NO on Prop 8 (California)

[headoverheels 291]

Quote

However, there are many other tax advantages to married couples - most notably the 250k times 2 capital gains exclusion on home sales. At death, the step up in cost basis for homes and investments. For someone in SF, these far exceed the minor marriage tax bracket penalty.

Well, yes, the death loophole is useful. And of course, if one of you has no income or tax on their own, a joint return would be cheaper.

In my case, the extra $250k exclusion on home sale would not make up for the extra marriage tax, if my GF and I were married. At long term capital gain, that is only about 3 years marriage penalty for our case. I expect that to be worse, after Obama is elected.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

If they were given the right to marry like different sex couples, there would be no need for a law allowing them special rights.

This isn't a law. This is a decision by private companies on how to apply their health benefits. They have the choice to apply it fairly to different-sex couples also, and choose not to.

Disney definitely does this, and I believe Verizon does, but can't remember.

It is an active choice by the company, not a law.

[livendive 8]

The company I used to work for would provide full family benefits to a registered domestic partner. Our state capital (the city itself, not the state) does not ask gender when registering domestic partnerships (for a fee of $15). So if your son worked for that company, he could register his girlfriend as a domestic partner and then add her to his benefits package.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

The company I used to work for would provide full family benefits to a registered domestic partner. Our state capital (the city itself, not the state) does not ask gender when registering domestic partnerships (for a fee of $15). So if your son worked for that company, he could register his girlfriend as a domestic partner and then add her to his benefits package.

Blues,
Dave

"Up north, you folks could drink from any fountain that you like, just not around here." It didn't seem too comforting to the people affected.

Of course, that was discrimination.

In this case, neither his, or her, company has that policy. Since he is planning on going back to school, it has a immediate financial impact.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

You'll say, "Well a gay man can't get married." I can say, "Yes he can. He can marry a woman." You'll say, "But he can't get married to another man." I can then reply, "Neither can a straight man." One doesn't have privilege over the other -- in a way.

The straight man can marry someone he wants to marry, the gay man (or woman) can't.

It's that simple.

Quote

What if the argument were that simple for some?

Then they'd be wrong.

Point taken, but it doesn't invalidate the reality of what rights exist for whom -- the rights themselves are the same.



There are all sorts of things that many of us may want to do, but cannot regardless of perception of "rights".

*just-a-stirrin'*

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,400]

>Point taken, but it doesn't invalidate the reality of what rights exist for
>whom -- the rights themselves are the same.

True. Then again, back when there were white bathrooms and colored bathrooms, both whites and blacks had an "equal" right to a bathroom. It was still a pretty racist thing to do, and not one that would survive scrutiny by any modern court.

[catfishhunter 1]

Quote

Too right Lew. I can't believe in this day and age, that this sort of thing is an issue anymore. When are we as humans going to grow up?

ROFLMFAO that right there is funny. Ask the Romans how it all turned out for them.. Oh wait they ain't here to tell us.. geez We aren't unique you just have to look to the Roman Empire to see we are going down the same path of perversion which will lead to our destruction..

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage.

How about divorce? Hands off there too?

. . =(_8^(1)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage.

How about divorce? Hands off there too?

Pretty much. If there is a dispute over child custody, they should serve the same function they do in such cases that don't include marriage. If there is a conflict over division of assets, they should serve the same function they do in resolving any other contract dispute.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Pretty much. If there is a dispute over child custody, they should serve the same function they do in such cases that don't include marriage. If there is a conflict over division of assets, they should serve the same function they do in resolving any other contract dispute.

Right on.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

ROFLMFAO that right there is funny. Ask the Romans how it all turned out for them.. Oh wait they ain't here to tell us.. geez We aren't unique you just have to look to the Roman Empire to see we are going down the same path of perversion which will lead to our destruction..

That was the lead poisoning, not the perversion that killed them.

[billvon 2,400]

> Ask the Romans how it all turned out for them.

Ask a Saudi Arabian woman how a very moral, homophobic, God-centered society works out for her.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage.

How about divorce? Hands off there too?

Pretty much. If there is a dispute over child custody, they should serve the same function they do in such cases that don't include marriage. If there is a conflict over division of assets, they should serve the same function they do in resolving any other contract dispute.

Blues,
Dave

As someone who has handled divorces and cases where the couple was not married, I can tell you from my experience that it is significantly quicker and cheaper when a couple is married.

The divorce laws are, in and of theselves, an understanding of the relationship. Instead of having to prove a relationship and prove that, yes, you had joint bank accounts and house payments came from that, etc., you actually end up with a situation where it's all presumed.

The divorce laws make things much, much easier on everybody. It may not feel like it, but it does.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lewmonst 0]

I see what Amy sees in Bill

Thanks for the shirt!!!

http://www.exitshot.com

[jclalor 12]

The funny thing about homo-phobes is the amount of insecurity they have about thier own preference.
A very popular study showed men with the most homophobic beliefs had the most blood flow to thier penis while being shown gay porn. Men who were comfortable with Gays, had much lower blood flow. I thought this study hit it right on the Head (pardon the pun)

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

>I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage.

Agreed. Let the government hand out civil unions and let churches have the wedding ceremonies however they like.

