• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

Status
Not open for further replies.

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
IMO this whole thing is putting a lot of stock in government authority/control/licensing...

To be honest, I think I'd rather prefer my marriage to not be recognized by the government - it'd feel more real that way.

The thing that really sucks it you have to ask the government permission to end the marriage. In some states even common law marriage.

LOL Wait until they discover the Marriage Tax Penalty that we old breeders have paid since taxes became progressive.

+1
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
IMO this whole thing is putting a lot of stock in government authority/control/licensing...

To be honest, I think I'd rather prefer my marriage to not be recognized by the government - it'd feel more real that way.

except if not governmentally recognized, you miss out of gaggles of medical, SSI, etc. benefits the government doles out...

LOL Wait until they discover the Marriage Tax Penalty that we old breeders have paid since taxes became progressive.

quote USToday:
In fact, the ruling could add anywhere from $20,000 to more than $250,000 in lifetime benefits to same-sex couples, says Christopher Jones, chief investment officer at Financial Engines.

In one scenario, Financial Engines profiles a fictitious couple — Henry, age 64, (current salary $80,000), and Logan, age 62 (who has had a lower-paying job interrupted by taking several years off). If Henry dies at 84 and Logan dies at 90 they would receive total Social Security benefits of $797,280 as two single people if they start collecting benefits at ages 64 and 62.

But if Henry and Logan claim Social Security as a married couple, their lifetime benefits would grow to $938,112, an increase of $140,832. That's because Logan can now receive spousal and survivor benefits based on Henry's higher earnings history.

And if Henry and Logan optimize when they claim Social Security they would get more than $1.1 million, some $202,176 more than if they claimed at ages 64 and 62.unquote

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/06/26/same-sex-social-security/28699323/

ipse
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
except if not governmentally recognized, you miss out of gaggles of medical, SSI, etc. benefits the government doles out...



quote USToday:
In fact, the ruling could add anywhere from $20,000 to more than $250,000 in lifetime benefits to same-sex couples, says Christopher Jones, chief investment officer at Financial Engines.

In one scenario, Financial Engines profiles a fictitious couple — Henry, age 64, (current salary $80,000), and Logan, age 62 (who has had a lower-paying job interrupted by taking several years off). If Henry dies at 84 and Logan dies at 90 they would receive total Social Security benefits of $797,280 as two single people if they start collecting benefits at ages 64 and 62.

But if Henry and Logan claim Social Security as a married couple, their lifetime benefits would grow to $938,112, an increase of $140,832. That's because Logan can now receive spousal and survivor benefits based on Henry's higher earnings history.

And if Henry and Logan optimize when they claim Social Security they would get more than $1.1 million, some $202,176 more than if they claimed at ages 64 and 62.unquote

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/06/26/same-sex-social-security/28699323/

ipse


Pretty awesome that the US tax payers can afford all these extra governmental expenses.

Social security is fiscally stable, right?
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I wonder when all the people who choose not to marry are going to file a lawsuit for equal treatment under the taxation laws since those that choose to marry get such a break on taxes?

The tax laws are clearly " UNCONSTITUTIONAL"-- My .02

CCJ
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
I wonder when all the people who choose not to marry are going to file a lawsuit for equal treatment under the taxation laws since those that choose to marry get such a break on taxes?

I wonder what happens when government employees get to reign, err I mean preside, over the court cases that determine the Constitutionality of tax laws.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
IMO this whole thing is putting a lot of stock in government authority/control/licensing...

To be honest, I think I'd rather prefer my marriage to not be recognized by the government - it'd feel more real that way.


Have you heard Doug Stanhopes take on it.....hilarious. I'd post a link but it is full of F'bombs and other vulgar things I enjoy.

Something along the lines of if marriage didn't exist would you invent it? (Government marriage that is)
 

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
I've never been for making gay marriage illegal, so don't get me wrong…

God defined marriage (a man and a woman, coming together as one), and said any sexual acts out of wedlock (marriage recognized by God), no matter the persons sex, is wrong. I always get sick of people talking about how homosexuality is so wrong, and then they themselves have heterosexual sex out of wedlock… which is just as bad. Christianity is NOT about forcing people to follow what is right… God gave everyone free will, so they can do what they want. I don't understand how Christians can want to fight for legal battles like they are trying to make some type of paradise for themselves here on Earth. Thats not why we are here.

So long point short… congratulations on getting what you want, if thats what you want… doesn't matter to me. I care more about someones soul than their life here, but they have the right to make their own choices, God doesn't force anyone to do anything.

We've always had 2 types of marriage…
1. Really married (recognized by God)
2. Legally married.
Some couples are both, and some are only in 1 category. I've known plenty of people in heterosexual marriages which I'd only put in category 2…. so now there are homosexual marriages to put there too… great, the law shouldn't have ever prevented it.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Through out history many gods have said many things. I would much more rely on the truths that do exist. Nothing is "wrong" if it harms no other. Be that rights come from a supernatural being or from nature , rights are inherent in the individual.

The God you refer to Yahweh has said many things which I disagree with.

The last paragraph is a false dichotomy.

