What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

[88GT]

Not so 88GT.

The income tax code has gone FAR beyond raising revenue to execute those duties delegated by the States to the state in the Constitution and morphed into a tool for manipulating the behaviors of the citizenry and advancing political agendas.

Abolishing the income tax system would go a long way towards removing from the hands of statist pigs a tool for controlling the behavior of citizens.

Right, because the only benefits conveyed to legal unions are the result of the tax code.

Fine. Let's play your little game. The tax code is eliminated as we know it and whatever scheme YOU deem acceptable is implemented. Tell me how that protects me as a spouse.

 

[J_Wales]

Right, because the only benefits conveyed to legal unions are the result of the tax code.

Fine. Let's play your little game. The tax code is eliminated as we know it and whatever scheme YOU deem acceptable is implemented. Tell me how that protects me as a spouse.

I lost interest in games long ago.

Let not Lady Liberty pass without a fight.

Those that want protection would be well advised to not let the state decide.

 

[Grunt]

Here is a video from a group in California trying to save their children from the clutches of homosexuals. It's 3 minutes long and educational. Parental discretion advised.

Save California

 

[strahd71]

Here is a video from a group in California trying to save their children from the clutches of homosexuals. It's 3 minutes long and educational. Parental discretion advised.

Save California

Good video! i dont even let my kids participate in any polls or questionnaires they send permission slips home with the kids about from the school. they dont need to ask my kids nothing. the schools jobs in reading writing and arithmetic their sexual habits are a family matter.

if i lived in California i'd be raising a stink about harvey milk!

i would rep you but it says i have to share the love first

jake

 

[IndyDave1776]

Right, because the only benefits conveyed to legal unions are the result of the tax code.

Fine. Let's play your little game. The tax code is eliminated as we know it and whatever scheme YOU deem acceptable is implemented. Tell me how that protects me as a spouse.

It would eliminate the biggest more or less legitimate claim of discrimination given that taxation is different for married couples than for singles who are taxed at a higher rate. It would also open a wonderful opportunity to return .gov to its proper role within a reasonable budget and financially force it out of extraconstitutional activities. Back to the point, while I find homosexuality to be abnormal, unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, I would still have to argue that all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law and that the .gov should have no role in marriage other than the contractual joining of worldly possessions, responsibilities, and duties. I would also argue that this does not extend into a contrived right to redefine language or to commandeer public imprimatur on their activities, both of which seem to be top priorities with the homosexual movement. Without the tax issue, their claims of inequality would pretty much be moot. The protection for traditional marriage would come in form of there being no legitimate claim of discrimination making the effort for redefinition and codified public approval of a private choice stand out as the pettiness it truly represents.

 

[rambone]

So the Republican position is as follows.

Leave marriage to the states.
We are pursuing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to revoke this power from the states.

Republicans are going to get destroyed in this election.

Effectively the RNC wants to give divorces to any same-sex marriage already on the books.

Good luck winning on that platform.

 

[GBuck]

It truly befuddles me all the "individual liberty" proponents we have on this site and yet so many of you are so worried about what others do with their lives. It's actually sickening that there has even been this much discussion on the topic.

Stop encouraging the government to legislate into our lives.


"First they came for the Jews..."

 

[88GT]

I lost interest in games long ago.

Let not Lady Liberty pass without a fight.

Those that want protection would be well advised to not let the state decide.

So you don't have an answer? Thought so. Nothing but word games and dancing around the issue. How typical.

It would eliminate the biggest more or less legitimate claim of discrimination given that taxation is different for married couples than for singles who are taxed at a higher rate. It would also open a wonderful opportunity to return .gov to its proper role within a reasonable budget and financially force it out of extraconstitutional activities. Back to the point, while I find homosexuality to be abnormal, unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, I would still have to argue that all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law and that the .gov should have no role in marriage other than the contractual joining of worldly possessions, responsibilities, and duties. I would also argue that this does not extend into a contrived right to redefine language or to commandeer public imprimatur on their activities, both of which seem to be top priorities with the homosexual movement. Without the tax issue, their claims of inequality would pretty much be moot. The protection for traditional marriage would come in form of there being no legitimate claim of discrimination making the effort for redefinition and codified public approval of a private choice stand out as the pettiness it truly represents.

Oh, yay. Another straw man. Let's try this again. How will altering the tax code protecting spousal benefits? And, no, without the tax issue, their claims of inequality would not be moot. That's part of the picture I'm trying to paint, but some of you are either too dense or unable to bring yourself out of the myopia of the problem to see the big picture.

I want to know how providing equal taxing paradigms to everybody protects my spousal privileges. All of them.

 

[88GT]

It truly befuddles me all the "individual liberty" proponents we have on this site and yet so many of you are so worried about what others do with their lives. It's actually sickening that there has even been this much discussion on the topic.

Stop encouraging the government to legislate into our lives.


"First they came for the Jews..."

Who has been doing that?

I just love it when you guys make these blanket statements about how badly people are behaving and don't have the balls to call them out by name.

