NationStates Jolt Archive

You don´t have to look at the tax burden only but on the mandatory social security premiums (which are also mostly paid as a percentage of your income). You have to add that. And for Germany that means: you have often less than half of your income to spent on your own will after tax and social security.
That is much more than in the United States. From 1990-2001 the US economy grew on average about 3,4% each year, the German economy 1,5% on average.
And from 2001-2003 the growth was zero and this year only 1,5%. We would be happy to have your problems, Sir Idiot.
try a less gleamingly obvious bias exampel than germany. germany had to pick up slack after unification because of the formerly communist side of germany

So, it is OK if the parents give consent on behalf of the child???
in a marriage, if the child wants to be married and the parents consent i THINK its legal, i also think if it is above a certain age...

try a less gleamingly obvious bias exampel than germany. germany had to pick up slack after unification because of the formerly communist side of germany
France didn´t grow much more though. Italy also only grew 1,5% and France 1,9%. The only one who did better was Britain. And that followed the anglo-saxon model (Thatcher, Reagan).

in a marriage, if the child wants to be married and the parents consent i THINK its legal, i also think if it is above a certain age...
Maybe - but where do you draw the line.
And the same can be said for marriage. Currently: one man one woman. You challenge that.
So - why keeping this barrier where it currently is?

try a less gleamingly obvious bias exampel than germany. germany had to pick up slack after unification because of the formerly communist side of germany
It is not bious. Germany should have grown faster than the others. In 1990 the East German economy was about 25% of the West German level. Today it is somewhere around 60%. But that was the failure after our reunification. The lack of structural reforms, especially in the field of taxes and social security - which means: cuts into them in order to become competitive on the global market.

Maybe - but where do you draw the line.
And the same can be said for marriage. Currently: one man one woman. You challenge that.
So - why keeping this barrier where it currently is?
whoah try a slippery slope, this one is getting easier to climb with all the overuse

children are immature (especially now) and should not be involved in a relationship, especially marriage, nor can they consent to one. in the early teens i think it is legal if the parents consent to the marriage

gay people are normal people who like the same sex, they are mature and competent, thus should legally be allowed to marry and do whatever

discriminating agaisnt people because they are homosexual is stupid and bigoted. hey your black, i hate you. go join the kkk

whoah try a slippery slope, this one is getting easier to climb with all the overuse
children are immature (especially now) and should not be involved in a relationship, especially marriage, nor can they consent to one. in the early teens i think it is legal if the parents consent to the marriage
But children are more and more often involved in sexual activities. The activity age is declining. That is a fact.

gay people are normal people who like the same sex, they are mature and competent, thus should legally be allowed to marry and do whatever
discriminating agaisnt people because they are homosexual is stupid and bigoted. hey your black, i hate you. go join the kkk
You have not given any argument. Only insults. I don´t hate gay people. I just want to protect marriage as an instituition. And marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Period.

Gay marriages are costly, imagine how much it would cost the economy to fix bleeding butts!!! ouch!!! :))

But children are more and more often involved in sexual activities. The activity age is declining. That is a fact.
which is irrelevant to anything i have said


You have not given any argument. Only insults. I don´t hate gay people. I just want to protect marriage as an instituition. And marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Period.
marriage is now an arrangement between two people to get state benefits. it is no longer religious, period. therefore it is a state matter and THEREFOR, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against.

marriage is now an arrangement between two people to get state benefits. it is no longer religious, period. therefore it is a state matter and THEREFOR, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against.
I´m OK with that if it means that religious instituitions don´t have to perform the marriage - like civil marriage and religious marriage being divided - like it is the case in many european countries.
Though, that means that the state has the right to legislate on it. And it is defind to be between one man and one woman. That is the law. And it is only the legislature who has the right to change that.

We should be pushing for gay marriage hard. I'm told gay couples are given preference over straight ones in adoption, because they've been statistically proven to have more stable, lasting homes than straight couples.

Pure Bullshit!

