Gay marriage in TX???

[oldguy]

Sadly far too much time is spent on the gay dilemma mostly by liberal politic and media looking for a story if they used the time to focus on making America a more free "working" society many of the problems or divisions would disappear. Do what you want in your bedroom but don't force it on me my children or the world for it does not matter how much you protest does not make it right.

 

[franzas]

We're fighting the same fight in VA. Liberal fed judge overturned our statutes. Like Texas we have an amendment (2005) defining marriage as man/woman and a law (1975) prohibiting gay marriage

I say **** them. The 10th Amendment gave the states the right to define marriage, and ban certain kinds of marriage. If they don't like it, move to New Yorkistan of Kalifornia

 

[breakingcontact]

We're fighting the same fight in VA. Liberal fed judge overturned our statutes. Like Texas we have an amendment (2005) defining marriage as man/woman and a law (1975) prohibiting gay marriage

I say **** them. The 10th Amendment gave the states the right to define marriage, and ban certain kinds of marriage. If they don't like it, move to New Yorkistan of Kalifornia

This would require federal courts to respect the Constitution.

 

[Mike1234567]

Yeah, while I don't hate nor condemn folks for their lifestyle choices, provided they don't harm or infringe on the rights and privacy of others, we shouldn't give tax breaks to them. Marriage and childbearing tax breaks are their to encourage the making of new taxpayers... it's an economic "investment in the future". Gay/lesbian couples can't return our taxpayer "investment" so NO TAX BREAKS FOR THEM!!

 

[franzas]

This would require federal courts to respect the Constitution.

when will that ever happen?

Like I said, SC Justice Cruz!

 

[London]

Yeah, while I don't hate nor condemn folks for their lifestyle choices, provided they don't harm or infringe on the rights and privacy of others, we shouldn't give tax breaks to them. Marriage and childbearing tax breaks are their to encourage the making of new taxpayers... it's an economic "investment in the future". Gay/lesbian couples can't return our taxpayer "investment" so NO TAX BREAKS FOR THEM!!

In vitro, adoption.

 

[azkcr]

^
Adoption doesn't create more future taxpayers... Only changes ownership of that future taxpayer...

 

[Younggun]

^
Adoption doesn't create more future taxpayers... Only changes ownership of that future taxpayer...

Or creates a tax payer from what would have been a welfare taker. Also removes the financial burden from the state for housing, feeding, and clothing the child.

 

[Mike1234567]

^
Adoption doesn't create more future taxpayers... Only changes ownership of that future taxpayer...

Correct... those babies are already made. In vitro? Hmm... maybe... but not something I'm willing to embrace whole-heartedly ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE ALREADY SO MANY UN-ADOPTED ORPHANS... who probably WILL END UP ON WELFARE!!!

Or creates a tax payer from what would have been a welfare taker. Also removes the financial burden from the state for housing, feeding, and clothing the child.

And gay/lesbian couples help with this problem how??

I don't "hate" others for their lifestyles. But they DO NOT DESERVE SPECIAL TAX CONSIDERATION FOR THAT... because they CANNOT MAKE BABIES (future tax payers). THIS IS A FISCAL SYMBIOTIC THING... NOT A PERSONAL/SOCIAL DECISION!!! AND... they're ALREADY PAID to care for those children. For Pete's sake... HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY WANT FROM US???

WE TAXPAYERS "INVEST IN THE FUTURE" just as we do with our 401K's.

 

[Younggun]

Marriage is a personal/religious thing. The gov has made it a tax thing.


There are claims that the tax thing is to encourage more future tax payers, yet that effect can be had by adopting and raising a responsible adult.

The idea that making babies deserves getting a tax break is stupid. That has only encouraged the current welfare state. One that is breeding million s of tax takers.

Raising the child is much more work and much more I portent than making it.

 

[Mike1234567]

Marriage is a personal/religious thing. The gov has made it a tax thing.


There are claims that the tax thing is to encourage more future tax payers, yet that effect can be had by adopting and raising a responsible adult.

The idea that making babies deserves getting a tax break is stupid. That has only encouraged the current welfare state. One that is breeding million s of tax takers.

Raising the child is much more work and much more I portent than making it.

Fine... then cut ALL tax breaks for married couples and for having kids. I'm fine with that. I'm divorced with no young kids so that's good for me. This way, the gay/lesbo couples have nothing to bitch about (being treated "unfairly") and ALL individual taxpayers are more fairly treated. While we're at the tax thing let's stop taxing single folks or couples (with no kids) from paying a share of property taxes to pay for K-12 education... let the PARENTS pay for that... more kids/more tax. And the gay/lesbo couples (who adopted) can pay their own share of school taxes... and we should stop paying for gay/lesbo (or any other folks) just for ADOPTING!! If they REALLY want those children then LET THEM PAY TO RAISE THEM LIKE ALL "NATURAL" PARENTS!!

