woman.