Christie vetos same sex marrige bill

#51
#51
Most rational people do not want any rights taken away from gay couples. Christie wants gay couples to have every single right heterosexual couples have (and I agree). What he doesn't want is for a vocal minority to change the definition of a word that has meant the same thing for thousands of years and then forcing the majority to just live with it. Why is it that changing that word makes a gay couples relationship more valid when the legal protections are the same? Nobody in this thread is avocating taking away anything from gay couples.
 
#52
#52
Slydell said:
Knowing the government as it has been for many, many years, they're probably working on a new definition for equal.
Click to expand...

They already have it...

Governments definition of equal is "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine".
 
#53
#53
Can a man and a man married in a state that same sex marriage is legal file federal income tax as "married filing jointly" ?
 
#56
#56
distrovol said:
Most rational people do not want any rights taken away from gay couples. Christie wants gay couples to have every single right heterosexual couples have (and I agree). What he doesn't want is for a vocal minority to change the definition of a word that has meant the same thing for thousands of years and then forcing the majority to just live with it. Why is it that changing that word makes a gay couples relationship more valid when the legal protections are the same? Nobody in this thread is avocating taking away anything from gay couples.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then why don't we go all the way back to white and colored drinking fountains? I mean, both got the water they were after, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#58
#58
Gramps said:
That doesn't make sense.
Does the US Government honor the same sex marriage laws of some states and not others?
Click to expand...

I don't know how it works. I thought you raised a good question, so I poked around enough to see that some approved it. If big money would stay out of it and people just voted, I think it would pass just about everywhere.
 
#59
#59
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I disagree with this. The issue of interracial marriages is/was a pure racist issue... period. There is nothing I am aware of in the Bible against interracial marriages. They are a marriage in the purist definition of the word, whether some people choose to accept it or not.
Click to expand...

Nope. At the time there was much Bible thumping about various passages that purported to outlaw interracial marriages. It was preached at my church consistently and the SCOTUS was damned for their decision. There is still remnants of these arguments made by white supremacists. Not that there wasn't a HUGE racists content to the arguments against, but there was most certainly a religious component.

IBlvNTmWrk said:
The question becomes, as many people have pointed out in previous threads, if the government is going to change the definition of marriage to allow men to marry men and women to marry women, why shouldn't they also allow brothers to marry sisters, sons to marry daughters, and Newt to marry that sheep he's been seen flirtin' with. :)
Click to expand...

In my estimation, they should. It is none of their, or anyone else's, bidness. I could not care less who or what anyone else marries. It doesn't affect my marriage at all.
 
#60
#60
Slydell said:
Varies by state. Yes for some, no for some.
Click to expand...

If a same sex couple gets married in one of the states that same sex marriage is legal, lets say CT. In a few years the couple moves to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, say TN.
Does TN have to recognize them as a married couple?
What if they split up, can they file for divorce in TN?
 
#61
#61
Gramps said:
That doesn't make sense.
Does the US Government honor the same sex marriage laws of some states and not others?
Click to expand...

The answer is no, they cannot file a joint federal tax return because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. States that have same-sex marriage can file joint returns for that state and get all the same tax breaks and laws that benefit married couples, but most of the benefits and rights come from the federal government. That won't change until the defense of marriage act is repealed and same sex marriage is recognized at the federal level.
 
#62
#62
Gramps said:
If a same sex couple gets married in one of the states that same sex marriage is legal, lets say CT. In a few years the couple moves to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, say TN.
Does TN have to recognize them as a married couple?
What if they split up, can they file for divorce in TN?
Click to expand...

The answer to both questions is no.
 
#63
#63
Slydell said:
I don't know how it works. I thought you raised a good question, so I poked around enough to see that some approved it. If big money would stay out of it and people just voted, I think it would pass just about everywhere.
Click to expand...

My point is how can a state approve how their citizens file their federal income tax?

If same sex marriage is recognized, should it not be a fed issue rather than a state issue?
 
#64
#64
My guess would be the state wouldn't have to recognize it. Trying to sift through the DOM Act (DOMA).
 
#65
#65
milohimself said:
The answer is no, they cannot file a joint federal tax return because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. States that have same-sex marriage can file joint returns for that state and get all the same tax breaks and laws that benefit married couples, but most of the benefits and rights come from the federal government. That won't change until the defense of marriage act is repealed and same sex marriage is recognized at the federal level.
Click to expand...

Damn Thee!! Glad you showed up. I was trying to read through all that and apparently didn't read enough. Makes since now. What a piece of garbage DOMA is, IMO.
 
#66
#66
Thanks Milo, you nailed it.

If they cannot file fed income tax as a couple, are not recognized as a married couple in other states, cannot divorce in other states, it is useless for these few states to pass these laws.
 
#67
#67
Danl said:
Nope. At the time there was much Bible thumping about various passages that purported to outlaw interracial marriages. It was preached at my church consistently and the SCOTUS was damned for their decision. There is still remnants of these arguments made by white supremacists. Not that there wasn't a HUGE racists content to the arguments against, but there was most certainly a religious component.


In my estimation, they should. It is none of their, or anyone else's, bidness. I could not care less who or what anyone else marries. It doesn't affect my marriage at all.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but none of this makes it a biblical issue. It was still a racial issue and all you're stating is that people with racial views tried to use the bible to justify their personal feelings. Wasn't the first time and will likely not be the last.
 
#68
#68
Gramps said:
Thanks Milo, you nailed it.

If they cannot file fed income tax as a couple, are not recognized as a married couple in other states, cannot divorce in other states, it is useless for these few states to pass these laws.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Tax breaks are tax breaks, and each state has a set of laws regarding marriage, usually numbering in the hundreds. Better than nothing.
 
#69
#69
milohimself said:
Not necessarily. Tax breaks are tax breaks, and each state has a set of laws regarding marriage, usually numbering in the hundreds. Better than nothing.
Click to expand...

I think this issue will have to be settled on the federal level.
 
#72
#72
Slydell said:
If that's the case, then why don't we go all the way back to white and colored drinking fountains? I mean, both got the water they were after, right?
Click to expand...

Color me shocked someone plays the bigot card. Disagree with someone, call them a bigot.:no:
 
#73
#73
distrovol said:
Color me shocked someone plays the bigot card. Disagree with someone, call them a bigot.:no:
Click to expand...

Confusing to me. Hope you aren't thinking I'm calling the poster a bigot. Or, I'm a bigot. Just trying to find a good analogy for me. And, I do disagree with the poster.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#74
#74
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but none of this makes it a biblical issue. It was still a racial issue and all you're stating is that people with racial views tried to use the bible to justify their personal feelings. Wasn't the first time and will likely not be the last.
Click to expand...

That's right. And I believe that many are using the Bible to justify their anti-gay views, just as many used the Bible to try to justify their racial views. That was my point.
 
#75
#75
Danl said:
That's right. And I believe that many are using the Bible to justify their anti-gay views, just as many used the Bible to try to justify their racial views. That was my point.
Click to expand...

Show me the verses in the Bible that outlaw gay marriage or explicitly outlaws homosexuality.

(Hint: if you're wearing two different types of cloth or have cut your hair, you're a hypocrite.)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top