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass one way or another what happens. If gays gain the right to marry each other with full benefits, good for them. If they don't, well, doesn't matter, since the will of the majority has decided that homosexual marriages are not what society wants.

And for those who think attraction is not a behavior, think again. It's what allows people (and higher animals) to breed in the first place.

And why is that the case? A child can say yes or no if it is able to speak.
So the reasoning behind is is at the end: because the law says so.
But the law also says: marriage is between one man and one woman.
Since you argue that the law is not important in that respect you can not refer to the law in that respect as well, since you defy what the law says.
So: Why can´t a child not give consent?
Because a child is deemed unable to make a learned decision before a certain age. Now, a sexual orientation does in no way hinder the capacity to make a learned decision. That is why the two are different.

Maybe - but where do you draw the line.
And the same can be said for marriage. Currently: one man one woman. You challenge that.
So - why keeping this barrier where it currently is?

Because that barrier is discriminatory with no valid reasons. That's why it should changed.

I´m OK with that if it means that religious instituitions don´t have to perform the marriage - like civil marriage and religious marriage being divided - like it is the case in many european countries.
Though, that means that the state has the right to legislate on it. And it is defind to be between one man and one woman. That is the law. And it is only the legislature who has the right to change that.
Religious institution don't have to celebrate an homosexual marriage. They never had a probably never will. We are talking purely about the governmental issues.
As to the states, you're right in saying it is their jurisdiction. However, no law made on the state level can contradict the constitution. And the constitution states that there can be no discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation.
Also, the "full faith and credit" clause states that if two gays are married in one state, the other states have to recognise that marriage license. The current "one man and one woman" laws are therefore also unconstitutionnal on that respect.

Also, the "full faith and credit" clause states that if two gays are married in one state, the other states have to recognise that marriage license. The current "one man and one woman" laws are therefore also unconstitutionnal on that respect.
I don´t think you are right. But that would be an issue the US Supreme Court would have to decide. And I´m shure that they don´t agree with you either.

I don´t think you are right. But that would be an issue the US Supreme Court would have to decide. And I´m shure that they don´t agree with you either.
Granted I am not a lawyer or even a law expert; but from what I've read, my conclusions are valid. You're right: it is an issue for the court to decide. You can already hear the screams of "activist judge" from the religious conservative.

Because a child is deemed unable to make a learned decision before a certain age. Now, a sexual orientation does in no way hinder the capacity to make a learned decision. That is why the two are different.
So are stupid people. Should you have to pass an IQ test before you can sign a contract?

But it belongs to the historic truth that the native Americans needed to be "removed" in order to make space for the US. Otherwise it wouldn´t exist as a nation as it is today.
So - disrespecting this group united America "from sea to shinning sea".

Otherwise it wouldn´t have happened.

I'm sorry... I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I couldn't resist this.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

I think Chris Tucker is a very funny man, and his movies make me laugh. If white Americans hadn't brought black people from Africa as slaves, Chris Tucker probably wouldn't even be around to be so funny. Does that make slavery right? No.

If gays weren't disallowed from being married, I wouldn't have the chance to laugh at jokes about how straights have no right to harp on about the 'sanctity of marriage' after the mockery that they've made of it. Does funny jokes resulting from the unfair discrimination make the unfair discrimination right? No.

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....
Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.

Okay! That settles it! I'm convinced! Let's have a law that dissolves marriage after five years if the couple doesn't have kids and women who go through menopause have to get divorced from their husbands. Men can continue to get married unless they become sterile.

I don't know, why SHOULD you oppose it?

So are stupid people. Should you have to pass an IQ test before you can sign a contract?
FYI, some contracts were voided by the court when it was clear that one of the parties were not of clear mind.

And stupid people are aware of the implication of a choice like marriage. Children are not. They haven't enough experience to understand the implication that is marriage.

That is not the case in every country though. So, your point is moot.

You are the one using taxation as a reason to disallow gay marriage. I suppose that your point is moot then, since married individuals do not pay less taxes in every country. Thank you for refuting your own argument.

The question should be: Why do we tax inheritence that high (like in the US) if the people have paid tax on it their entire life?

