DOMA IS GONE! YES! And gay marriage in CA is legal!

[tranquility]

In fact, people of homosexual orientation tend to have a greater level of wealth than their heterosexual counterparts and tend in general to pay more in taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. They have fewer children (and therefore less cost in raising children) and receive fewer tax breaks than their counterparts and rarely qualify for any kind of welfare benefits because they rarely have children as the "working poor". I have clients of homosexual orientation who make 25k and pay a significant amount of taxes and I have heterosexual clients with children, who make 25k and not only do not pay a penny of tax, but receive thousands of dollars of refundable credits due to their children.

I was going to write something like this as well, but did a quick search beforehand. It does not seem to be true as least as to the level of wealth.

 

[RedemptionMan]

Wow...hate much?

Any people of homosexual orientation or of an ethnic minority group who has any "power" in this country is certainly making a lot more money than you are and paying a lot more in taxes than you are.

In fact, people of homosexual orientation tend to have a greater level of wealth than their heterosexual counterparts and tend in general to pay more in taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. They have fewer children (and therefore less cost in raising children) and receive fewer tax breaks than their counterparts and rarely qualify for any kind of welfare benefits because they rarely have children as the "working poor". I have clients of homosexual orientation who make 25k and pay a significant amount of taxes and I have heterosexual clients with children, who make 25k and not only do not pay a penny of tax, but receive thousands of dollars of refundable credits due to their children.

And lets not forget all of those undocumented immigrants who faithfully file tax returns and pay taxes, again without getting any of the tax breaks that legal residents and citizens receive. Lets not forget that any of them who are W2 employees (which is most of them) are paying into social security and medicare even though they will never be eligible for any benefits from either of those systems. That's free money into social security and medicare.

You are completely clueless about who does or doesn't contribute actual tax dollars to our system of government.

Of course however they provide MUCH less benefit to the country that the millions of American citizens, with multiple children, who receive high levels of earned income credit, food stamps, tanif, section 8 housing etc., etc.

Gee, thanks for the lecture. What are the waiting lists for applications of citizenship to Canada, Belgium/ Switzerland, or Australia like? They can have what is left of America before it implodes from all those people who you say pay taxes but actually do not.

 

[LdiJ]

I was going to write something like this as well, but did a quick search beforehand. It does not seem to be true as least as to the level of wealth.

I guess it depends on how its measured, and how much effort has gone into measuring it.

What I can say for certain, is that my gay clients, of all socioeconomic levels, are, with few exceptions, better off financially than my heterosexual clients...and pay considerably more in taxes (again with few exceptions) than my heterosexual clients. It also makes total sense. Most gay couples will not attempt to raise children until or unless they are in a position to financially raise those children.

 

[cbg]

All I can say is, we've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for six years now. The sky has not fallen and my marriage has not been harmed. Cannot imagine what the big deal is.

 

[LdiJ]

Gee, thanks for the lecture. What are the waiting lists for applications of citizenship to Canada, Belgium/ Switzerland, or Australia like? They can have what is left of America before it implodes from all those people who you say pay taxes but actually do not.

Please, by all means, provide us with the information regarding how many American citizens are on waiting lists for applications for citizenship to the countries you listed...from a VALID source...for the REASONS you listed.

Both Canadian and Australian taxes are far more arduous than US taxes...and I am not talking about just income taxes, but overall taxes. I don't have a clue about Belgium or Switzerland....but I suspect that that because they are part of the Eurozone its unlikely that they are tax havens for anyone.

 

[Proserpina]

I'm officially declaring the "Oh well I should marry my dog" ridiculousness as being the Godwin's Law of FA.

 

[ecmst12]

Also, same sex marriage is already legal in most of those places if not all of them.

 

[single317dad]

I'm officially declaring the "Oh well I should marry my dog" ridiculousness as being the Godwin's Law of FA.

On that basis, I plan to use it extensively. I may even go so far as to claim Hitler married my dog, or that my dog is a not-see, if the situation arises.

 

[Proserpina]

On that basis, I plan to use it extensively. I may even go so far as to claim Hitler married my dog, or that my dog is a ****, if the situation arises.

I approve!

But seriously? It's such a ridiculous, idiotic sentiment. There's a huge difference between two consenting adults and the other preposterous premise.

And for anyone to even come close to trying to use that as an argument just insults the intelligence of anyone with more than one working brain cell.

(Can you tell I was peeved just a tad? )

 

[tranquility]

I'm officially declaring the "Oh well I should marry my dog" ridiculousness as being the Godwin's Law of FA.

Sorry, but that is only because you don't understand the legal argument made. While that can be a clever claim to end discussion, it is wholly inadequate to understanding. Sorry, Proseperia, while I love you, your point is to not discuss the issue and should be the one who suffers the oprobation of Goodwin's law.

What is the right?

 

[Proserpina]

Sorry, but that is only because you don't understand the legal argument made. While that can be a clever claim to end discussion, it is wholly inadequate to understanding. Sorry, Proseperia, while I love you, your point is to not discuss the issue and should be the one who suffers the oprobation of Goodwin's law.

What is the right?

