Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on June 26, 2013, 01:49:05 PM
-
SCOTUS ruled against the Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act today, which denied federal benefits to gay couples who are legally married in their states, including Social Security survivor benefits, immigration rights, and family leave.
Here's a SCOTUS ruling for us to disagree on.
I think the Supreme Court made all the right calls this week. I may be the one guy.
-
Ruling based on 5th amendment and Equal Protection Grounds.
-
Question - Doesn't the EPG mean that homosexuals could become a protected class meaning that it would be against the law to discriminate against them in any way?
Such as a photographer turning down a gay marriage job because they don't agree with allowing gay people to marry?
-
President who signed DOMA into law:
@billclinton 1h
Today's decisions are a great step forward for #MarriageEquality. Grateful to all who fought tirelessly for this day. http://wjcf.co/19CkWRy
LOLz.
-
They didn't go far enough to me. I want the fedgov out of marriage entirely. Period. It's a state thing. But since the Feds have attached themselves to marriage in many ways, it's very hard to. Federal benefits, tax deductions - you name it. This ruling may look like govt is getting out of marriage but it's not really. It just grants the right for federal benefits.
-
They didn't go far enough to me. I want the fedgov out of marriage entirely. Period. It's a state thing. But since the Feds have attached themselves to marriage in many ways, it's very hard to. Federal benefits, tax deductions - you name it. This ruling may look like govt is getting out of marriage but it's not really. It just grants the right for federal benefits.
(http://thebubble.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/clap.gif)
-
Why is it OK for me to marry another dude but it's not OK for me to marry 2 chicks?
Also, what is to stop you from "marrying" your same sex best friend in order to get each other's benefits (health care, etc)and then divorcing later in life when you decide you've found your opposite sex wife or husband?
those are just a few of the questions that have crossed my mind today. Other than that, as long as you are responsible for yourself and don't suck off the teet of the federal government, I don't care where you prefer to stick your dick
-
Why is it OK for me to marry another dude but it's not OK for me to marry 2 chicks?
Finding two chicks to agree to it.
Also, what is to stop you from "marrying" your same sex best friend in order to get each other's benefits (health care, etc)and then divorcing later in life when you decide you've found your opposite sex wife or husband?
Sounds like the plot to an Adam Sandler movie...because it is.
(http://www.impawards.com/2007/posters/i_now_pronounce_you_chuck_and_larry_ver2_xlg.jpg)
If you're a straight man and are willing to go through the process of marrying a dude, having that on your love life resume, and all the paperwork and fees that are entailed in both the marriage and the divorce all to save a couple bucks on taxes, then knock yourself out.
I don't know how you're filing, but I'm not noticing a flood of cash since filing as a married couple.
those are just a few of the questions that have crossed my mind today. Other than that, as long as you are responsible for yourself and don't suck off the teet of the federal government, I don't care where you prefer to stick your dick
:thumsup:
-
Why is it OK for me to marry another dude but it's not OK for me to marry 2 chicks?
Also, what is to stop you from "marrying" your same sex best friend in order to get each other's benefits (health care, etc)and then divorcing later in life when you decide you've found your opposite sex wife or husband?
those are just a few of the questions that have crossed my mind today. Other than that, as long as you are responsible for yourself and don't suck off the teet of the federal government, I don't care where you prefer to stick your dick
The polygamy argument is a good point. But their support isn't nearly as vocal as the gay support so I'm not sure anything will happen there. But if gay marriage is going to be legalized then I say let the Mormons have at it too. Why not?
Btw, healthcare is just another thing the fedgov has attached itself to, even before the healthcare law was passed. And while I agree with your point of marrying someone just for the benefits, that's not specific to gay couples. That has been happening for years in traditional marriage. Military wives, chicks from Romania and Russia - have been doing this for a long while. Convenience marriages.
-
And while I agree with your point of marrying someone just for the benefits, that's not specific to gay couples. That has been happening for years in traditional marriage. Military wives, chicks from Romania and Russia - have been doing this for a long while. Convenience marriages.
Nah, dude, ONLY two dudes can pull off a scam like that.
-
Nah, dude, ONLY two dudes can pull off a scam like that.
You mean that whole mail order bride thing was just a hoax the last 30 years? Who knew.
-
Why is it OK for me to marry another dude but it's not OK for me to marry 2 chicks?
Who in their right mind would want too?
-
Who in their right mind would want too?