It is simple to explain, whether I agree with it or not. If I leave something in my will to another person, it is income to them. Therefore, it is taxed as income.

It is a question of taxation. You want higher taxes but to exclude certain groups from them.

Are you a complete idiot? I never said anything even remotely suggesting this.

I want lower taxes for all and no barriers.

Wee! Me too.

I don´t see a reason why inheritence tax should not exist between relatives. It can be lower. But there are numerous ways how to regulate your inheritence issues. Like via "gifts" before you die. That is always a matter of the taxation system of your country.

We are not talking about inheritance tax between relatives. We are talking about inheritance tax between spouses. Married couples are seen as being a single legal entity under the law. Therfore, everything the husband owns, the wife already owns. Thus, if the husband dies and leaves everything to the wife, it is not income to her and she is not taxed.

How do you give something as a gift when the person already owns it?

The best thing would be: lower taxes instead of complicated regulations and numerous exceptions. That would be the best for all.

There is reason behind the exemption for spouses. If you can't see it, then you don't understand what legal marriage is in the first place.

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.

I'm a little late into this, so if I repeat something someone else said, sorry ahead of time. And I don't want this post to seem like I am targeting any one person, I'm not, just using this above post as sort of a starter for my argument, but it's not intended to be offensive or anything. I'd like to keep things civil if at all possible.
Firstly, Marriage is a religious ceremony yes, in one way, but it also a legal contract. And really religion should have NO BEARING whatsoever in our legal system, and unfortunately people think they can just break the law and go off against gay marriage in their little religious crusades. Sorry, but just so you know, for any church to endorse a political decision is actually breaking the law, there have been a dozen or so pastors fined because of it, I know because I used to watch the news in Washington state and several there were fined and almost lost their license, which is again another legal document. Therefore when you term marriage to a court, it is no longer a ceremony, but a contract, which is that piece of paper that you sign that says "Bob and Lisa Freddles" or whatever on it. That is a contract, and in religion there are no legal contracts, sorry, but there aren't. Religion is based on faith, more faith, faith again, and yet again more faith. Legal documents are based on paper, the law, the power they represent to a court, based on how they are recognized in the court, etc etc etc etc.
You can peddle that "gay marriage is against our religion" BS all you want, but really, that has no bearing whatsoever. You can be against gay marriage, sure, that's fine and all, but to put it in the constitution to outlaw it, or make laws that prevent it is a breach of civil rights. It is, you're denying someone from engaging in a legal contract because of their beliefs. So if you want to make gay marriage outlawed in our constitution, might as well make it against the law to have church on sunday, or to have bible school, etc etc, heck make it against the law to have free speech too, or anything else that is a nice little right we Americans have.
If you want to say "oh well outlaw churches from giving gay marriages" then again you're breaching the law by mixing Religion and State.
The point is, marriage is a contract, a legal piece of paper by government standards. By religion it may mean a lot more, and sure it says in the Bible "man and woman", doesn't matter. If you know anything about the history of the Bible, it has been translated, changed, edited, fumbled, fixed, thrown, tossed, hit, stabbed, burnt, etc etc so many times that it isn't actually what was originally written any more. It isn't even close. Look at different generations of Bibles and you can see where entire passages are rewritten.
Now as far as specific religions saying "it says man and woman in the bible, no gays", technically speaking, regardless of my little bit on the history of the Bible, churches should be allowed to deny gays from marriage. The government shouldn't have any say in it if you follow the law, unless of course there are unruly things going on, like draggin people on the back of a truck, or expressing political opinion. But then again, that doesn't give the church the power it wants, because there will be churches giving out marriage contracts, and what they want is to make those contracts null and void. It's a big sticky mess of religious people trying to get political gain. Oi.

As for taxing and what not involving marriage. You get a tax benefit when you are married. Some stated this, someone refuted it, and it is actually true. You get a benefit. I know more than a fair share of couples who got married just for that tax benefit. In fact I know a gay woman who married a fellow soldier for those benefits, they don't see eachother ever, but they are married, she has the license and she gets plenty of benefits.