 

[Younggun]

I agree, and with the money we save paying for all the single mamas with five little payche....I mean, kids....running around we can cut some taxes across the board an not rely on a tax credit or other BS.

Now, there is no reason for the gov to be involved in marriage at all and we don't have to fight about how the gov should regulate it anymore.


Less Government for everyone, YAY!

 

[Mike1234567]

RE marriage and children tax breaks: I loved my wife and child. Since they've been gone I feel like I'm being punished twice for my loss. **** Uncle Sam!!

 

[azkcr]

I am fine with losing my tax break for being married.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Yeah, while I don't hate nor condemn folks for their lifestyle choices, provided they don't harm or infringe on the rights and privacy of others, we shouldn't give tax breaks to them. Marriage and childbearing tax breaks are their to encourage the making of new taxpayers... it's an economic "investment in the future". Gay/lesbian couples can't return our taxpayer "investment" so NO TAX BREAKS FOR THEM!!

While this is true, and the argument can be made that we favor through subsidy heterosexual marriages because it is best for a child to have both male and female role models, it can also be argued that this is not a sufficient interest to justify the government being involved. I believe a better argument can be made that the government gets involved (i.e. encourages heterosexual marriage) because of the financial stability it tends to provide, which helps keep the product of the union - i.e. children - from becoming a burden on the rest of us.

Sanctioning marriage also encourages fidelity, which is beneficial because children conceived in adulterous/polygamous relationships face both financial and emotional difficulty that is likely to carry over to society at large.

Either way, the argument essentially pertains to children. Because gay marriages cannot biologically produce children outside of abnormal means (as defined by the essence of the homosexual relationship itself), and because homosexual infidelity carries no risk of producing offspring out of wedlock, there simply is no compelling reason for society, by way of its government, to care.

In any event, we have now so totally mucked up any semblance of the traditional family unit through welfare, gay marriage, and any number of other left wing initiatives, there simply is no longer any reason whatsoever for the government to be involved. Just get out of it altogether and let people contract with each other how they want their assets shared or divided. Get rid of the different tax rates and get rid of whatever social security or other survivorship benefits we have. Don't give a foreigner citizenship just because they "married" a citizen. Don't grant any legal preference for marriage, period.

And then be sure to congratulate the left, because they won.

btw, when will the first single person sue the IRS for discrimination in the tax rates? I cannot imagine how that is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

 

[azkcr]

^
Well said IMO

 

[BADJUJU]

btw, when will the first single person sue the IRS for discrimination in the tax rates? I cannot imagine how that is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

The truth!

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Maybe the real solution is to get rid of income tax and social services. Then everyone can really be equal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chirpy]

Never said they did.

But our gov is currently hostile to those of faith and promoting those who are celebrating sin.

Amen to that, pun intended.

Think about it for a second, currently according to our press/culture...

Churchgoers are a bad influence.

The Boy Scouts are a corrupting influence.

The highest expression of womanhood is ending a pregnancy.

Our veterans are dangerous to our government.

And we wonder why we are screwed up?

Here's my thoughts on the original issue.

====


Marriage is a religious ceremony that throughout history has been reserved for one man and one woman for the purpose of rearing children. In a few cultures where men are obviously hated, they can have multiple wives. But the "norm" in almost all cultures (and I say that only because I’m sure there is one, but I can’t think of it) is man and wife. That's what the word means. Everyone understands that meaning.


If you going to be intellectually honest, government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. I shouldn't get a "marriage license" that confers property rights, insurance rights, etc. Now, just as the state currently grants a legal document to a couple who has been co-habitating for six months, that's what I think I should have received from Harris County. And it shouldn't be named after a religious ceremony. If you believe that whole separation of church and state thing, the state shouldn't be involved in "legalizing" religious ceremonies. The fix should be getting government out of the business of legitimizing religion, and just awarding property rights to interested people. Which of course a lawyer can do today.


And I could care less who gets a "civil union" that the state rewards with property rights and legal standing (which is really what the current marriage license does). But I get queasy about it being called marriage.


If you can find a church that will marry a same sex couple, fine, that's your religion as well. Not my problem, or my business.


But words have meaning, and if its about equality and property rights and visitation and all the other "stuff" we are told its about, the word shouldn't matter. It should be about getting equal rights.


But read "After the Ball" by Marshall Kirk and you'll start to understand that its really about changing the meaning of the word, and the culture, and not any of the other stuff.


I'd be the first to trade in my "Marriage License" for a "Civil Union" license, and I wasn't even married in a church.

My two cents...

 

[azkcr]

Yep. That's the issue I have with it.
All these people saying "who are you tell them what to do?", well I don't give a crap what they do. To me, it's not right but they can do whatever they want.
But to call it marriage is what erks me