I've been saying this about the gay couples. Let them partake in the punishment that is marriage. After a couple of years they'll be lobbying to make it illegal again.
-
I've been saying this about the gay couples. Let them partake in the punishment that is marriage. After a couple of years they'll be lobbying to make it illegal again.
That should be in the vows.
-
If I was an attorney I'd move to CA or NY and make a mint off of gay divorce. Lawyers have to be licking their chops over this.
-
If I was an attorney I'd move to CA or NY and make a mint off of gay divorce. Lawyers have to be licking their chops over this.
VV was licking his chops over gays before it was cool to do so.
-
If I was an attorney I'd move to CA or NY and make a mint off of gay divorce. Lawyers have to be licking their chops over this.
Gay ones are.
-
Did anyone bother to read the case that was the basis for this ruling?
Two old lesbians were together for 41 years and raised a daughter together. One of them got terminal cancer, and so she and the other lesbian got married, which was allowed in their state. In her will, the cancer lesbian left everything to her partner. When she died, the partner was told that she owed the IRS a shitload of money in estate taxes. Had the surviving partner been married to a man, she would have owed nothing.
The point was that in this instance, because they were legally married under the laws of their state, the surviving partner was discriminated against by the federal government because she was in a lesbian marriage, which was illegal under DOMA.
So what this does is give LEGALLY MARRIED gay couples the same FEDERAL benefits, rights and privileges as straight people - BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE THEY ARE LIVING IN.
If a gay couple is married in CT, and moves to TX, their marriage is invalid. so when one of them dies, the Feds could collect taxes. If they stayed in CT, they pay no taxes.
So until all 50 states allow gay marriage, or recognize a gay marriage that is valid in another state, this is a very narrow ruling that is going to create a thousand more headaches than just "GAYS CAN MARRY".
So if the idea of gay marriage offends you, then look at it this way - gay couples are gonna move to the 13 (?) states that recognize gay marriage and stay there. Self-segregation. Just stay away from those places...
-
Did anyone bother to read the case that was the basis for this ruling?
Two old lesbians were together for 41 years and raised a daughter together. One of them got terminal cancer, and so she and the other lesbian got married, which was allowed in their state. In her will, the cancer lesbian left everything to her partner. When she died, the partner was told that she owed the IRS a shitload of money in estate taxes. Had the surviving partner been married to a man, she would have owed nothing.
The point was that in this instance, because they were legally married under the laws of their state, the surviving partner was discriminated against by the federal government because she was in a lesbian marriage, which was illegal under DOMA.
So what this does is give LEGALLY MARRIED gay couples the same FEDERAL benefits, rights and privileges as straight people - BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE THEY ARE LIVING IN.
If a gay couple is married in CT, and moves to TX, their marriage is invalid. so when one of them dies, the Feds could collect taxes. If they stayed in CT, they pay no taxes.
So until all 50 states allow gay marriage, or recognize a gay marriage that is valid in another state, this is a very narrow ruling that is going to create a thousand more headaches than just "GAYS CAN MARRY".
So if the idea of gay marriage offends you, then look at it this way - gay couples are gonna move to the 13 (?) states that recognize gay marriage and stay there. Self-segregation. Just stay away from those places...
I can solve that problem without having to marry another dude. There should be no inheritance tax no matter if you leave your money to your spouse or some random stranger who lives under a bridge. The gov't already took their slice of that money when it was made the first time. They have no right to tax it again just because it now resides in a different bank account.
-
I can solve that problem without having to marry another dude.
You do know that this is not a requirement now, right?
-
I can solve that problem without having to marry another dude. There should be no inheritance tax no matter if you leave your money to your spouse or some random stranger who lives under a bridge. The gov't already took their slice of that money when it was made the first time. They have no right to tax it again just because it now resides in a different bank account.
I completely agree. Just like capital gains tax, which is a TOTAL double dip.
But the whole DOMA thing really does not change anything. Gay marriage is still legal in California, but only in California. Bring that piece of paper to Texas, and it's worthless. Not sure how you can sue one state for not recognizing the actions of another state. Same with gun permits - my Texas concealed carry permit is not valid in California, and my guns are illegal. IF I move to CA from TX, that's too bad.
Lots of other items that are not subject to reciprocity between the states. I guess you could argue that since straight marriage is reciprocal, gay marriage should be too, but that is a states' rights issue...
-
You do know that this is not a requirement now, right?