 

[Expat]

So killing millions of Jews in an attempt to wipe out an entire race is comparable to being against gay marriage. Huh...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Republicans are going to get destroyed in this election.

Effectively the RNC wants to give divorces to any same-sex marriage already on the books.

Good luck winning on that platform.

If the economy weren't in the tank, the Russians weren't re-arming and threatening a preemptive strike, and the economy weren't in the tank, you might be right. But as someone said a long time ago, "it's the economy stupid".

Most people will vote their wallet. If it is lighter than it was 4 years ago, they will vote Republican. If it isn't, they may vote Democrat, or they may not. The 0 for 44 voters will vote for someone irrelevent.

 

[GBuck]

Who has been doing that?

I just love it when you guys make these blanket statements about how badly people are behaving and don't have the balls to call them out by name.

It's pretty obvious, therefore I don't see a reason to "call out by name". There are seemingly plenty of people lining up to go right ahead and marginalized the homosexuals because it's the total degradation of society, or because they want the word marriage or because they "find it disgusting". Those are all things you're free to do if you want, however, don't EVER come back and try to harp on "individual liberty" or "property rights" or anything of that ilk.

So killing millions of Jews in an attempt to wipe out an entire race is comparable to being against gay marriage. Huh...

Look up the poem.
It's not a comparison.

 

[Pocketman]

So you don't have an answer? Thought so. Nothing but word games and dancing around the issue. How typical.

Oh, yay. Another straw man. Let's try this again. How will altering the tax code protecting spousal benefits? And, no, without the tax issue, their claims of inequality would not be moot. That's part of the picture I'm trying to paint, but some of you are either too dense or unable to bring yourself out of the myopia of the problem to see the big picture.

I want to know how providing equal taxing paradigms to everybody protects my spousal privileges. All of them.

Let me take a crack at answering your spousal protection question. Marriage is a "legal union" (usually) between a man and a woman. We have certain rights under this legal union. If same sex, or even heterosexual couples, wanted to share households and responsibilities they could enter into such a legal union. Wouldn't be a marriage, but would still provide the legal benefits and obligations. Where the tax laws come into play is through either elimination of the marriage penalties or simply changing the language to "legal union."

Beyond the homosexual aspect of this, let's assume two people, with no sexual relationship whatsoever shared a home. They're relationship was such that they didn't want to be married but wanted to give the other rights of survivorship, etc.. I suppose much of this could be accomplished through other legal paperwork, but a legal union would provide equal protection under the law, even though they were not "married."

The federal government could change their language from "married" to "legal union." Individual states would then have the option of defining what a "legal union" is within their own state. By default, a marriage would be a legal union, but not necessarily exclusive.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The problem with legal unions is the Insurance companies. They do not want to be forced to offer coverage to anyone besides spouses. They will spend their millions with lobbyist to keep legal unions from being forced on them.

Just something else to think about

 

[Pocketman]

The problem with legal unions is the Insurance companies. They do not want to be forced to offer coverage to anyone besides spouses. They will spend their millions with lobbyist to keep legal unions from being forced on them.

Just something else to think about

The Defense of Marriage Act already uses the term "legal union." If definition was left to the states, which also regulate insurance, this may not be as large a hurdle. Not sure if this simplifies or complicates the situation, but Obamacare will require (subject to SCOTUS) everyone to participate, so one way or the other, insurance companies are going to get a paid premium for virtually everyone.

 

[J_Wales]

Right, because the only benefits conveyed to legal unions are the result of the tax code.

Fine. Let's play your little game. The tax code is eliminated as we know it and whatever scheme YOU deem acceptable is implemented. Tell me how that protects me as a spouse.

You are responsible for protecting yourself.

 

[Expat]

Look up the poem.
It's not a comparison.

I am very familiar with the quotation and the point of it.

 

[GBuck]

I am very familiar with the quotation and the point of it.

Then I don't understand what your question was meant for.

 

[strahd71]

It's pretty obvious, therefore I don't see a reason to "call out by name". There are seemingly plenty of people lining up to go right ahead and marginalized the homosexuals because it's the total degradation of society, or because they want the word marriage or because they "find it disgusting". Those are all things you're free to do if you want, however, don't EVER come back and try to harp on "individual liberty" or "property rights" or anything of that ilk.

yea i'll be the bad guy, i dont want gay marriage. maybe the gov. should have never gotten into it, its beside the point now they did. personally i'd like for them to leave it alone and leave it as is as far as definition.

if that makes me an enemy of liberty in your eyes because i have an opinion and a stance on a moral issue i'm ok with that! judging by the attitude of many of your post i've been disliked by better

jake

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Marriage is something defined by Judaism and Christianity as the joining of a man and a woman, under God. That conjugal union expressed in love is exactly why man and woman were created, so that in their love for one another, they could pro-create. The family is the fabric that holds society together. Over the thousands of years, there has never been a ruler or king "marrying" another prince or king of another country or family, or some queen "marrying" another princess or queen. And back then, religion was tied very closely to politics. Pagan religious societies did not freely condone same sexes living together. The ones who did, died out. So history repeats itself.