Anyway....

That is the law. And it is only the legislature who has the right to change that.

That may be true in your bass-ackwards country, but in our country we have a little thing called checks and balances, where none of the branches of government have absolute dominion over any issue. We also are concerned with civil rights in our country.

As for taxing and what not involving marriage. You get a tax benefit when you are married. Some stated this, someone refuted it, and it is actually true. You get a benefit. I know more than a fair share of couples who got married just for that tax benefit. In fact I know a gay woman who married a fellow soldier for those benefits, they don't see eachother ever, but they are married, she has the license and she gets plenty of benefits.

Anyway....

Where do you live? And if in the US, are you talking about federal or state taxes? Federal taxes are higher for middle class married couples than for those two people combined singly, this is a simple fact. Even our vice president mentioned it today in the debates - it is referred to as the "marriage tax." My boyfriend and I would be penalized, not helped, by getting married right now.

You shouldn't appose gay marriage *looks around and walks out*

That may be true in your bass-ackwards country, but in our country we have a little thing called checks and balances, where none of the branches of government have absolute dominion over any issue. We also are concerned with civil rights in our country.
I know that: And that also means that activists judges shouldn´t have the right to change laws according to their chosing. That is a violation of the principals of cheques and balances since it overrides the decision of the legislature and of the people.

I know that: And that also means that activists judges shouldn´t have the right to change laws according to their chosing. That is a violation of the principals of cheques and balances since it overrides the decision of the legislature and of the people.

If they had actually changed laws, then I would agree with you. However, all they have done is interpret the laws in light of the constitution, which is their job. And, in case you didn't notice, the whole point of the checks and balances is that one branch might need to override the others.

The only "activist judges" I have seen changing the laws for their purposes are the ones imposing their own will by making it nearly impossible for a woman to get an abortion or imposing other beliefs much more conservative than the actual law.

If they had actually changed laws, then I would agree with you. However, all they have done is interpret the laws in light of the constitution, which is their job.
No, they change the definition of marriage and by doing so they change the law against the will of the legislatures and against the will of the people. Cheques and balances doesn´t mean that the judical branch stands above the other branches. But that is the policy those activist judges try to impose - the supremacy of the judicial branch over the others. And therefore that needs to be stopped - if needed by a constituitonal amendment if no other way is found.

I hate marriage....

filthy habit

This conversation is like the abortion issue: It just goes round in circles. I have an idea: Just go out and vote against all these amendments that keep coming up to make sure marriage is only between heterosexual couples. I'm tired of all talk and no action.

No, they change the definition of marriage and by doing so they change the law against the will of the legislatures and against the will of the people. Cheques and balances doesn´t mean that the judical branch stands above the other branches. But that is the policy those activist judges try to impose - the supremacy of the judicial branch over the others. And therefore that needs to be stopped - if needed by a constituitonal amendment if no other way is found.
And that is precisely their job: to interpret the law and change it if it is against the constitution. I'm so sick of people screaming "activist judge" as soon as a judge passes a judgment against their vue.

The will of the legislature and the will of the people be damned. There is a constitution and it has to be upheld. Even when the people doesn't agree. And the judges are acting according to the will of the legislative branch: after all it is the legislative branch that ratified the constitution.

The will of the legislature and the will of the people be damned. There is a constitution and it has to be upheld. Even when the people doesn't agree. And the judges are acting according to the will of the legislative branch: after all it is the legislative branch that ratified the constitution.
But the constituition doesn´t say: allow gay marriage.
It is changing the constituition and the law by activists judges. It is their duty to interpret the law, but not to change it. That is a fine line. And those activist judges have breached that. And therefore an amendment - or another legal option - should be imposed to upheld the law against the attac on it by activists judges. It is not the right of the judiciary to change the law. That is the right of the legislature.
Your attitude towards the legislature and the will of the people show that you haven´t understood the principal of cheques and balances. You are more or less advocating a dictatorship by the courts. But that is not what the system of cheques and balances is all about.