In order for said Lesbian in the suit against DOMA to get what she wanted,it absolutely was a requirement.
Fix the tax law and it is not
-
In order for said Lesbian in the suit against DOMA to get what she wanted,it absolutely was a requirement.
Fix the tax law and it is not
The lesbian had to marry a dude?
-
The lesbian had to marry a dude?
Actually yes. Her wife looks a lot like a dude
-
VV was licking his chops over gays before it was cool to do so.
Gay ones are.
Fuck you guys.
No, seriously. Give me your numbers so that we can meet up and fuck.
-
If a gay couple is married in CT, and moves to TX, their marriage is invalid. so when one of them dies, the Feds could collect taxes. If they stayed in CT, they pay no taxes.
The marriage isn't invalid when a person moves; it just may not be recognized by the new state. But the person is still legally married in a state for federal tax purposes.
Texas' laws on marriage are not going to affect whether the federal government decides to collect taxes from a homosexual couple, as the I.R.S. is a federal agency that is restricted by federal law, not Texas law. So long as the couple is married in a state, the I.R.S. will (now) give them the federal tax benefits of a married couple.
Now whether or not Texas could disregard the marriage for state tax purposes, I'm not sure. But the basic wording of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution suggests that they could not do so any more than they could attempt to disregard a heterosexual marriage that occurred in another state.
In regard to whether Texas or another state can disregard a homosexual marriage from another state, my understanding is that, previously, states which had passed a local DOMA constitutional amendment were allowed to disregard homosexual marriages from other states. But now that the federal DOMA has been repealed, I am assuming that state DOMA amendments will be viewed as unconstitutional. Of course, this will require judicial challenges in order to repeal those state amendments, but I assume this is how it will play out.
-
I can solve that problem without having to marry another dude. There should be no inheritance tax no matter if you leave your money to your spouse or some random stranger who lives under a bridge. The gov't already took their slice of that money when it was made the first time. They have no right to tax it again just because it now resides in a different bank account.
yep. If this were the real issue, your solution would be the answer. But this was not the real issue. It was a convenient and compelling story to promote gay marriage.
-
VV - What about my question? Will homosexuals be considered a protected class?
-
yep. If this were the real issue, your solution would be the answer. But this was not the real issue. It was a convenient and compelling story to promote gay marriage.
What was the "real issue"? Ensuring that a federal law treats all people equally?
-
VV - What about my question? Will homosexuals be considered a protected class?
Automatically? No, I don't think so. Protected classes have to be created by legislation, I believe.
Will this ruling lead to the legislative creation of a federally protected class? Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be a generalized protection that applies to all instances. Vietnam era veterans are technically a "protected class" due to the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. However, that is an anti-discrimination law that only applies to federal employers and federal job training programs. It doesn't place any anti-discrimination requirements on private employers in relation to Vietnam era veterans.
-
blah blah blah a bunch of stuff
I came back just now to correct myself, but of course you had beaten me to it. I wrote that on the fly this afternoon after reading a few articles, and came to a partially erroneous conclusion. A couple legally married in one state does retain federal marriage benefits regardless of their state of residence - sort of. See below - it may not be that simple...
In the meantime, as one gay-rights leader said, there will be "two Americas" — and a host of legal complications for many gay couples moving between them.
Wednesday's twin rulings from the high court will extend federal recognition to same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal, and will add California — the most populous state — to the 12 others in that category. That will mean about 30 percent of Americans live in states recognizing same-sex marriage.
But the court's rulings have no direct effect on the constitutional amendments in 29 states that limit marriage to heterosexual couples. In a handful of politically moderate states such as Oregon, Nevada and Colorado those amendments could be overturned by ballot measures, but that's considered highly unlikely in more conservative states.
[...]
Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, suggested that efforts to end that division would not be easy, given that many states have electorates that seem solidly opposed to gay marriage.
[...]
Peter Sprigg of the conservative Family Research Council said the court ruling on federal recognition "raises as many questions as it answers."
"Will recognition be based on the law in the state where the marriage was celebrated or the state in which the couple resides?" he said. "The doors may now be wide open for whole new rounds of litigation."
The National Conference of State Legislatures said the situation was clear for married gay couples in the 13 states recognizing same-sex marriage: They will be eligible for all federal marriage benefits.
"Outside of these states, federal marriage benefits become more complicated, as many commonly thought-of federal benefits, such as jointly filing on federal income taxes, are tied to a married couple's place of residence," the conference said.
