| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 merkyl |
|||
|
Posts: 53009 (05/15/08 2:24 PM) Registered loser |
Good to see the Condo is going strong still. Moron. What is so hard to understand about marriage being between TWO adults (meaning human) WHO ARE OF LEGAL CONSENTING AGE that want to get married?LOL I see you take the same tactic that Xabby takes, using the definition of traditional marriage to defend alternate marriage. How come you can change the gender of the people getting married but not the number? |
||
 squashthebeef |
|||
|
Posts: 13170 (05/15/08 2:25 PM) super badass |
Marriage traditionally spells the end of blowjobs and butt sex. I really don't see how this is going to work.
|
||
|
RoMa |
|||
|
Posts: 35392 (05/15/08 2:28 PM) |
Marriage never was defined by gender, it has always been defined by number. Use of pronouns in a sermon don't count.
How U doing Squashiepoo? |
||
|
merkyl |
|||
|
Posts: 53010 (05/15/08 2:29 PM) Registered loser |
RoMa wrote: Sure it has, which is why the gays couldn't get married.
|
||
|
squashthebeef |
|||
|
Posts: 13172 (05/15/08 2:30 PM) super badass |
'sup bitchcakes?
|
||
|
StarringAmy |
|||
|
Posts: 4778 (05/15/08 2:30 PM) |
Gays could always get married, they just couldn't have the paper they want.
|
||
|
Pencake |
|||
|
Posts: 11495 (05/15/08 2:31 PM) mwah |
That Ace of Cakes hog must be creaming his pants over the new clients.
|
||
|
RoMa |
|||
|
Posts: 35394 (05/15/08 2:37 PM) |
squashthebeef wrote: *Desk jump* |
||
|
superguppie |
|||
|
Posts: 22869 (05/15/08 2:43 PM) Registered user |
Merkyl: why do you care if gays can get married?
|
||
|
merkyl |
|||
|
Posts: 53012 (05/15/08 2:48 PM) Registered loser |
I don't really give a shit. Why do you think the gays are the one group we can't fuck with?
|
||
|
B DeBrun |
|||
|
Posts: 16622 (05/15/08 2:56 PM) |
We need to update this:
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at and . The law has two effects.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of
342-67 in the House of
Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
|
||
|
InDaNeck |
|||
|
Posts: 27 (05/15/08 2:58 PM) |
In Mass, if they are married, they can claim "Married" on their state taxes only.
|
||
|
hossc |
|||
|
Posts: 15363 (05/15/08 3:07 PM) Registered User |
TequilaVaquero wrote: Kinky Friedman fan, eh?
|
||
|
Monsieur Muggles |
|||
|
Posts: 3826 (05/15/08 3:22 PM) |
B DeBrun wrote: I think, but I'm not 100% sure, so don't quote me on this, that in order to be eligible for dependency status, there needs to be some sort of pre-established relationship in which one person is dependent upon the taxpayer. Since the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriage, a gay spouse cannot be considered a dependent since there is no pre-established relationship in the eyes of the federal government. I think it's akin to couples that aren't married but are in a cohabitation relationship where one partner has custody of children. The other partner cannot claim the child as a dependent on their taxes even though they may be the primary breadwinner for the home unless they legally adopt the child or marry their partner. As far as state income taxes go, though, California and Massachusetts couples can claim dependency. The California issue, though, may be moot point if the electorate approves a proposition in November banning gay marriage and the prop goes into effect BEFORE 1 January 2009. |
||
|
xabana |
|||
|
Posts: 6442 (05/15/08 3:29 PM) |
that in order to be eligible for dependency status, there needs to be some sort of pre-established relationship in which one person is dependent upon the taxpayer. Since the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriage, a gay spouse cannot be considered a dependent since there is no pre-established relationship in the eyes of the federal government.Actually, no. You can be a dependent for federal tax purposes without being married - therefore the whole "are you opposite sexes or the same" analysis isn't present. There are certain rules, one of which is that the realtionship can't be in violation of local law. You also have to receive most of your support from your partner. There are a few other rules, but a gay partner can be claimed as a dependent for certain federal tax purposes. As can a straight, unmarried partner. Obviously, where the Tax code clearly provides that SPOUSES (as opposed to dependents) have certain rights, your same sex partner does not have those same rights. For example, gay partners have no COBRA continuation coverage rights or right to a surivorship annuity under a qualified plan.
Last Edited By: xabana
05/15/08 3:33 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
dmb154678 |
|||
|
Posts: 29400 (05/15/08 3:31 PM) Sexy asshole |
i'm all for gay marriage, as long as i'm invited.*
i'm sure the sweet table will be kickass. SMALL AMERICAN FLAGS FOR SOME, FLAKY CREAMY CANNOLIS FOR OTHERS!!!!! *if i'm not invited then they can just bite me. |
||
|
xabana |
|||
|
Posts: 6443 (05/15/08 3:34 PM) |
And the flower arrangements, oh dmb, you will be gaga for a good 10 minutes. But hopefully the caviar bar will bring you back to your senses.
|
||
|
r |
|||
|
Posts: 2415 (05/15/08 3:34 PM) Registered loser
|
MunchkinsByProxy wrote: But should they have ruled that way? How is it they get decide that the broad language of a constitution is in conflict with the will of the people? I can make a broad statement like I like the color blue. Should that be interpreted that I am refusing medical services if my hand is blue even when I say that is not the case? |
||
|
Visa Declined |
|||
|
Posts: 2454 (05/15/08 3:34 PM) Registered User |
California already allowed domestic partners to file joint tax returns so that will not change. Realistically, domestic partnership in California was very
similary to marriage already. Gays are still fucked by the federal government heterosexual subsidy tax laws.
|
||
|
dmb154678 |
|||
|
Posts: 29401 (05/15/08 3:37 PM) Sexy asshole |
xabana wrote: i'm at the ready with an outfit and a tasteful gift. what about the dinner parties people????? gay men will actually USE those wedding gifts to entertain me. at which time, i'll be at the ready with another outfit and a tasteful gift. lesbians, nothing against you, get married all ya want, it just won't be as fabulous. i'll be ready with a casual outfit and a home depot gift card. |
||
