SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

**deathgodusmc** · 03-27-13, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by SgtRazor

There is no limit to the exemption of estate taxes when passed to a spouse.

And that tax can be applied to a spouse but typically it is not. Thats something we could easily take care of. I have never been a fan of the government profiting off someone else dying. So you wont here me fighting that change.

**SgtRazor** · 03-27-13, 09:31 PM

Another key issue is immigration. Same sex couples in which one is not a citizen are not able to petition the government for their partner to immigrate, something hetero couples can do.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-27-13, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by SgtRazor

Another key issue is immigration. Same sex couples in which one is not a citizen are not able to petition the government for their partner to immigrate, something hetero couples can do.

Yet they can apply all on their own without a partner. Yeah thats not a logical argument its a talking point.

**SgtRazor** · 03-27-13, 09:48 PM

There it is again. Its known that the process is much less painful when you are married to a citizen. But because "you can go about the long and circuitous route!" that efficiency doesn't matter?

You seem to be misunderstanding. This is about making federal benefits available to lawfully married couples, regardless of gender (today's case is at least). The benefits exist. There is no denying that. The fact you are is flabbergasting to me. For a brief overview visit:

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

That the source is HRC doesn't change the validity of the benefits.

Now I'm off to ArmA3.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-27-13, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by SgtRazor

There it is again. Its known that the process is much less painful when you are married to a citizen. But because "you can go about the long and circuitous route!" that efficiency doesn't matter?

You seem to be misunderstanding. This is about making federal benefits available to lawfully married couples, regardless of gender (today's case is at least). The benefits exist. There is no denying that. The fact you are is flabbergasting to me. For a brief overview visit:

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

That the source is HRC doesn't change the validity of the benefits.

Now I'm off to ArmA3.

Really? One of my buds has been fighting immagration for several years now for his wife and it still isnt solved. So how is it easier?

Saying there are benefits and telling me there are over a thousand of them is not the same as providing them for a logical argument. Do i need to go thru that list and provide a legal recourse that any person can do for any other person or are you going to give me some of these thousands of items?

**-Lazarus-** · 03-28-13, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by SgtRazor

"Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?" Justice Sotomayor. 3/26/2013

That's a stupid and loaded question the Justice asked. Her question hints at the equal protection under the 14th amendment, which has NOTHING to do with marriage. Equal protection could be provided as easily through civil union, as it has been already in some states. Bottom line is that in no way, shape or form should the federal government mandate what marriage is either way, and it should just follow whatever the states have decided as it traditionally has in the past unless benefits are conferred that violate the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS should only be concerned with equal protection under the law.

The whole gay marriage argument itself is very weak in terms of Prop. 8, given what I have just stated, and even Justices Ginsberg and others have made statements that are telling with regard to what they will probably do about prop. 8. However DOMA is clearly unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment by conferring federal benefits on certain groups and excluding others. So I expect the court to throw out the prop. 8 case, deferring to the states' right to define marriage itself (with a strong writing in the opinion about civil union and other forms of legal protection), and put down the unconstitutional DOMA, which would be the right thing to do.

By the way, I am a conservative, and a Christian. But I am a CONSTITUTIONAL tea party conservative. The Bible defines marriage clearly, so whatever people call it, it doesn't matter to me, it still won't be a biblical marriage. As a Christian I believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, but as an American and as a Christian I believe that equal protection should be provided under the law regarding benefits for couples, even those who are not Christian. I just think they should be provided through civil unions and not "marriage" specifically. You will find that gay activist groups typically could care less about equal protection under the law through civil unions. They want MARRIAGE, which is really a religious union. So for me as a Christian, I see that as a direct attack on my own values because they are clearly more interested in destroying the sacrament of marriage than they are in gaining equal protection under the law. If gay activist groups really cared about equal protection, then they could easily fight for the right to have civil unions and win in just about every state in the country, and even I and many of my Christian brethren would not oppose it. Food for thought.

**SmokenScion** · 03-28-13, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Really? One of my buds has been fighting immagration for several years now for his wife and it still isnt solved. So how is it easier?

Saying there are benefits and telling me there are over a thousand of them is not the same as providing them for a logical argument. Do i need to go thru that list and provide a legal recourse that any person can do for any other person or are you going to give me some of these thousands of items?

Providing you with a logical Argument is null, You do not believe in Logic, By your own opinion. Lock this thread up its a DG troll thread.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-28-13, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Providing you with a logical Argument is null, You do not believe in Logic, By your own opinion. Lock this thread up its a DG troll thread.

I fail to see how anything you said here is even remotely related to the op.

**SgtRazor** · 03-28-13, 11:32 AM

It seems folly to me to claim marriage as your own. Many cultures totally unrelated to Christianity incorporate marriage into them. Marriage as a practice, I believe, has its origins as a pagan practice if I recall correctly. You are totally within your rights not to perform a marriage in your church if it violates your church's belief in what marriage is, and nobody is claiming otherwise. I sincerely doubt, and I'm sure you do too, that an Atheist wants to get married in <Insert town name here> First Baptist Church. So as a Christian, you can consider it an attack all day. But Hindus, Buddhists, yes Atheists, et al could care less about what you consider to be marriage, as they each have their own take on the institution.

Let's face it. Christianity does not lay ownership to the idea of marriage. It wasn't even until the Middle Ages that it was considered one of the Seven Sacraments. Unless you want the states to start handing out Civil Union certificates to all couples, regardless of gender/religion and wiping the term marriage from the books completely (which is definitely a respectable stance and worth its own discussion), then you've got to accept that "marriage" as a term and practice is far broader in definition that the biblical one.

**SgtRazor** · 03-28-13, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Really? One of my buds has been fighting immagration for several years now for his wife and it still isnt solved. So how is it easier?

Saying there are benefits and telling me there are over a thousand of them is not the same as providing them for a logical argument. Do i need to go thru that list and provide a legal recourse that any person can do for any other person or are you going to give me some of these thousands of items?

This is pretty much my face right now.
http://i.imgur.com/TnmlgH4.jpeg