rhaig 0 #26 August 13, 2010 Quote>I don;t give a fuck if gays get married, I DO give a fuck when one Judge >with special interest "Over rules" the "VOTERS"! That happened back in the 1950's. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia could not outlaw interracial marriages - even though most people in the US were against allowing blacks to marry whites. Do you disagree with that decision? Should the judges have honored the "will of the people" and banned interracial marriages? >YOUR rightts could be next.. . . . Dude, this decision INCREASED people's rights. More people have the right to marry now. >Most Judges think it is insane to jump out of airplanes.... Right. Heck, most people are scared of it; I could see a city or state outlawing it altogether. And if a judge got the case and said "states cannot outlaw skydiving" would you complain bitterly about him "violating the will of the people?" as absurd as that (and this) argument is, would you be upset about the opposite?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #27 August 13, 2010 >as absurd as that (and this) argument is, would you be upset about the >opposite? You mean if the people voted to allow skydiving and a judge banned it? Not sure how that could happen, since skydiving is currently allowed. But assuming that what you described somehow happened, then yes, that would be bad. That would be eliminating a right that people once had. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 August 14, 2010 Quote VOTERS say "No" and "One" openly Gay Judge says yes andd Overules the "VOTERS" and you rejoice? Quote I don;t give a fuck if gays get married, I DO give a fuck when one Judge with special interest "Over rules" the "VOTERS"! Yea, if people voted on interracial marriage in the 1960's, many states would have outlawed miscegenation; god damned activist justices overruled the would-be voters. I wonder if women voting was put to a vote? Damn activist legislators. Quote Our system is NOT supposed to work this way! Yes it is, we democratically elect representatives, this is not a true democracy. Quote YOUR rightts could be next... wouldn't be a conservative thread w/o dear induced. Quote Most Judges think it is insane to jump out of airplanes.... Most justices/judges don't think it's insane to allow people to chose their lifestyle. Quote Rejoice at seeing our system abused...Fools! Yea, how dare people choose their lifestyle that doesn't hurt anyone; we're doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 August 14, 2010 Quote >as absurd as that (and this) argument is, would you be upset about the >opposite? You mean if the people voted to allow skydiving and a judge banned it? Not sure how that could happen, since skydiving is currently allowed. But assuming that what you described somehow happened, then yes, that would be bad. That would be eliminating a right that people once had. How could they outlaw skydiving and not also outlaw emergency chutes on some acft? See, we're just in training for when we have to use our emergency chute on the experimental acft we will never fly on; you can't be too safe with the training and all - love the loopholes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #30 August 14, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote VOTERS say "No" and "One" openly Gay Judge says yes andd Overules the "VOTERS" and you rejoice? I don;t give a fuck if gays get married, I DO give a fuck when one Judge with special interest "Over rules" the "VOTERS"! Our system is NOT supposed to work this way! YOUR rightts could be next...Most Judges think it is insane to jump out of airplanes.... Rejoice at seeing our system abused...Fools! I know this has been beaten like a dead horse on these forums recently when posts exactly like this come up, but what you're saying is you're OK with the majority voting on the rights of a minority? You are OK with voters saying that blacks aren't allowed in the same school or at the same water fountain? Or that women were a lesser class to men and weren't allowed to do a lot of the same things they were, like vote?? I don't know where you went to school, but I fondly remember in grade school being taught that this is EXACTLY how our system is supposed to work. I bet you learned the correct use of quotation marks too. Hey... right in my sig line that I make no claim to be good at grammar, punctuation, and the like! It was not you misusing the quotation marks, either.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #31 August 14, 2010 QuoteI've never heard a good arguement against gay marriage. Score another one for equality. I've never heard a good argument for any marriage!---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #32 August 14, 2010 I would be curious on how a homosexual Betrothal would go down.... Who buys who from who's father? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #33 August 14, 2010 QuoteI would be curious on how a homosexual Betrothal would go down.... Who buys who from who's father? What would the dowry consist of?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #34 August 14, 2010 Quote a homosexual Betrothal would go down. Did you mean to say that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #35 August 16, 2010 Things are getting interesting . . . The defendants may not even be able to appeal. To take a case to court you have to have an actual case - you have to have been harmed somehow. As an example, if someone was shot by a thief who obtained a gun under a certain law, and they could prove that their injury was the result of that law, they might have a case. But if they just disliked guns and wanted to ban them, they could not just "sue the government" based on their distaste for guns. In this case, the people defending the case were granted a special "motion to intervene." But that does not mean they have standing before the court; they cannot show any harm that has befallen them as the result of this ruling. So the Supreme Court may not even take the case (if it gets that far.) Ironically, their current conservative bias would tend to prevent them from taking the case; conservative judges have a long history of being strict about matters of standing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #36 August 16, 2010 QuoteThings are getting interesting . . . The defendants may not even be able to appeal. To take a case to court you have to have an actual case - you have to have been harmed somehow. So, since my wife and I have to pay thousands more in federal taxes as a result of being married (not allowed to file as single), and homosexual couples do not, I suppose I have standing w.r.t. discrimination of the tax code. