| Should the US Federal Government Recognize Same-Sex Marriages? |
| Yes |
|
84% |
[ 58 ] |
| No |
|
7% |
[ 5 ] |
| Just display the results |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 69 |
|
HisDivineMajesty
Carolingian Emperor Extraordinaire
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Posts: 1364
Location: Planet Earth
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| What I think needs to happen is that all consenting adults can marry each other, and tax breaks are abolished altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4889
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dantac wrote: | Recognize? Yes.
Give tax breaks to? No.
Not unless they have children. The whole purpose of the tax break to married hetero couples is for family building. |
Married heterosexual couples who are childless still get tax breaks.
Would you give tax breaks to homosexual couples who have or adopt children? |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HisDivineMajesty wrote: | | What I think needs to happen is that all consenting adults can marry each other, and tax breaks are abolished altogether. |
That's my opinion too. Instead tax breaks, parents should receive child benefits, regardless if they are married or not. Parents shouldn't suffer a financial disadvantage for raising children, which is a very important task (if not to say "job") that needs to be fairly compensated in some form or another.
Other benefits however, such as survivors' benefits and of course rights like joined property, hospital visitation, and medical decision making, make a lot of sense to me. All married people should enjoy these rights and benefits, and all adults should be allowed to marry one or more adult people of any sex, skin color, blood type and whathaveyou. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | | Would you give tax breaks to homosexual couples who have or adopt children? |
I would pay them (and all other parents and legal guardians) child benefits instead of giving them tax breaks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YippySkippy wrote: | | I don't think the government should recognize ANY marriage. A marriage is a religious institution, and here in the U.S. the government is not supposed to interfere in religious matters. |
Marriage has existed long before Christianity, and it has always been more about property rights and social status than religion. So this can easily be turned around: Since the government recognizes marriage as a legal institution, religion should not interfere in matters of marriage.
That's how we (Germans) have handled it. Priests, witches, shamans and voodoo doctors no longer have the right to join two people in a legal partnership. Only civil registrars can do that. People can still have a church wedding if they want to, but it has no legal relevance whatsoever. Just like it should be in a country where state and religion are kept separate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kurgan
I'm always right
Joined: Apr 07, 2012
Age: 24
Posts: 1715
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Absolutely. It doesn't harm anyone when two people who love each other get married; thus, what politicians think should not get in the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Billybones
Snowy Owl
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | But I think your analysis is targetting the wrong part of the Constitution. You have omitted "full faith and credit," and it is there, I suggest, that the die will be cast. Litigants in same sex marriages are already suing for federal recognition of their state celebrated marriages--in precisely the same way that the federal government is compelled to recognize any other marriages validly celebrated between two people.
What the Fourteenth Amendment will do is invalidate statutes, like DOMA, that purport to insulate government from its full faith and credit responsibilities. It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but an important one. |
Indeed, the Defense of Marriage Act is in obvious contravention of the "full faith & credit" clause of the U.S constitution. The DOMA effectively nullifies this provision when it comes to same-sex marriage; thus, a provision in the constitution is effectively overruled by a statute. But the constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, & odds are that the Court will uphold it 5-4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
abacacus
Rock 'N Roll Outlaw
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 3323
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dantac wrote: | Recognize? Yes.
Give tax breaks to? No.
Not unless they have children. The whole purpose of the tax break to married hetero couples is for family building. |
Under the same standard, straight married couples shouldn't get tax breaks until after they have a child as well then.
My vote goes to yes, the federal government should recognise same sex marriage and look at it as just another marriage, no differences at all.
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes they should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dantac
Ouroboros Oracle
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
Age: 35
Posts: 2675
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: |
Married heterosexual couples who are childless still get tax breaks.
Would you give tax breaks to homosexual couples who have or adopt children? |
Yes thats what I said. If there is a child involved they have every right to get them.
| Quote: | | Under the same standard, straight married couples shouldn't get tax breaks until after they have a child as well then. |
Until the % of same sex couples having children at home increases by several magnitudes (it is rare now)..no. The whole point of the married tax break is to prepare/care for offspring. The chances of a hetero couple not having children is much higher than that of a same sex couple having children.
Once the same sex couple have the child.. yes im all for it.
What I dont think is right is the potential abuse of same sex couples getting married for tax convenience and not using that tax break for its intended purpose: kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
muslimmetalhead
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 30, 2011
Posts: 1072
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Subotai wrote: | | YippySkippy wrote: | | Atheists can get baptized too, if they like. Baptism is still a religious institution. |
Marriage and baptism are two different things. Marriage happens and has happened all over the world for ages, including non Abrahamic parts. |
RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES are religious institutions.
_________________
"I watched a change in you, It's like you never had wings, now you feel so alive" |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4889
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dantac wrote: |
What I dont think is right is the potential abuse of same sex couples getting married for tax convenience and not using that tax break for its intended purpose: kids. |
And abuse by opposite-gender couples doesn't bother you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29328
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marriage laws are for the States to decide, not the Central Government. There is no authorization in the Constitution for Congress to pass any laws defining marriage. That would require a Constitutional Amendment.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| muslimmetalhead wrote: | | Subotai wrote: | | YippySkippy wrote: | | Atheists can get baptized too, if they like. Baptism is still a religious institution. |
Marriage and baptism are two different things. Marriage happens and has happened all over the world for ages, including non Abrahamic parts. |
RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES are religious institutions. |
And state-recognized, legally binding marriages are secular institutions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29328
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | | Dantac wrote: | Recognize? Yes.
Give tax breaks to? No.
Not unless they have children. The whole purpose of the tax break to married hetero couples is for family building. |
Married heterosexual couples who are childless still get tax breaks.
Would you give tax breaks to homosexual couples who have or adopt children? |
Why not?
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
