Prop 8?

@Debra Law,

The CA Supreme Court didn't just read our constitution and determine that gay couples would be given a civil right. They debated over many cases involving what marriages have been permitted and denied to cover. At a decision of 4 - 3, they decided to overturn the will of the people of California (Prop 22) and enact a law without due process of law. Since they could not be otherwise overruled, a group put a ballot enitiative together that defined, on the California Constitution, that a marriage was to only be between a man and a woman.

At least that's the other side of the story. Equality for all. Right?

I'm not saying you should shut up about it. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just saying that the two are not equal in their severity. But, I don't expect that anything that anyone says (no matter how relevant or truthfull) will ever convince you that you are on the wrong side of this issue.

I am not oppressing anyone. Gays can have the same CIVIL RIGHTS of a married heterosexual couple under civil unions. As long as that is the case, I have denied no on of their civil rights.

1 Reply

@Copper Seth,

Copper Seth wrote:

The CA Supreme Court didn't just read our constitution and determine that gay couples would be given a civil right.

The Court did not give gay couples anything. The Court ruled that the State must comply with the constitutional requirement that persons similarly situated must afforded equal treatment.

Quote:

They debated over many cases involving what marriages have been permitted and denied to cover.

The Court discussed precedent. That's what courts do.

Quote:

At a decision of 4 - 3, they decided to overturn the will of the people of California (Prop 22) and enact a law without due process of law.

The Court did not enact a law. The Court enforced the State Constitution. That's what courts are supposed to do. That's how our system of government works. You know: Constitutional Republic and Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances. Well, maybe you don't know and you don't care to know.

Although the majority of the people might desire to oppress a minority through the operation of State laws, that is forbidden in a constitutional republic. Because neither this country nor the State of California is a pure democracy, the "will of the people" does not prevail when they act contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

Quote:

Since they could not be otherwise overruled, a group put a ballot enitiative together that defined, on the California Constitution, that a marriage was to only be between a man and a woman.

Because the purposes of the ballot initiative were to relitigate an issue that was res judicata and "overrule" the Supreme Court's ruling in the Marriage Cases; to negate the Court's constitutional role as the final check against majoritarian oppression; to negate the Court's ability to enforce the equal protection clause; to alter the form of state government based on separation of powers; and to deprive an entire class of disfavored persons of the fundamental right to marry, the ballot initiative REVISED the Constitution. This is something that cannot be done by a mere majority of voters through an amendment initiative. Because the proper procedure set forth in the Constitution for revisions was not used to ensure due deliberation, Proposition 8 is invalid.

Quote:

At least that's the other side of the story. Equality for all. Right?

Your "side of the story" is ignorant and willfully blind. Thus it amounts to nothing more than a rusty bucket full of holes and incapable of carrying water. There is no "equality for all" when the majority deprives disfavored classes of people of equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution.

Quote:

I'm not saying you should shut up about it. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just saying that the two are not equal in their severity. But, I don't expect that anything that anyone says (no matter how relevant or truthfull) will ever convince you that you are on the wrong side of this issue.

I don't need to put words in your mouth. You made an outrageous, nasty, mean-spirited, bigoted statement. I read it. I know what you said.

If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. You haven't learned from history that the chains of oppression are never acceptable no matter the target. You want to sweep history under the rug--divert attention away from the sins of the past-- in order to justify your participation in the sins of today. Perhaps being compared to the slave owners of yore who oppressed the blacks causes you discomfort and it should. You aren't any better than they were. We see that.

Quote:

I am not oppressing anyone.

You announced that you voted "YES" on Proposition 8. You're a guilty oppressor. Deny it if it makes yourself feel better, but we know what you are.

Quote:

Gays can have the same CIVIL RIGHTS of a married heterosexual couple under civil unions. As long as that is the case, I have denied no on of their civil rights.

Relegating an entire class of people to second class citizenship is no more acceptable today than it was years ago when Jim Crow laws mandated second class citizenship for blacks. Your protests to the contrary, we know what you're doing. We're not wearing blinders. We see it.

0 Replies

California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us
It forces us to consider why we have rights.

Philadelphia - What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality " not a more limited "amendment."

This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?

It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.

American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.

Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice " say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law " is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.

Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support " otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking " but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.

As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.

If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.

Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.

But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority " two-thirds of both houses of the legislature " before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.

Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1114/p09s01-coop.html

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Ok here is your research I am now waiting for your apology.

Still can not belived that you are so lazy.

