Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Kerry voted against DOMA (which was a ballsy thing for him to do since he was fending off a challenger for his seat).

He did?

My God, this guy really is on both sides of every issue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Nope... since many rights of marriage are based on federal issues, such as federal taxation.

Right now, Federal Taxes discriminate against the married. Married people pay higher taxes.

[MrBaggins]

It depends. Only one person can be Head of Household, which is generally preferable to Single or Married filing separately, but usually worse when combined with another person filing as Single, when compared to Married filing jointly.

You have to take both rates into account.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually this amendment is unconstitutional.

That is impossible, Giancarlo. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, no matter WHAT!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually this amendment is unconstitutional.

That is impossible, Giancarlo. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, no matter WHAT!

Actually amendments can be unconstitutional and can be removed because of that.

[Gangerolf]

At first I thought it was mainly the word 'marriage' that ticked people (and especially the religious people) off. I guess that's not the case.
However, a poll showed that " Gay 'civil union' [is] not as divisive as 'marriage' " http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...il-union_x.htm

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't really care about the religious or social aspects of those topics... I care about the government's role in it. The government grants certain rights and privilages to heterosexual married couples. Those same rights and privilages should be granted to homosexual couples as well.

This is exactly where my concern begins. I am strongly pro-family and by this I mean man-woman-kids. To say that giving preferences to families is unconstitutional - or even threatening it, causes me enormous concern.

We legislate in favor of families precisely to favor having kids born and raised in such relationships. I think it is enormously important to our society that we be able to do this.

So, even though I favor the concept of gay marriage, I am very concerned that gay marriages will unravel all governmental preferences for families.

Just for sake of argument, suppose we passed a pro-family law like this:

Married couples filing jointly could take a $20,000 credit per dependent child. Suppose that that child had to be their child (as denominated on the child's birth certificate). Suppose further, that this credit was refundable even if a person made no money at all - to a cap of, let us say, $50k per couple.

Now, such legislation would be strongly pro-family and anti-divorce. But would it be unconstitutional as discriminatory against gays?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
It depends. Only one person can be Head of Household, which is generally preferable to Single or Married filing separately, but usually worse when combined with another person filing as Single, when compared to Married filing jointly.

You have to take both rates into account.

In Kalifornia, I can split my income between my wife and myself and then file separately. When I do this, I pay less tax. So it seems that filing jointly does incur some penalty.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


In Kalifornia, I can split my income between my wife and myself and then file separately. When I do this, I pay less tax. So it seems that filing jointly does incur some penalty.

It depends on the relative incomes of the two people. There is no "One True Tax Solution (TM)"... and it doesn't explain why two guys living together for years shouldn't have the same tax burden as a guy and a woman.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually this amendment is unconstitutional.

That is impossible, Giancarlo. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, no matter WHAT!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually amendments can be unconstitutional and can be removed because of that.

You are the biggest moron in the history of the world, aren't you?

Can you name any amendment which has been removed for being 'unconstitutional'?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned

So, even though I favor the concept of gay marriage, I am very concerned that gay marriages will unravel all governmental preferences for families.

This is the part of your post that makes no sense. How would it unravel any governmental preference for families, let alone all of them?

You can still have all the benefits you want for giving birth to and raising kids - it's a totally seperate issue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Actually amendments can be unconstitutional and can be removed because of that.

Giancarlo, the amendments become part of the constitution and cannot be declared unconstitutional.

However, they can be ignored, as the Supremes have done in the case of the Second Amendment -- essentially writing that Amendment out of the constitution.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki


This is the part of your post that makes no sense. How would it unravel any governmental preference for families, let alone all of them?

You can still have all the benefits you want for giving birth to and raising kids - it's a totally seperate issue.

Really?

Until I am reassured on this issue, I remained very concerned.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


Really?

Until I am reassured on this issue, I remained very concerned.

What on earth would reassure you? Common sense?