We are not talking about inheritance tax between relatives. We are talking about inheritance tax between spouses. Married couples are seen as being a single legal entity under the law. Therfore, everything the husband owns, the wife already owns. Thus, if the husband dies and leaves everything to the wife, it is not income to her and she is not taxed.
How do you give something as a gift when the person already owns it?.
I don´t know the legal concept of marriage in your country. But if everybody owns everything the other possesses it would mean that everything would needed to be divided in half when there is a divorce. That is not the case in my country. In that case only the surplus during the marriage (or the deficit) is divided. But otherwise everyone gets what he/she owned before.
There is also the possibilty to agree to seperate possessions - which then excludes the division of the marriage surplus in the case of a divorce. That requires however that both keep their properties -also those required during marriage seperate.
Your concept follows the idea of identical property. That is possible as an option, however it needs a special contract. And that means that every partner owns everything the others has gotten. But that is applied by almost nobody.

There is reason behind the exemption for spouses. If you can't see it, then you don't understand what legal marriage is in the first place.
it would make sense if there is really such a principal like you owe everything your partner ownes. We don´t have such a system here, though. It remains seperate - only that what is acuired during marriage is divided up - and even that can be excluded via a private contract in which both parties agree to keep seperate possessions. Given the high divorce rate making such a contract certainly makes sense - just in case.

But the constituition doesn´t say: allow gay marriage.

No, but it does say that the government must provide equal protection to all people, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual preference, etc. The constitution doesn't say: don't allow gay marriage either.

It is changing the constituition and the law by activists judges. It is their duty to interpret the law, but not to change it.

And they have interpreted the law and found that it violates the due process/equal protection clause in the Mass. Constition. They didn't change anything in the constitution.

That is a fine line. And those activist judges have breached that. And therefore an amendment - or another legal option - should be imposed to upheld the law against the attac on it by activists judges.

Wait, maybe you are starting to get it. See? Checks and balances. The judges have done their job and interpreted the constitutionality of a law. They have found it unconstitutional. Now, as a check on that, the legislature can attempt to change the constitution so that the law is not unconstitutional anymore? Are you beginning to understand?

It is not the right of the judiciary to change the law. That is the right of the legislature.

Yes, and the legislature can pass any law they want. They could pass a law tomorrow that said "Black people must remain inside their houses on every other Tuesday." However, this law would be challenged, and the courts would realize that it violates due process without a compelling state interest and would declare it unconstitutional. Are you beginning to understand now?

Your attitude towards the legislature and the will of the people show that you haven´t understood the principal of cheques and balances. You are more or less advocating a dictatorship by the courts. But that is not what the system of cheques and balances is all about.

Kyber, you are not even a US citizen, so don't preach to Americans about how their government works. It is quite clear that you don't understand checks and balances yourself. Let me give you a couple of examples of how this could go:

- Judge does job and finds anti-homosexual law unconstitutional
- Executive and legislative branch attempt to get more conservative judges in so that the ruling can be challenged and overturned.

or

- Judge does job and finds anti-homosexual law unconstitutional
- Legislative branch attempts to pass amendment to constitution so that it will no longer be unconstitutional. If the amendment passes, the will of the overwhelming majority has spoken. If it doesn't pass, it is not the will of the people.

or

- Judge does job and finds anti-homosexual law unconstitutional
- Legislative branch shrugs and says all marriages must be recognized.
- Executive branch refuses to give same-sex marriage
- Executive branch is sued over this and their actions are found to be wrong
- Executive branch nominates more conservative judges.

Now, I know that you have no idea how the US government works, but are you beginning to understand now?

I don´t know the legal concept of marriage in your country. But if everybody owns everything the other possesses it would mean that everything would needed to be divided in half when there is a divorce. That is not the case in my country. In that case only the surplus during the marriage (or the deficit) is divided. But otherwise everyone gets what he/she owned before.

Houses, cars, etc. bought while married would fall under that surplus, would they not?

There is also the possibilty to agree to seperate possessions - which then excludes the division of the marriage surplus in the case of a divorce. That requires however that both keep their properties -also those required during marriage seperate.

