|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Mar 26, 2013 9:13:42 GMT -5
Chief Justice Tanney said I think it was the Dred Scott that Negroes were only 5/8th human , we have had and interesting Supreme Court .
-Don- Careful, Don, You ani't no spring chicken either any more.... |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Mar 26, 2013 9:27:53 GMT -5
No one on this forum is a spring chicken.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2013 9:45:51 GMT -5
I started this thread because I would like to whether gay marriage should be considered an issue worthy of national attention , I know gay people may consider it an issue but not all , many don't plan on a life time partener , looking futher into the bill of rights I don't see any mention of civil unions among gays , congress in their wisdom gave tax breaks to married couples on the conclusion that married people will beget more tax payes , however our tax codes are so messed up that even Pelosi doesn't know whats in them , I would like to see them scrap the whole mess and go to flat tax .
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Mar 26, 2013 15:12:58 GMT -5
Now you're talking - but it would put a lot of lawyers and accountants out of work, increasing the unemployment stats....
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Mar 26, 2013 16:32:17 GMT -5
I started this thread because I would like to whether gay marriage should be considered an issue worthy of national attention , I know gay people may consider it an issue but not all , many don't plan on a life time partener , looking futher into the bill of rights I don't see any mention of civil unions among gays , congress in their wisdom gave tax breaks to married couples on the conclusion that married people will beget more tax payes , however our tax codes are so messed up that even Pelosi doesn't know whats in them , I would like to see them scrap the whole mess and go to flat tax .
You mean just like you don't see any mention of heterosexual marriage in the Bill of Rights?
-Don- |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Mar 26, 2013 16:39:15 GMT -5
Careful, Don, You ani't no spring chicken either any more....
-Don- |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2013 18:21:29 GMT -5
No one on this forum is a spring chicken. I'm a sprung chicken. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Mar 27, 2013 15:35:17 GMT -5
On the subject of the Supreme Court looking at the constitutionality of California Proposition 8, which bars Gay marriages, I have this observation.
(1) The X amendment gives the states powers that the Constitution does not grant to the federal government or prohibit to the states.
(2) Since the Constitution does not cover the queer relationship, I would think this subject should fall under the states supervision.
Therefore the Supreme Court should not even be considering the subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 15:51:10 GMT -5
The Supreme Court put their collective foot in it now they're trying to figure out how to gracefully retreat .
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Mar 27, 2013 22:22:24 GMT -5
(2) Since the Constitution does not cover the queer relationship, I would think this subject should fall under the states supervision. Therefore the Supreme Court should not even be considering the subject.
However, what I expect the Supreme Court to do is to piss off both sides equally and the issue then won't go away for a very long time, which means we're never stop hearing about it.
IMAO, the OF's in the SCOTUS don't have the guts to make the correct decision in a case like this, which is the only way to stop the issue forever.
Swampy, is it still much of an issue in Canada? I assume you never even hear it talked about, at least not much. Here, the issue comes up every day. And it will continue to come up every day until same-sex marriage is legal in every state in the USA. But the OF's in our SC are way too chicken to make such a decision, IMAO.
-Don- SSF, CA |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 8:22:36 GMT -5
What I've been hearing and reading is that apparently the SC seems to leaning toward doing away with DOMA. Wouldn't that automatically do away with Prop 8 as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 9:42:35 GMT -5
Should Gay marrage be and issue ? is how I should have started this thread , theres no doubt its a concern to a few but no comparison to the many other issue's thaT THE ADMINASTRATION KEEPS THROWING AT US , one after another on and on .
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Mar 28, 2013 9:44:12 GMT -5
The SC is also saying that the defenders of Prop 8 do not have standing to defend it in court. Yet these same defenders are probably the ones that promoted Prop 8 in the first place. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Mar 28, 2013 13:47:51 GMT -5
What I've been hearing and reading is that apparently the SC seems to leaning toward doing away with DOMA. Wouldn't that automatically do away with Prop 8 as well?
Getting rid of the DOMA will give the federal benefits. It will not make same sex marriage legal in a state that does not allow it.
Unless the SC decides (unlikely as most of those 9 have no guts) that this is a civil rights issue and all states most allow it (as with mixed race marriages).
An example:
Tom and I have to do three federal returns and one state tax return. The state of CA says we're married but the federal government says we are not. The CA state tax return has to get it's info. from the feds, making it necessary to have three federal tax returns for two people. And that is the easy part of the queer tax law, besides having to pay more to the feds (but less to the state of CA).
-Don- SSF, CA |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 13:56:28 GMT -5
What I've been hearing and reading is that apparently the SC seems to leaning toward doing away with DOMA. Wouldn't that automatically do away with Prop 8 as well?
-Don- SSF, CA Please 'splain (Ricky Ricardo shout out) how more than 18,000 couples got married and it was only 32,000 folks?  ? |
|
?