Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by AuntPeggy, Jun 27, 2015.
My wedding anniversary occurred yesterday. To my gay friends, welcome to the club. I love you all.
Supporters of gay marriage, party planners, and divorce attorneys everywhere are rejoicing!
I still don't understand why this took a supreme court decision. Marriage should be solely between two (or more?) people (no animals allowed, but that is just my opinion). The government has no place in the decision making process. For that matter, neither does religion, although I have no problem with marriage being blessed or sanctioned by a religion.
This is spin zone material....reported.
Ya get it out of here, before I kick it out of here.
Maybe, but I don't think so. At least not until someone turns it into SZ material. And if someone wants to do that, then they should start a thread in the Spin zone.
Gay marriage is about destroying the nuclear family and a strong cohesive community. Plus it makes the state bigger. Got nothing to do with rights. Go ask a gay guy about lifetime monogamy, not really a predisposition those afflicted are prone to. And yes this was spin zone stuff from the start, stop trying to air your perversions in public as if they are normal. Deviant freaks, I'll just remind you god hates fags.
I must have you confused with someone else. I thought you were a liberal.
It's not about the people, He loves them....it's the behavior (disobedience) stupid.
Only in your opinion, I hope the moderators disagree.
opinions on any subject should be allowed to be discussed in a civil manor.
The OP made a simple statement. Agree or disagree, but quit whining about it being subject you don't like.
Multiple partner marriages are next. God loves those.
With cards now hurled onto the table hard enough to bounce off and slice someone's eye open, it doesn't matter because those "afflicted" as you say wouldn't get married in "traditional" marriages anyway for obvious reasons. What does it matter?
Also, you're one to follow God by the way you act on here it sure doesn't seem like it.
Adding right rudder...congratulations! I think it's a step forward in allowing people to do what they want. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.
That's my position, too. I don't believe government should be involved at all. I don't even believe in marriage licenses. Any two or more adults should be able to declare themselves married, period, without Big Brother's consent.
But you have those who will protest any thing they don't approve of, this law is to prevent the general populist from refusing their services to them.
I disagree with this simply because I should have the right to refuse service to any one, for my own reasons.
That's a reasonable position, or would be except for the fact that the government is already involved in sanctioning the marriages of heterosexual couples.
Would you also get rid of tax filing status advantages for married couples? Or require some other kind of evidence that they were of the same household?
Whole 'nother argument, but there shouldn't be any tax advantages/penalties/deductions based on status or kids or anything.
I completely agree. It's the fact that the government has inserted itself into the institution of marriage that is the whole problem. The government is concerned about marital status because of-
Custody of children
Power to make health decisions for family members
These issues could have been solved without such a fuss if the states and federal government had just required a civil union status (or whatever you would want to call it) for everyone. Leave the marriage part, with all it's religious connotations up to the individuals.
But it is what it is and IMO, I agree with the SCOTUS decision on the matter.
I haven't been NOT married for a long time, but I belive there is a marriage tax penalty instead of advantage. I know quite a few people that would get married if ti weren't for the additional taxes and loss of other benefits.
On the other hand, this will allow a lot of gay spouses to collect spousal SS benefits that they may not have paid into. As they say, "it's complicated".
That is vary easy done under Rand Paul's plan. (flat rate tax)
Common law marriage was legal. Don't know whether it was outlawed.
You must have a lot of love to share. I don't even love all of my straight friends.
So does this mean all the protests, marching and hullabaloo will stop?....sure hope so.
And what is wrong with that?
I don't care if you have a dozen wives as long as it doesn't cause me to pay for them. or over load the schools. ect.
No, there are those who must do that, they'll find a different reason.
It doesn't matter where you fall on this issue. What the ruling means is that the 10 th amendment to the constitution has no meaning. Seems some people are happy no matter what the costs.
Forced acceptance has already begun. Just look at the laundry lists of lawsuits against bakers, florist and photographers who have declined to participate in the same sex weddings.
But they didn't. In fact some states (e.g. Michigan) passed constitutional amendments categorically forbidding recognition of same sex civil unions or common law marriages.
That works in a simple world, but ours is not so. Marriage gets into property rights, which the State has regulated since antiquity.
Very easy to deal with. I own property jointly with people I'm not married to.
This is the big issue :
The Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. These powers include the power to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate business activities and others that are listed in the articles.
Any power not listed, says the Tenth Amendment, is left to the states or the people. Although the Tenth Amendment does not specify what these “powers” may be, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations (such as marriage, divorce, and adoption), commerce that occurs within a state’s own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.
The Supreme court has on this issue over stepped its authority, by making law rather than interpreting it as constitutional or not.
Yes it is, and that's precisely my point. The government is already involved in marriage. That ship has long since sailed.
FTFY. Heterosexuals have a pretty miserable record when it comes to marriage, monogamy, and family issues as well.
And if "God hates fags," he sure doesn't seem to show it. In fact, he seemed to be showing his support on my flight yesterday...
nice....you had Gays on board?
How exactly did this not get moved to SZ? Oh, yeah, its not "political" if the leftists say so.
Because you have been brain washed by the arguments (both for and against) that somehow people can't LOVE one another if they are not married.
MARRIAGE is a legal condition that was until now each STATE's decision to administer. Government has all the right to control the LEGAL aspects of MARRIAGE. Love and companionship, now that is a totally separate matter.
What gay rights are celebrating is not their right to LOVE someone, but their right to share in government defined benefits.
I'm not saying it is the cause, but you rainbow flag wavers need to check up on your history. Public condoning of homosexuality is an end marker for society. By refusing to shame deviants and defend traditional human values you are bringing on the collapse of Western society. Islam and Catholic brown people are winning. Your support of rainbows is harkening another dark ages. Back to the cave whitey, but leave your women we like them.
I believe that there ruling was about rights, not laws. They believe that marriage is a right and that all US citizens have that right. Therefor the 10th Amendment doesn't have anything to do with it and States can't enact laws to restrict your right to a marriage any more than they can enact laws to restrict your free speech or gun ownership although they will certainly try.