Traditionally marriages have been without a state backing and without approval by Yahweh.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Homosexuality is the worst form of bigotry and hatred. They hate God and everything he (sic) stands for. They try to cram down our throat their immoral deviate behavior and say they are normal. It is not gay and straight it is gay and normal. Gay is not normal and they are not born that way. If they are then child molesters and rapists are born that way also. It is willful chosen behavior. Stop trying to force your filthy ways on normal people.

that was quite an insightful emotional and hate filled & biased rant...and one is suppose to walk away after reading that homophobic tirade believing YOU are one of the good, God fearing NORMAL people....:eek:

i would just thoroughly enjoy being around when you discern your Maker is a card carrying member of the GLBT community and She asks about this little rant at the pearly gates...

ipse
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I for one thank the Constitution, and the atheist non-gods, that your disagreement has no legal bearing, or weight of the law, anymore.

Ah, but it has very significant bearing on the future rights of the people of our republic and upon the sovereignty of the states.

I do not at all disagree with a policy of marriage equality but am very concerned about how this ruling was fought in the courts and how the supreme court came to this conclusion.

Since the adoption of the 14thA more than 100 years ago, SCOTUS has so polluted the intent that what we essentially have is SCOTUS deciding that whatever we want the 14thA to be, it is; and SCOTUS can through judicial fiat declare by a 5 vote majority anything to be a fundamental right.

This utterly destroys the concept of sovereign states, the 9th & 10th A as well as the foundation of a republican form of government.

Welcome to Kritarchy!
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Haters gonna hate. I read this two hours ago and was going to ignore it for a while. Everybody has opinions, but I'd like to hope that adults are mature enough to discuss said opinions without personal attacks and idiotic assertions.
As a former member of the "God hates ****" religion, I can tell you that it's really stupid to get so emotionally wrapped up in any particular issue that you can't see both sides.
People like to disrespect the SCOTUS, but they walk a very fine line and seem to be working to refine our understanding of the constitution as it applies to modern issues. (Realizing that non-heterosexual, romantic love is not new, but it is obviously still a contentious issue in the modern era.)

People accuse Muslims of wanting to go back to the 8th century. Some think Christians want to go back to the first century.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
(Snip)...
SCOTUS can through judicial fiat declare by a 5 vote majority anything to be a fundamental right.

This utterly destroys the concept of sovereign states, the 9th & 10th A as well as the foundation of a republican form of government.
!

It is ultimately the highest purpose of the Court to take power away from government and hand it back to the individual. That is all that happened here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
It is ultimately the highest purpose of the Court to take power away from government and hand it back to the individual. That is all that happened here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was the purpose of the constitution when it was written~~but the people, the courts, and the politicians perverted it. It is good to see that sometimes the courts get it right.

But remember the reason they got it right, so that a group of people would be eligible for government perks, thus giving government more control of that subset of people. Gays always had the ability for a union without government sanctions, but lacking entitlements. The sole reason for the fight was for those private, and government entitlements.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
...
But remember the reason they got it right, so that a group of people would be eligible for government perks, thus giving government more control of that subset of people. Gays always had the ability for a union without government sanctions, but lacking entitlements. The sole reason for the fight was for those private, and government entitlements.

Eliminating government benefits that may no longer serve a useful purpose is a different issue. The government should not be encouraging high reproductive levels and it is somewhat outdated to think that a woman needs the protection of a man so should be encouraged to wed as soon as possible.
Although, this does mean that us men have a better chance to get and keep control by locking in our spouse early, before s/he finds someone better. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Eliminating government benefits that may no longer serve a useful purpose is a different issue. The government should not be encouraging high reproductive levels and it is somewhat outdated to think that a woman needs the protection of a man so should be encouraged to wed as soon as possible.
Although, this does mean that us men have a better chance to get and keep control by locking in our spouse early, before s/he finds someone better. ;-)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

noname, et al., i know what you stated wasn't what you truly might have meant, but studies have shown these words can/could perpetuate the power and control aspects of the 'cycle of violence' leading to DV activities. http://www.dvhelppenrithregion.nsw.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=107

finally, marital rape (even sanctioned by the 'Good' Book) (http://www.newser.com/story/208032/marital-rape-often-not-treated-like-normal-rape.html) are apparently part of the control of spouses.

ipse
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek for that last sentence.
While my ex may have said to her family that I was too controlling, the fact that we lived 450 miles apart for the last eight years of the marriage might indicate otherwise.
But this does bring up the matter of why people get married in the U.S. Sometimes it is because of pressure by a religion, aka Birdman's view that one shouldn't fornicate or live in sin. Sometimes it is the "lock-in" that I mention - a way to keep your chattel from others. (The real reason for most of the Ten Commandments) And sometimes it is necessary for legal purposes. The state wants parents to me married so laws are written for that purpose. Fixing the laws to make marriage a strictly religious event could solve certain problems for unwed and single parents, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek for that last sentence.
While my ex may have said to her family that I was too controlling, the fact that we lived 450 miles apart for the last eight years of the marriage might indicate otherwise.
But this does bring up the matter of why people get married in the U.S. Sometimes it is because of pressure by a religion, aka Birdman's view that one shouldn't fornicate or live in sin. Sometimes it is the "lock-in" that I mention - a way to keep your chattel from others. (The real reason for most of the Ten Commandments) And sometimes it is necessary for legal purposes. The state wants parents to me married so laws are written for that purpose. Fixing the laws to make marriage a strictly religious event could solve certain problems for unwed and single parents, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My god! that's a big house! How long did it take to walk down to the kitchen for morning coffee? :)


Interesting historical note: When Charles II gave Pennsylvania to William Penn (to get Quaker Penn out of Anglican England), Penn, at a stroke of the pen, became the largest private property owner on earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top