Of course they are allowed to keep separate possessions if they wish too, but the default is that anything bought during marriage belongs to both. The spouses must make other arrangements if this is not what they want.

Your concept follows the idea of identical property. That is possible as an option, however it needs a special contract. And that means that every partner owns everything the others has gotten. But that is applied by almost nobody.

Actually, to the main bulk of marriages, it is applied to all of the large possessions acquired during marriage.

it would make sense if there is really such a principal like you owe everything your partner ownes. We don´t have such a system here, though. It remains seperate - only that what is acuired during marriage is divided up - and even that can be excluded via a private contract in which both parties agree to keep seperate possessions. Given the high divorce rate making such a contract certainly makes sense - just in case.

I am only talking about that which is acquired during marriage.

I am only talking about that which is acquired during marriage.
All those things can also be done via private contracts - like joined ownership. No need for marriage.

And they have interpreted the law and found that it violates the due process/equal protection clause in the Mass. Constition. They didn't change anything in the constitution.?
They did change the definition of marriage. And they did not have the right to do that.

Kyber, you are not even a US citizen, so don't preach to Americans about how their government works. It is quite clear that you don't understand checks and balances yourself..?
Does the fact that I´m not a US citizen make me a bad person? There are also most US citizens who are against gay marriage. The US is by the way not the only country of the world with a system of cheques and balances. We are not in the year 1789 but in the year 2004. So, good morning.

- Judge does job and finds anti-homosexual law unconstitutional
- Executive and legislative branch attempt to get more conservative judges in so that the ruling can be challenged and overturned..?
Your point is moot since there is no anti-homosexual law. It is about the definition of marriage.
And that is a matter for the legislature to decide, not for the courts. I don´t see a reason for the courts to decide about how public finances should be spent either. And since the question of the civil marriages affects the state and its finances in a certain way it is the right of the legislature to define this issue of marriage.
That has nothing to do with telling people how to life. People can life a homosexual lifestyle or a polygamous lifestyle without being married. It is about the definition of marriage and about its financial implications also for the state. And therefore it is the legitimate right of the legislature to decide about the issue and not the right of the courts. They have just overstepped their power. I agree with President Bush in that issue.

I would guess this topic has been discussed on this forum ad nauseum, but not by me, so all those out there not sick of this, help me out.

Why should I care about gay marriage?

I'm an athiest so no religious explanations please. Keep it to a governmental and legal stand point.

YOU'LL GO TO HELL!!! (oops, no religion)

BECAUSE ITS ICKY!

BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS DIFFERENT AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME LEVEL OF HAPPINESS AS YOURSELF!!!

There are no real definitive reasons unfortunately.
There is no reason to care in the sense you opposing it. If you don't like it, don't marry someone of the same sex.

All those things can also be done via private contracts - like joined ownership. No need for marriage.

Wrong. If you jointly own something, and the other person dies and leaves it to you, you must still pay inheritance tax on it, even though you already own it. This is because you were not seen as fully owning it, but only half owning it.

Also, there are some things which cannot be jointly bought.

Wrong. If you jointly own something, and the other person dies and leaves it to you, you must still pay inheritance tax on it, even though you already own it. This is because you were not seen as fully owning it, but only half owning it.
SO, you ownly pay half. And with a reduction of the inheritence tax that should be a good solution to any problems. No need for gay marriages. We don´t allow polygamy either after all.

All those things can also be done via private contracts - like joined ownership. No need for marriage.
i guess its so much easier to be a bigot than just accept soemthing eh? maybe if you put as much effort into juts accepting it as you do into finding supposed holes in teh argument, you wouldnt care any more

They did change the definition of marriage. And they did not have the right to do that.

No, they didn't. Marriage by the law is a legal contract and they recognized it as such. A legal contract cannot be applied unequally without just cause.

When the judges decided that separate but equal was not ok in the schools, were they redefining schools? A lot of people thought so, but that doesn't make it correct.