Gay-rights activists immediately began lobbying the Obama administration and other federal officials to extend as many benefits as possible on the basis of where a gay couple's wedding took place, not on the state where they live.
-
In what world does a wife not have to pay inheritance tax?
Fuck capital gains and inheritance tax
-
See below - it may not be that simple...
It's not...that's why I indicated that states will have to repeal their local DOMA amendments as well, just as your article suggests. However, while the article only indicates that it would have to be done by vote, I'm pretty sure that they could also be repealed by judicial challenge.
As for the article's statement from Peter Sprigg contemplating whether they would have to live in the state in which they got married in order to receive federal benefits, I don't see how he can consider this.
The court just gave a ruling that essentially required equal application of laws related to federal benefits. If a heterosexual couple can get married in Alabama, move to Tennessee, and yet not be required to get re-married in Tennessee in order to obtain federal benefits as a couple, then why would a homosexual couple be required to do so? That seems like an unequal application of the same law to me.
-
I completely agree. Just like capital gains tax, which is a TOTAL double dip.
But the whole DOMA thing really does not change anything. Gay marriage is still legal in California, but only in California. Bring that piece of paper to Texas, and it's worthless. Not sure how you can sue one state for not recognizing the actions of another state. Same with gun permits - my Texas concealed carry permit is not valid in California, and my guns are illegal. IF I move to CA from TX, that's too bad.
Lots of other items that are not subject to reciprocity between the states. I guess you could argue that since straight marriage is reciprocal, gay marriage should be too, but that is a states' rights issue...
CA has the gays
TX has the guns.
We can call it even.
Seriously I don't care who's gay and who's not, My wife's nephew is gay. Simply because I choose to not support a life style does not me homophobe or racist or whatever I am.
-
CA has the gays
TX has the guns.
We can call it even.
Seriously I don't care who's gay and who's not, My wife's nephew is gay. Simply because I choose to not support a life style does not me homophobe or racist or whatever I am.
And you're that uncle who put him there?
-
And you're that uncle who put him there?
Nope his parents fucked him up when he was a kid, For whatever reason when he was 5 or 6 they bought him a "Easy bake oven" When he opened that and was excited, I knew he would be gay.
-
(http://imgick.al.com/home/bama-media/width620/img/wire/photo/new-yorker-cover-bert-ernie-gay-marriage-580jpg-20e27c6996eb5a76.jpg)
-
How come Bert and Ernie have to be gay when so many other same sex roommates are present in pop culture without a hint of being gay?
Laverne and Shirley
Bosom Buddies (and they even cross dressed!!)
Sheldon and Leonard on BBT (even tho Sheldon is gay in real life...)
I realize that they share a bedroom, but that is as much of a reflection of how tiny NYC apartments can be as it is a hint that they are gay. They don't share a bed.
This pisses me off.
And now Sesame Street has a muppet character who has a parent in prison.
-
How come Bert and Ernie have to be gay when so many other same sex roommates are present in pop culture without a hint of being gay?
Laverne and Shirley
Bosom Buddies (and they even cross dressed!!)
Sheldon and Leonard on BBT (even tho Sheldon is gay in real life...)
I realize that they share a bedroom, but that is as much of a reflection of how tiny NYC apartments can be as it is a hint that they are gay. They don't share a bed.
This pisses me off.
And now Sesame Street has a muppet character who has a parent in prison.
It's basically a political cartoon by the New Yorker. Sesame street has not endorsed this in any way, and even declined to comment when pressed on it.
They have said many times that they're just roommates.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/bert-ernie-not-gay-sesame-street-says-statement-184052325.html
In other words, it's a joke. Lighten up.
-
They have said many times that they're just roommates.
They're just in the closet.
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/3/28/19/enhanced-buzz-15182-1364514903-16.jpg)
-
http://youtu.be/QsjbEWKK8AU
-
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060701135229/muppet/images/d/df/Ssmag.198010.jpg)
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060713030913/muppet/images/1/1e/Ssmag.197710.jpg)
-
It's basically a political cartoon by the New Yorker. Sesame street has not endorsed this in any way, and even declined to comment when pressed on it.
They have said many times that they're just roommates.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/bert-ernie-not-gay-sesame-street-says-statement-184052325.html
In other words, it's a joke. Lighten up.
You lighten up Francis. Nobody is gonna get away with insinuating Ernie likes boys around me Buster. I'll stick my rubber ducky in an uncomfortable place...or, maybe do something mean to you.