Agreed.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

>I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage.

Agreed. Let the government hand out civil unions and let churches have the wedding ceremonies however they like.

Agreed.

ltdiver

Note that this is a HUGE reason why there is such religious opposition to this. They view "marriage" as religious in nature, and that to redefine it to accept what they find uneacceptable is a secular governmental intrusion into their house.

And while I am certainly a "No on 8" person, I can definitely see their point. Their problem is that secular marriage has carried on too long. I got "married." At the Fresno County Clerk's office. If that is going to be allowed without objection, well, under equal protection I believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to do so as well.

It's VERY VERY nice to see that "No on 8" folks recognize it. But I'm not sure you all understand how close you are to it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[MikeMcLean 0]

Vote NO on Florida 2 also!

It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

[lawrocket 3]

The Yes on 8 folks have jumped to an early lead. With 10% of precincts reporting it's at 53%-47%.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Quote

>I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage.

Agreed. Let the government hand out civil unions and let churches have the wedding ceremonies however they like.

Agreed.

I don't agree, not quite anyway. Marriage should also not be the exclusive property of the churches. A civil marriage endows a couple - any couple - with rights and obligations under law. I see no reason why secular, or even athieistic people people should be denied the status of marriage. Marriage is commitment that two people make to each other and before their church and/or society at large. I'm a believer, and my wife and I were married in church, but why should a couple who chooses not to believe be denied the right to make the commitment and have it honored.

"Civil unions" are bunk. They're a political expedient that was crafted as a sop to try to accomodate gay couples without "offending" someone else's sensibilities.

Marriage is a RIGHT and there is no right more keenly appreciated than one which is denied. I've been reading a lot of opinions in these forums from presumably hetero writers who claim their marriage is "nothing more than a scrap of paper". That's how much they take it for granted. They should try telling that to someone who cannot marry, or whose right to marry is about to be taken away by other people who are too afraid, or stingy to share this basic right. It's that simple.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[RuckusRy 0]

LEW - My Hero.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage.

Agreed. Let the government hand out civil unions and let churches have the wedding ceremonies however they like.

Agreed.

I don't agree, not quite anyway. Marriage should also not be the exclusive property of the churches. A civil marriage endows a couple - any couple - with rights and obligations under law. I see no reason why secular, or even athieistic people people should be denied the status of marriage. Marriage is commitment that two people make to each other and before their church and/or society at large. I'm a believer, and my wife and I were married in church, but why should a couple who chooses not to believe be denied the right to make the commitment and have it honored.

"Civil unions" are bunk. They're a political expedient that was crafted as a sop to try to accomodate gay couples without "offending" someone else's sensibilities.

Marriage is a RIGHT and there is no right more keenly appreciated than one which is denied. I've been reading a lot of opinions in these forums from presumably hetero writers who claim their marriage is "nothing more than a scrap of paper". That's how much they take it for granted. They should try telling that to someone who cannot marry, or whose right to marry is about to be taken away by other people who are too afraid, or stingy to share this basic right. It's that simple.

Government invented or defined marriage?

Hmm, guess I learned something today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tbrown 26]

Government invented or defined marriage?

Hmm, guess I learned something today

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Government invented or defined marriage?

Hmm, guess I learned something today

I'm not sure what the context of your remark is, nothing I said suggests that government invented marriage, though it now seems willing to define it (i.e. between one man and one woman only).

There would seem to be a solid case for the court appeals against Prop 8, under the equal protection clauses of state and federal constitutions. What sets Prop 8 apart from other constitutional amendments is that it TAKES AWAY a right under law from a select group of citizens. The only people I know of who can have their rights taken away are convicted criminals.

The entire reason we have Bills of Rights and equal protection clauses is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against the mob rule of the majority. Law abiding and tax paying gays and lesbians have a right to equal protection of the law and that right cannot be voted away by popular whim. Besides which, if we can strip gays of their legal rights, who else is next ? The Muslims aren't especially popular these days, why not go after their....property !!

Besides, these appeals will be heard by the same State Supreme Court that ruled in favor of same sex marriage in the first place, so I'm optimistic of the court's ruling.

But hey, we DID vote to let the chickens run free, on the floor, in their own chickenshit, so they can share more dieases with each other. The people of Kali obviously care more about a bunch of fuckin' chickens than people who just want to commit their lives to each other. Yeah, we can all be real proud of that....

[siddacious 0]

Quote

While I understand where you are coming from I do not agree.

(and if I missunderstood the point of who defines forgive me)

The vote as I usnderstand it was a state constitutional vote. All CA state courts should have to abide by that vote. The only place it can go now it the US SC. And the only way it will get turned over is if the US SC convolutes yet another article of the constitution.

Just as they did in Roe v Wade......
Oh, and I dont see this a lessening or removing rights from anybody. I see this as stopping a minority group getting special consideration under a law. Not protecting rights they have.

It is going to CA SC, and as I understand it, one of the arguments that the No on 8 lawyers are making is that removing a right from a group of people is a revision of the state constitution which requires a 2/3 majority rather than the simple majority for an amendment

A dolor netus non dui aliquet, sagittis felis sodales, dolor sociis mauris, vel eu libero cras. Interdum at. Eget habitasse elementum est.