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #37 August 16, 2010 >So, since my wife and I have to pay thousands more in federal taxes as a >result of being married (not allowed to file as single), and homosexual >couples do not, I suppose I have standing w.r.t. discrimination of the tax >code. You might indeed. In that case you'd be claiming that (basically) taxes harm you and you need relief from them. Problem there is that if you could indeed file such a suit - which one of the approximately 200 million taxpayers in the US _wouldn't_? "NASA harms me because I pay thousands more in Federal taxes due to them." "Veteran's hospitals harm me because I pay thousands more in Federal taxes to support them." "The Iraq war harms me because I pay thousands more in Federal taxes to support it." "The handicapped harm me because I pay thousands more in Federal taxes due to them." "Homeowners harm me because I pay thousands more in Federal taxes due to them." "George Bush/Barack Obama harm me because I pay thousands more in Federal taxes due to them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #38 August 16, 2010 Quote "NASA harms me because I pay thousands more in Federal taxes due to them." ... and other specious examples. Not at all -- I'm addressing the discrimination in the tax law, not what the money is spent on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #39 August 16, 2010 >Not at all -- I'm addressing the discrimination in the tax law You mean like the tax breaks for homeowners, that require you to pay more so they can pay less? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #40 August 16, 2010 Quote>Not at all -- I'm addressing the discrimination in the tax law You mean like the tax breaks for homeowners, that require you to pay more so they can pay less? Another specious example. If someone chooses to be married, they should have the same tax treatment as others who do so. There are tax benefits, and tax penalties, to being legally married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #41 August 16, 2010 QuoteSo, since my wife and I have to pay thousands more in federal taxes as a result of being married (not allowed to file as single), and homosexual couples do not, I suppose I have standing w.r.t. discrimination of the tax code. Are homosexual couples forcing you to stay married? Or did homosexual couples write the tax code to discriminate against straight couples who choose to get married? If they are allowed and choose to get married, they will face the same marriage penalty that you do. I'm not getting your point here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #42 August 16, 2010 >If someone chooses to be married, they should have the same tax >treatment as others who do so. Uh, right. So if someone chooses to buy a house, shouldn't they have the same tax treatment as others? Your argument that you are being harmed by having to pay more would apply in both cases. > There are tax benefits, and tax penalties, to being legally married. Right. So what would your lawsuit state? That no one should have any special benefits or penalties, married or not? Or that the federal government should treat everyone the same if they ARE married under the laws of the state? You may be referring to the Defense of Marriage Act, which explicitly does not recognize gay marriages for tax purposes. If that's the case, then that has already been ruled unconstitutional by a Federal judge in Massachusetts. (Specifically part 3, which denies them the same tax benefits/penalties.) No doubt that will be appealed to the Supreme Court as well. (Of course, if it is upheld, then they will still have the option of "married but filing separately" just as heterosexual couples do.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #43 August 16, 2010 Quote If they are allowed and choose to get married, they will face the same marriage penalty that you do. I'm not getting your point here. Not under present law. The states in which homosexuals couples can legally be married may tax them as married (CA and MA do), but for federal taxes they each file as single. In California, there is little to no difference in state taxes for two people with similar incomes, filing as singles or as married, so that is not of concern (MA may be different) For Federal taxes, couples that each have significant incomes pay substantially more tax filing as married than as two singles. If the prop 8 case rises to the Supreme Court, and the legality of same sexed marriages is nationally recognized, then the inconsistent tax treatment will go away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #44 August 16, 2010 Quote> (Of course, if it is upheld, then they will still have the option of "married but filing separately" just as heterosexual couples do.) As part of a married couple, each of whom has significant income, I'm sure you are aware that filing as single would result in less tax than filing married joint, and filing married separate results in more tax. In most cases, including mine and probably including yours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #45 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuote If they are allowed and choose to get married, they will face the same marriage penalty that you do. I'm not getting your point here. Not under present law. The states in which homosexuals couples can legally be married may tax them as married (CA and MA do), but for federal taxes they each file as single. In California, there is little to no difference in state taxes for two people with similar incomes, filing as singles or as married, so that is not of concern (MA may be different) For Federal taxes, couples that each have significant incomes pay substantially more tax filing as married than as two singles. If the prop 8 case rises to the Supreme Court, and the legality of same sexed marriages is nationally recognized, then the inconsistent tax treatment will go away. Oh yeah, you're right. But hopefully DOMA will be repealed soon, and then this (and other things) won't be a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #46 August 16, 2010 Quote Not at all -- I'm addressing the discrimination in the tax law, not what the money is spent on. A great reason to get the government out of the business of regulating personal relationships altogether."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #47 August 16, 2010 Quote Adam and Steve aren't gay. If they were gay it would be Adam and Steven. LMAO Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #48 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuote> (Of course, if it is upheld, then they will still have the option of "married but filing separately" just as heterosexual couples do.) As part of a married couple, each of whom has significant income, I'm sure you are aware that filing as single would result in less tax than filing married joint, and filing married separate results in more tax. In most cases, including mine and probably including yours. Perhaps the marriage penalty is a problem, but I think you're really stretching to make it have anything to do with gay marriage. Seeing as the ultimate goal is to make marriage equal for everyone. Homosexual couples are not wanting to get marriages that are different from straight couples. It's the same-sex marriage opponents who want to keep everything unequal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #49 August 16, 2010 QuoteSo, since my wife and I have to pay thousands more in federal taxes as a result of being married (not allowed to file as single), and homosexual couples do not, I suppose I have standing w.r.t. discrimination of the tax code. straight couples might pay extra income tax, gay couples both pay into social security that the other partner will never have access to. Who do you think ends up putting more in and getting less out of the tax system?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #50 August 16, 2010 Looks like the marriages will be on hold for now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)