-
I'll stick my rubber ducky in an uncomfortable place..
You mean like in the back of a Volkswagon?
-
Wait, what's whoopee?
-
CA has the gays
TX has the guns.
We can call it even.
Seriously I don't care who's gay and who's not, My wife's nephew is gay. Simply because I choose to not support a life style does not me homophobe or racist or whatever I am.
This.
And why should people who choose that lifestyle get special treatment and not people who choose to love animal sex and pedophilia?
You people who like to call this equal rights always leave out those lifestyles that you deem wrong or immoral, yet you call the rest of us homophobes.
In your world, equal should be equal for everyone, right?
-
You lighten up, Francis. I realize that it was a joke by the New Yorker - I understand satire. My point is that people have been making this "joke" for years about B&E when there are plenty of other examples they can use that aren't . I hate it when people twist classic children's characters for their own agenda, because it is more "shocking" or "controversial". I could give two fucks about that normally, but you aren't the one who has to try and explain satire to your kids and why people are calling Bert & Ernie fags.
I got equally pissed when JK Rowling felt compelled to mention that Dumbledore was gay. There was nothing in those books that even HINTED that the character was gay, nothing implied, nothing that needed further explaining. What purpose did that serve other than to create controversy and buy some free publicity that she did not need? That's about as necessary as Lucas stating that Darth Vader likes to cross dress under his robe.
-
And why should people who choose that lifestyle get special treatment and not people who choose to love animal sex and pedophilia?
You people who like to call this equal rights always leave out those lifestyles that you deem wrong or immoral, yet you call the rest of us homophobes.
In your world, equal should be equal for everyone, right?
Dumb argument is dumb.
Those things have nothing to do with me deeming them immoral. If that was all that was at play with bestiality or pedophilia, then I wouldn't give a fuck because it would in no way affect me.
Those particular issues are about protection of people and things that cannot consent to sexual activity, and in that way are forms of rape.
It's not rocket science.
The only slippery slope argument with the tiniest hint of validity would be polygamy. But if you ask me? I could give a fuck less if three women want to marry one dude. Doesn't affect me. Doesn't affect anyone but that particular group of people, whom it makes happy, so it is beyond me how it bothers anyone else enough to have a negative opinion on it.
It takes a certain kind of hate that I fail to understand to so adamantly oppose granting a group of people happiness for no reason that affects you whatsoever besides your opinion that it is "immoral" in your estimation.
-
Dumb argument is dumb.
Those things have nothing to do with me deeming them immoral. If that was all that was at play with bestiality or pedophilia, then I wouldn't give a fuck because it would in no way affect me.
Those particular issues are about protection of people and things that cannot consent to sexual activity, and in that way are forms of rape.
It's not rocket science.
The only slippery slope argument with the tiniest hint of validity would be polygamy. But if you ask me? I could give a fuck less if three women want to marry one dude. Doesn't affect me. Doesn't affect anyone but that particular group of people, whom it makes happy, so it is beyond me how it bothers anyone else enough to have a negative opinion on it.
It takes a certain kind of hate that I fail to understand to so adamantly oppose granting a group of people happiness for no reason that affects you whatsoever besides your opinion that it is "immoral" in your estimation.
You do realize that Marriage in and of itself is a RELIGIOUS institution. Gays can have the same "rights" and treatment as married people by simply forming a civil union. Why do they have to highjack the religious basis for "marriage"?
-
You do realize that Marriage in and of itself is a RELIGIOUS institution. Gays can have the same "rights" and treatment as married people by simply forming a civil union. Why do they have to highjack the religious basis for "marriage"?
Right...Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc. can't legally get married? News to me.
-
Right...Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc. can't legally get married? News to me.
I think he means the origins of it going back to early Israel with Abraham and Sara.
And believe it or not, many biblical figures were actually practicers of polygamy. Yes. Its true.
-
I think he means the origins of it going back to early Israel with Abraham and Sara.
And believe it or not, many biblical figures were actually practicers of polygamy. Yes. Its true.
I am aware.
King Solomon, whom Louie Gohmert ironically quoted ("there was nothing new under the sun") to bemoan the falling of DOMA, had 300 wives and 700 concubines.
Wilt Chamberlain is jealous of the thousand pussies he crushed.
#Sanctity
-
Wait, what's whoopee?
(http://www-static.weddingbee.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/13/whoppi.jpg)