Author
|
Topic: new vote: same sex marriage (Read 8964 times) |
|
Stringy
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 15
Reputation: 7.11
Rate Stringy
Life is a trip...and we got tickets
  
|
 |
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #30 on: 2007-12-13 16:55:47 » |
 |
Hermit,
Marriage, as an expression of love, may indeed be stupid. As a financial/legal decision, it can be quite practical. For example, marrying somebody wealthy, and by chance or design experiencing their demise, represents a well worn path to a popular American dream, easy money (though easy and marriage in the same premise is likely an oxymoron). It's as American as the lottery. Then there are the less macabre advantages bestowed upon the betrothed by the state: tax benefits, inheritance options, and and other legal rights. Until tax laws change, I recommend marrying an exemption and having deductions to all decent wage earners.
Stringy
|
I'm neither a scientist nor a scholar. I'm, primarily, an entertainer. That does not invalidate my ideas...but it does make them suspect.
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #31 on: 2007-12-13 18:30:52 » |
|
Quote from: Stringy on 2007-12-13 16:55:47 | <snip>Marriage, as an expression of love, may indeed be stupid. As a financial/legal decision, it can be quite practical.</snip> |
[Blunderov] "A true zen saying" (thank you Frank Zappa).
"I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house." ~Zsa Zsa Gabor
Darwin knows what the divorce industry must be earning!
Zsa Zsa Gabor had some pungent comments on the subject of marriage - of course she was not alone in this. (Other contributions would be interesting...)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/z/zsa_zsa_gabor.html
A man in love is incomplete until he is married. Then he's finished.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
Conrad Hilton was very generous to me in the divorce settlement. He gave me 5000 Gideon Bibles.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
He taught me housekeeping; when I divorce I keep the house.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
How many husbands have I had? You mean apart from my own?
Zsa Zsa Gabor
Husbands are like fires - they go out when unattended.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
I call everyone 'Darling' because I can't remember their names.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
I don't remember anybody's name. How do you think the "dahling" thing got started?
Zsa Zsa Gabor
I know nothing about sex, because I was always married.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
I never hated a man enough to give him diamonds back.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
I want a man who's kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?
Zsa Zsa Gabor
I'm a great housekeeper. I get divorced. I keep the house.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
Macho does not prove mucho.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
One of my theories is that men love with their eyes; women love with their ears.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
The women's movement hasn't changed my sex life. It wouldn't dare.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
Thou shouldst not become presumptuous through much treasure and wealth; for in the end it is necessary for thee to leave all.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
To a smart girl men are no problem - they're the answer.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
We were both in love with him. I fell out of love with him, but he didn't.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
When I'm alone, I can sleep crossways in bed without an argument.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
You never really know a man until you have divorced him.
Zsa Zsa Gabor
[Bl.]Why, oh why do we do it? Oh the tragedy of the commons! Oh the law of property!
Yup, somehow it comes down to property every time! Meum et teum. World without end.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #32 on: 2008-04-20 19:14:07 » |
|
Stringy
Two unmarried people can do business between themselves, charging one another for services (including management and marketing fees) to maximize their ability to reduce their taxable income and maximize deductions to an extent that is utterly impossible for the married. Thus marriage deductions are totally insignificant in comparison to what two people doing business with each other can achieve using perfectly legal strategies. As one example, one can employ the other and provide uniforms, meals, no contribution medical and pension schemes and even group shopping benefits and incentives as well as no-contribution educational bursaries as part of their overall package - and by so doing for a staff member, can make it possible for the hirer to gain the same benefits. This is quite legitimate even if both parties also work for somebody else. If the partners don't earn the same amount, the one with a higher income can effectively level their incomes by paying tax-deductable fees to the other, so reducing the total tax paid by both of them.None of these tactics are possible between married people. This can be even more beneficial with larger groups of people operating small corporations of one sort or another to widen the range of achievable benefits and purchasing leverage. And of course this isn't possible in a marriage for, as the poet said,
There was once a man of the Ryme
Who married three wives at a time
When they asked why the third
He replied, "One's absurd,
And bigamy, Sir, is a crime!"
It is also quite viable not only to agree to make wills out to the benefit of one another - one can much more advantageously establish a group pension scheme with all surviving benefits paid into the pool; or even take out tax deductable group insurance on partners - which possibly would make their loss much more bearable. Again this goes far beyond what is possible using marriage as vehicle for tax planning.
The critical point being that unmarried people can perform true "arms length transactions" whereas the married are precluded from this - and this not only nullifies, but even reverses the possible benefits of marriage deductions. Finally, bear in mind that when you consult a lawyer or accountant to minimize your tax liability or arrange or rearrange a business partnership that their fees are deductible - and thus sponsored by the IRS proportionally to your effective tax rate. Marriage counsellings and the fees of divorce lawyers offer no such benefits.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #33 on: 2008-05-15 22:25:20 » |
|
California's top court overturns gay marriage ban
[ Hermit : Congratulations California! ]
Sources: Associated Press
Authors: Lisa Leff, Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves (AP Writers)
Dated: 2008-05-15
In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.
Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"
"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."
In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.
"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.
Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Tas6
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 77
Reputation: 7.01
Rate Tas6
Virian Alchemist
|
|
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #34 on: 2009-03-31 06:37:40 » |
|
Did anyone see the ending episode of Boston Legal?
Personally I feel that anyone or group should be able to gain the status of marriage. I am polyamorous and so for multiple reasons, the least of which is the financial benefit of additional income to the household and the best of such as having more than one lover to see and experience this wonderful life. Marriage in the past was a political/social-economic move that one hoped love would flourish from but was of secondary importance but we have evolved and have different needs then they did. Romance is new as a foundation for marriage. Is it a real improvement? I can only speak from my own subjective view as yes... but that is only valid to me and those I am involved with and have been involved with personally.
|
"Funny goggles and Frankenstein, what real science should be!"
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #35 on: 2009-04-03 21:32:15 » |
|
Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
[ Hermit : While banning all marriage as an unconstitutional interference of state in religion might have been preferable, this was probably the best possible achievable outcome. Congratulations Iowa. ]
Source: Associated Press
Authors: Amy Lorentzen (Associated Press Writer, Des Moines), Nigel Duara (Associated Press writer, Urbandale), Marco Santana (Associated Press writer, Urbandale), Melanie S. Welte (Associated Press writer, Des Moines), Michael Crumb (Associated Press writer, Des Moines), Mike Glover (Associated Press writer, Des Moines)
Dated: 2009-04-03
Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.
Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."
At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream."
Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."
"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.
Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.
"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."
In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.
"Today, dreams become reality, families are protected and the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled," Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor said.
John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.
"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.
"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.
Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.
"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.
Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.
Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.
"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.
"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."
Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.
Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state's equal protection clause on which Friday's ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa's language means almost "exactly the same thing."
Still, he said, it's difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices.
Linda McClain, professor at Boston University School of Law, said she doubted Iowa's ruling would be "a realistic blueprint" for the U.S. Supreme Court," particularly considering the court's conservative leadership.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.
Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.
Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #36 on: 2009-04-07 14:23:05 » |
|
Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal
[ Hermit : Vermont follows Iowa, but in a more enlightened fashion. Congratulations Vermont. ]
Source: NY Times
Authors: Abby Goodnough, Anahad O’Connor
Dated: 2009-04-07
The Vermont Legislature on Tuesday overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gay couples to marry, mustering exactly enough votes to preserve the measure.
The step makes Vermont the first state to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling.
The outcome in the House of Representatives, 100 to 49, was not clear until the final moments of a long roll call, when Rep. Jeff Young, a Democrat who voted against the bill last week, reversed his position. After the final tally, cheers erupted in both legislative chambers of the State House and in the hallways outside, and several lawmakers on both sides of the debate looked stunned.
“It’s a great day for equality,” said State Representative Margaret Cheney, a Democrat from Norwich. “People saw this as an equality issue, and we’re proud that Vermont has led the way without a court order to provide equal benefits.”
The override came days after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that not permitting gay marriage there was unconstitutional. Vermont, which in 2000 became the first state to adopt civil unions for gay couples, now brings the number of states allowing same-sex marriage to four; the others are Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.
The battle over the issue has largely been centered in the Northeast. Massachusetts became the first state in the country to make same-sex marriage a reality in 2004 when its supreme court ruled that it was required under the state’s Constitution, which contains an equal-protection clause. Connecticut followed in April 2009.
Two other states in the region recognize civil unions — New Jersey and New Hampshire — and gay rights advocates have waged a campaign in hopes of making same-sex marriage legal in every state in New England by 2012. Before Tuesday, Vermont, like New Jersey and New Hampshire, had also allowed civil unions, a step that gay rights advocates say helps ease the transition to laws allowing same-sex marriage. Just last month, the House of Representatives in New Hampshire voted narrowly to approve a bill to legalize such marriages, which moves to the state Senate and could be considered there as early as this week.
But organizers in Maine and Rhode Island have opposed the civil-union approach, which they say makes same-sex couples appear unequal. Instead, they have sought to change the laws directly. In Rhode Island, for example, gay rights advocates plan to wait until 2011, when the Republican governor, Donald L. Carcieri, who opposes gay marriage, leaves office.
Still, opponents of gay marriage have argued that the success of the movement in New England is more political than populist, pointing out that for the most part, the courts rather than the voters have been the main actors. More than two dozen other states have banned gay marriage in recent years after residents of those states voted for restrictions. Several other states have same-sex marriage measures before their legislatures this year, including New York, New Jersey and Washington.In California, voters last fall effectively reversed a court decision that legalized gay marriage when they narrowly approved Proposition 8, which amended the State Constitution to ban such marriages. The California Supreme Court is considering a petition to overturn the ban, but many legal scholars have predicted that it will be upheld.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Silnaika
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 14
Reputation: 5.00
Rate Silnaika
Dead silence shall return.
  
|
|
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #37 on: 2010-04-19 13:00:05 » |
|
Homosexuals who want to be married have as much rights as any hetrosexual humans in this world.
Personally, I don't approve of same sex marriages because it is just wrong and disgusting, but the people getting married are happy and people should be happy.
Happy people sin less than angry people, and this world is full of sinners.
|
A dead world is a free world.
|
|
|
|
Logged
