Yeah. When you have kids, you're more than making up for lost tax revenue that parents are given as tax credits and deductions. Your household consumes far more with children, which mean children ultimately fuel the economy in greater excess than a household without children. In other words, buying Baby Jordans and other shit does as much to help the economy as paying taxes. And I, personally, get the same return. :MARIS61: As for the marriage benefits....... actually, for many, being married provides little to no tax benefit. It can change any given year with a few minor tweaks, but google "marriage penalty taxes" and learn the ins and outs.
In the end, I don't think people care whether it's called "marriage" or "shit-tied" or "civil union". I think everyone just wants equal rights. I personally don't like to discriminate, but I'd be okay with churches keeping their definition of marriage as it is and making "marriage". I have no clue where the term originated, and I'm not saying the term cannot evolve, but I'm okay with it staying from whence it came. There's nothing wrong with that. But what I take issue with is creating a category that can't apply to all Americans (i.e. "marriage" before the ban was overturned) and then offering people that fit into the defined category (married people) different rights/benefits.
Not if you some rich beeyotch in the 'burbs and yo 'rents pay the bill dollaz for you to attend some crackaz-ass'd white-bred Catholic private skool. But you knew that, right, playa?
When the two decide to split, who gets the kids ? Visitation rights? Split of accumulated assets? What about medical decisions if the other us incapable of deciding?
I was with some guys last night and one guy said, "I don't get how one judge can overrule the will of the entire state of Oregon." It amazed me that something as basic as three branches of government and checks and balances was a foreign concept to him, but I think that a lot of people hold that sentiment.
Actually there was no ban that was overturned. The Oregon Constitution define Marriage as a Man and a Woman. That definition the voter put in the Oregon Constitution is being over turned. That ruling is a gay point of view being forced on the rest of the world by a gay judge and a lizbian Attorney General that abdicated her responsibility to the people of the State.
Cool. I'm not arguing semanctics here. I'm arguing the overall point. Which is why we so often struggle to come to resolution. People nitpick the little shit and forget the overall point.
Blazing Giants, it does matter. Because if some people have marriage, with all the ceremony and celebration and legal rights, and others have civil unions, with maybe some rights, you don't have equality. I know same sex couples who had registered civil unions/domestic partnerships and it had all the excitement of renewing their driver's license. Just a bureaucratic form. But these same couples broke into tears when they were married. Many same sex couples have religious, Christian or otherwise, marriage ceremonies. Only someone as ignorant as SlyPokerDog would think you are either gay or Christian but never both. Marriage is both a legal right and, if desired, a religious rite. The state issues marriage licenses, which entitle the holder to all legal rights and responsibilities. Clergy are empowered to perform the ceremony for those who want a religious blessing; the marriage is legal without it but the couple may not be married in their faith otherwise. No clergy are required to perform any ceremony they don't approve of. No one can force a Catholic priest to marry a divorced person or an Orthodox rabbi to marry a Jew to a gentile. The decisions are about what the state honors, the legal right. Yep, checks and balances, funny how those who often claim to be Constitution lovers are unaware of the third branch of government. Just like those who claim Christianity are so often unaware of things like loving thy neighbor and those without sin casting the first stone. What a miserable life SlyPokerDog must have with such a mean, petty little soul. To be outraged at others' joyful celebrations. Humans are social animals. We evolved as group living primates; as such, empathy is an adaptive value. It may sound hokey to say "smile and the world smiles with you" but in fact that is true; we are biologically adapted to respond in kind to others' joy and sorrow. Sadly, social prejudice can overcome this adaptation, hence you have the supporters of Prop H8 who cheered when anguished couples wept over their canceled weddings and people like MarAzul who grouse when others celebrate. How sad.
Of the three federal branches, which branch of government are state constitutions/rights covered under?
Everything in your life seems related to being aggrieved one way or the other, and personally attacking those who disagree with you on any matter.
Pennsylvania! Judge Jones: The judge who struck down the anti equality law was nominated by George W. Bush with the support of Rick Santorum. Obviously a gay plot.