Does the fact that I´m not a US citizen make me a bad person? There are also most US citizens who are against gay marriage. The US is by the way not the only country of the world with a system of cheques and balances. We are not in the year 1789 but in the year 2004. So, good morning.

I didn't say not being a US citizen makes you a bad person. I simply stated that you quite obviously do not understand our governmental system.

Your point is moot since there is no anti-homosexual law. It is about the definition of marriage.

My point applies to any law that any legislature in the US may pass. You just chose to ignore the point because you're so stuck on exact details.

Besides, a law that specifically says "We shall not recognize X from homosexuals," is an anti-homosexual law. Were the laws stating that black children could not go to white schools not anti-black just because they defined schools?

And that is a matter for the legislature to decide, not for the courts. I don´t see a reason for the courts to decide about how public finances should be spent either. And since the question of the civil marriages affects the state and its finances in a certain way it is the right of the legislature to define this issue of marriage.

I see, so you don't understand the government of the US. See, in our country, we think all three branches should have fairly equal power, so that no one section can take over.

Schools affect the state and its finances, but I don't hear anybody complaining that the courts made the state stop having separate black and white schools.

That has nothing to do with telling people how to life. People can life a homosexual lifestyle or a polygamous lifestyle without being married.

Yup, they can. And homosexuals are likely to lose everything if a tragedy occurs and their partner dies. I know that you hate homosexuals and don't care if they are thrown out on the street because they can't afford taxes they shouldn't have to pay. I know that you hate homosexuals and think that they shouldn't have children at all, therefore their children should not get health insurance. I know that you hate homosexuals and think that they shouldn't have access to their partners or their children in the hospital. I disagree.

It is about the definition of marriage and about its financial implications also for the state.

This has nothing to do with finances and you know it. Nobody but insurance companies are opposing the law based on finances. It is about bigots who hate homosexuals and think their lifestyle is somehow wrong.

And therefore it is the legitimate right of the legislature to decide about the issue and not the right of the courts. They have just overstepped their power. I agree with President Bush in that issue.

The courts have done their job. You don't like the decision, so you call it overstepping their power. You ignore the fact that the executive and legislative branches have plenty of steps they can take if they don't like the use of the judicial power.

SO, you ownly pay half. And with a reduction of the inheritence tax that should be a good solution to any problems. No need for gay marriages. We don´t allow polygamy either after all.

You ignore the fact that they should not have to pay *any* taxes on something they already own.

i guess its so much easier to be a bigot than just accept soemthing eh? maybe if you put as much effort into juts accepting it as you do into finding supposed holes in teh argument, you wouldnt care any more
The next logical step would be to accept polygamous marriages as well, since the same arguments apply there.
And what is with relatives who have to pay inheritence tax. Lets say the son or the daughter takes over a business from his/her father. Should she marry him in order to avoid inheritence tax because otherwise the business breaks down to the high tax burden (as Demopublicents suggested). If that tax burden really is that high in the US - which I don´t know - the answer should be to lower it but not to create new instituitions aside marriage, like gay marriage or polygamy.

The next logical step would be to accept polygamous marriages as well, since the same arguments apply there.

Except for the fact that this trite and idiotic argument is completely incorrect.

And what is with relatives who have to pay inheritence tax. Lets say the son or the daughter takes over a business from his/her father. Should she marry him in order to avoid inheritence tax because otherwise the business breaks down to the high tax burden (as Demopublicents suggested). If that tax burden really is that high in the US - which I don´t know - the answer should be to lower it but not to create new instituitions aside marriage, like gay marriage or polygamy.

The business is bringing in money, it would be unlikely to go down because of taxes. Houses or cars, on the other hand, do not bring in money unless they are being rented out. Even then, they don't bring in anywhere near their value's worth.

The next logical step would be to accept polygamous marriages as well, since the same arguments apply there.

Personally, I have no problem with polygamy, and I don't see why some people do. If every member of the relationship loves and is committed to every other member, why do you have a problem with it?

Personally, I have no problem with polygamy, and I don't see why some people do. If every member of the relationship loves and is committed to every other member, why do you have a problem with it?

