Supreme Court Weighing Gay Marriage Cases (Amish, marijuana, good news, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not telling you how to live your life, I am simply saying I do not wish to support something financially if I consider immoral. It makes me a partaker in immorality. Same goes with abortion. I do NOT want to support it financially.
However, this ruling will force every taxpayer to support it financially, and that is a problem.
Perhaps my religion finds it immoral to financially provide medical care to seniors or to tax people based on their relationship status or or deny access to BC or to support dictatorships or war or subsidize farmers or manipulate the economy. Etc, etc, etc...
Your religion has no more say than mine does... even if I made mine up 10 minutes ago.
I am not telling you how to live your life, I am simply saying I do not wish to support something financially if I consider immoral. It makes me a partaker in immorality. Same goes with abortion. I do NOT want to support it financially.
However, this ruling will force every taxpayer to support it financially, and that is a problem.
Your not
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
I do not wish to financially support YOUR marriage, but I don't get a choice to opt out.
I am so glad the Supreme Court has ruled that the tax on heterosexuals, the marriage penalty provisions of the income tax code, is unconstitutional--and that it may now also be applied to married same-sex couples.
I did, but it still leave it open. Now there is precedent, since the portion of DOMA that was found unconstitutional means that couples can now challenge any laws in their states that restrict same sex marriages.
Constitutional amendments in states and laws that were created to stop Same Sex marriages in those states that have such laws, can now be challenged.
Exactly, and all of that will take YEARS...
I suppose even longer than people suspect because if you live in one of those states, it will be far easier to travel to another state to get married, then file a Supreme Court challenge to the law.
I suppose even longer than people suspect because if you live in one of those states, it will be far easier to travel to another state to get married, then file a Supreme Court challenge to the law.
and they travel back to their state because that is where they live, and then file a court case against the their home state because their LEGALLY valid marriage is not recognized.
I am so glad the Supreme Court has ruled that the tax on heterosexuals, the marriage penalty provisions of the income tax code, is unconstitutional--and that it may now also be applied to married same-sex couples.
Never said otherwise, I started by saying its not over..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
and they travel back to their state because that is where they live, and then file a court case against the their home state because their LEGALLY valid marriage is not recognized.
It can happen sooner than you think.
But states not recognizing marriages isnt the same as states allowing it to take place.
How does that fact that two men are able to marry in any way effect your religious freedom? The Supreme Court did not rule that you can't go to any church of your choosing, nor did it invalidate marriage between a man and a woman.
The ruling had nothing to do with who you can marry, and who can't marry, and everything to do with opening the federal money taps to people who live in gay marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.