You have a completely valid point, tranq. And I realize that my response was somewhat shooting from the hip.

I do understand the other ramifications of the SCOTUS decision (in terms of benefits, etc., etc), too (as well as the slippery slope mentioned).

However with that said, the marrying of the dog thing is still a thorn in my delicate sensibility.

(Because I'm really very delicate )

 

[single317dad]

Can you think of any other "right" so complex to state?

I sort of endeavored to make it pretty complex, to cover every base I could think of in 20 minutes or so. It could be said more plainly, but in that case would certainly end up like the 2nd Amendment with at least two polar, and possibly multiple conflicting, interpretations.

What if a current spouse wants to be sole spouse but the other wants another partner? What is the "contract" again? Can I treat one spouse better than the other? If the poorly treated spouse wants to divorce, but I can only afford enough to take care of one house (along with food, clothing and the like for all inside), does that mean the poorly treated spouse doesn't get alimony? (I think I just got Bali on board!)

Marriage is not a written document (though it is supported by a license or certificate), but it is the most basic kind of contract: a sworn oath between parties that they will combine their lives and remain so until one of them ceases to live. When one or both(all) parties violate the terms of the contract (usually fidelity, financial responsibility, agreed rearing of children, but any number of issues may arise), then there is a dissolution of the union and new terms are ordered. Perhaps there should be written marriage contracts, like prenups for everyone, that state clearly the expectations of the union, the benefits granted, and the penalties for failure. If someone wanted to marry, but didn't want to be a part of any future marriages, then that could be in the contract, giving them an automatic out for the violation. Penalties (alimony included) would be easily decided (well, as easily as in any other contract).

That take on marriage probably sounds pretty cynical, and I'll admit my bias there. Marriage is treated terribly; people divorced at a rate of 53% that of marriages in 2012, according to the CDC (and I have no idea why they keep stats on matrimony). I don't see how actually defining marriage and a set of requirements to make it official would harm the institution any further.

That privacy is no longer the claim. Now, it is public approval as a right. Scalia dissented. The key he focused on (in addition to stare decisis) was the courts lack of claiming sodomy was a fundamental right (requiring strict scrutiny to overcome) but an exercise of liberty that he found was a rather made up category only needing rational basis.

This is probably where we diverge somewhat, and where I will differ with many courts and much of government: I take all my "rights" and "liberties" and lump them up in a big pile, and call it freedom. I don't feel the need to distinguish between my "right" to free press, and my "liberty" to stand in my front yard and turn in circles until I'm dizzy. I don't want anyone encroaching on either, and I don't feel any need to take them away from anyone else. To me, telling someone they can't marry because they're gay is the same as telling someone they can't vote because they're a woman, or can't drink from the public fountain because they're black, or can't attend Alcorn State because they're white. Whether you consider marriage a "contract" or simply a religious institution, there's no proper application of basic law that would disallow homosexual marriage.

 

[RedemptionMan]

You kind of mess the point as to what I was saying,

Everyone should not all be equal, for example a truck driver with a 18 ACT score should not be allowed to go to medical school because he is a minority or of his/ her sexual orientation.

Some people should not own homes if they are not in a financial situation to buy said home

When you dumb down the education system then more people end up with college degrees for jobs that could be the equivalent of working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds without any education at all.

When you allow all people to own homes then you end up huge amounts of foreclosures and repossessions and a financial crisis, which changed our financial markets forever

Equality is great and all but when you do not have the tools for the equality and the systems have to come down to your level then those people drag the whole system down with them.

This is one reason we will never see another Steve Jobs or Henry Ford here, why award the talent when they can sit at home eat Cheetos collect guberment money and get fat.

 

[LdiJ]

You kind of mess the point as to what I was saying,

Everyone should not all be equal, for example a truck driver with a 18 ACT score should not be allowed to go to medical school because he is a minority or of his/ her sexual orientation.

But no one can or should deny that truck driver the ability to go to medical school if he happens to qualify, just because he drives a truck for a living.

Some people should not own homes if they are not in a financial situation to buy said home

But no one can or should deny that person the right to purchase a home if they happen (due to inheritance or whatever) to have the cash to pay for it, even if they wouldn't qualify for a mortgage. Nor should anyone be denied a mortgage if they qualify.

When you dumb down the education system then more people end up with college degrees for jobs that could be the equivalent of working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds without any education at all.

That statement makes no sense of any kind...sounds like conspiracy theorist rhetoric.

When you allow all people to own homes then you end up huge amounts of foreclosures and repossessions and a financial crisis, which changed our financial markets forever

You clearly don't understand what happened there. The problem wasn't people who didn't qualify for mortgages getting mortgages. It was much more complex than that.

Equality is great and all but when you do not have the tools for the equality and the systems have to come down to your level then those people drag the whole system down with them.

What does any of that have to do with treating people equally as far as marriage is concerned? What "tools" are required for marriage that gay people don't have?

This is one reason we will never see another Steve Jobs or Henry Ford here, why award the talent when they can sit at home eat Cheetos collect guberment money and get fat.

You are obviously someone who has never tried to live on welfare. You try it for six months as see if its any fun, at all.