I think the issue is legal recognition here, not whether or not they live that way. The simple truth is that the current laws applying to marriage cannot be applied to polygamy. If the government ever decided to allow such arrangements under law, an entirely new code of laws with entirely new benefits and protections would have to be enacted.

Kyber, on the other hand thinks that stating that marriage must be equally offered to all people equates to the idea that multiple marriages must also be allowed. This is, of course, very faulty reasoning. If the government denies all people from getting multiple marriages, this is not discrimination. Kyber's logic is like saying that since I am allowed to get a driver's license, Betty has to be given two.

Kyber, on the other hand thinks that stating that marriage must be equally offered to all people equates to the idea that multiple marriages must also be allowed. This is, of course, very faulty reasoning. .
It is not: Marriage is the bound of one man and one woman. So, it is done under this framework.
Allowing same-sex marriages would change that framework. And you can not argue on the one hand that this change is necessary (on the criteria sex) but not on another criteria (number). Either you end up accepting everything or you keep the definition of marriage the way it is.

It is not: Marriage is the bound of one man and one woman. So, it is done under this framework.

Says you. Very few laws said it up until a few years ago. Looks like they already changed something.

Either you end up accepting everything or you keep the definition of marriage the way it is.

Only if you are a complete idiot.

Says you. Very few laws said it up until a few years ago. Looks like they already changed something..
they have only clearified things, which were clear already up until activist judges have tried to manipulat the definition of marriage.



Only if you are a complete idiot.
The only one who is a complete idiot is the one who responds to another opinion with insults.

they have only clearified things, which were clear already up until activist judges have tried to manipulat the definition of marriage.

Wow, and the "activist judges" did that all by themselves, did they? No one else recognized that marriage is a legal document and therefore must be recognized for any consenting couple? No one actually brought it before the court? The courts just sent out a decree?

The only one who is a complete idiot is the one who responds to another opinion with insults.

Well, I didn't respond with insults. I pointed out the fact that only an idiot would feel compelled to allow polygamy (which is a completely different social construct) if they allowed same-sex marriage. It is like saying "I like oranges therefore I must like pears."

Wow. Kybernatia sure does love to use the "activis\t judge" myth alot.

Now this guy runs a very conservative comic, but at least he knows when to call bullshit when he sees it. (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20040824)

The idea that 'marriage' immutably is defined as (put on hillbilly accent) 'between one man and one woman' (end hillbilly accent) is ludicrous.

I can marry some pine and some mahogany and make a stool. I can marry chocolate chips and cookie dough, and make chocolate chip cookies.

One definition of marriage is 'a union between a man and a woman'. One, as in, a single definition. And even this is not the definition everywhere. The definition is changed as the 'institution of marriage' itself changes. If people would cut out the 'It's icky', 'It's against my religion', 'it's unnatural', 'it's not traditional', 'FYIGM' attitude and just let homosexuals marry each other, we could make a change to the definition of marriage, end this debate and all get on with our lives.

Surely a government has better things to do than alienate a chunk of its nation's population on the basis of certain elements' bogus ideas of morality. Things like, I don't know, protecting the population from crazy people with bombs? Things like curbing the crime rate? Things like getting its economy out of the fire before it collapses? Naw, we'd better make sure those uppity fags don't get any wacko ideas about 'equal protection under the law'.
'

Gay marriage is the first step in destroying the istituition of marriage. The next thing is going to be polygamy.
You can´t give benefits to one but not to everyone.
Since that is the case the logical result of this development is that marriage would become irrelevant and would loose its legal benefits - especially in the field of taxation.

Really? Historically, monogomy was the resultant cultural evolution of Polygamy, not the other way around. So your saying that another form of monogamy is going to mysteriously turn into polygamy. Me thinks thy slippery slope is neither slippery nor sloped. There is nothing logical in a logical fallicy.

Also, question, so what? Adults are capable of making their own decisions. If they want to be bound legally to more than one partner and all partners agree then what skin is it off your nose?