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:5G-QRYfaeSkJ:www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/sugarmans/Family%2520Seminar%2520Katina3%2520for%2520website.doc+two+wage+earners+married+couples+society+security+program+calculation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us

Under the Social Security retirement benefits plan, the spouse of an insured worker can claim benefits on their own individual account (built from their employment) or on their spouse’s account.155 Although any spouse is eligible for a spousal benefit156, working spouses receive their own benefit or a spousal benefit based on 50% their spouse’s earnings, whichever is greater.157 Spouses who do not work or who contribute less than 20% to the household income are “dually entitled” to receive benefits as a spouse or an individual. However, such spouses will always receive a larger benefit by taking the spousal benefit over their own benefit.158 People like Gina, who earned the same amount as their spouse, will receive no spousal benefit at all.159 This rule “enables a one-earner couple to receive greater Social Security benefits than a two-earner couple who has the same total earnings and who pays the same amount of payroll taxes.”160 This system rewards married couples with very little in terms of Social Security benefits for a second worker’s taxable earnings.161

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Spouse.27s_benefit

Spouse's benefit
Any current spouse is eligible, and divorced or former spouses are eligible generally if the marriage lasts for at least 10 years. (State marriages of same sex couples are not recognized by OASDI for spousal benefits because the federal DOMA law excluded them for federal recognition for federal rights.±) While it is arithmetically possible for one worker to generate spousal benefits for up to five of his/her spouses that he/she may have, each must be in succession after a proper divorce for each after a marriage of at least ten years. Because age 70 is the latest retirement age, and because no state recognizes marriage before teenage years, there are no more than 5 successive spousal benefits in ten-year intervals. This spousal retirement benefit is half the PIA of the worker; this is different from the spousal survivor benefit, which is the full PIA. The benefit is the product of the PIA, times one half, times the early-retirement factor if the spouse is younger than normal retirement age. There is no increase for starting spousal benefits after normal retirement age. This can occur if there is a married couple in which the younger person is the only worker and is more than 5 years younger. Only after the worker applies for retirement benefits may the non-working spouse apply for spousal retirement benefits.

Note that, since the passage of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, in 2000, the spouse and children of a worker who has reached normal retirement age can receive benefits on the worker's record whether the worker is receiving benefits or not. Thus a worker can delay retirement without affecting spousal and children's benefits. The worker may have to begin receipt of benefits, to allow the spousal/children's benefits to begin, and then subsequently suspend his/her own benefits in order to continue the postponement of benefits in exchange for an increased benefit amount. [citation needed]

[edit] Widow's benefitsIf a worker covered by Social Security dies, a surviving spouse can receive survivors' benefits. In some instances, survivors' benefits are available even to a divorced spouse. A father or mother with minor or disabled children in his or her care can receive benefits which are not actuarially reduced. The earliest age for a nondisabled widow(er)'s benefit is age 60. The benefit is equal to the worker's full retirement benefit for spouses who are at, or older than, normal retirement age. If the surviving spouse starts benefits before normal retirement age, there is an actuarial reduction. If the worker earned delayed retirement credits by waiting to start benefits after their normal retirement age, the surviving spouse will have those credits

Bill,

I was not 'too lazy' to look; If you read my above post, you would see that I looked, but did not find the information you claimed was there.

Neither of your links shows that childrearing is the reason for spousal benefits. Can you point out which specific sentences you think do show that? The links you have provided do not support your contention. Neither of them mention children or childrearing at all, so I wonder why you thought these would provide evidence.

I also take offense to your suggestion that gays are 'lazy' and wish to be married but raise no kids. You don't know what the f*ck you are talking about. I personally know several gay couples who do have kids, and there are many more who would love to adopt them - if they were allowed to do so. Statements like this sort of highlight a poster's inner bigot for everyone to see....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra the problem you and the author of the article you posted have is that the majority of your fellow citizens just can’t see any constitution right or issue in this matter.

Or why for that matter a three to four decision of a state supreme court declaring the finding of some hidden rights for same sex couples to married should be respected and not corrected as rapidly as possible by the people.

We are not talking about well grounded and accepted constitutions rights here we are talking about social engineering from the Bench that seem to have no foundation in our history our laws or even in commonsense.

If you wish to place a new right in a state or the federal constitution the correct way is to write such an amendment and get the people to vote for it not to pull it out of a hat one fine day.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Debra the problem you and the author of the article you posted have is that the majority of your fellow citizens just can’t see any constitution right or issue in this matter.

Or why for that matter a three to four decision of a state supreme court declaring the finding of some hidden rights for same sex couples to married should be respected and not corrected as rapidly as possible by the people.

We are not talking about well grounded and accepted constitutions rights here we are talking about social engineering from the Bench that seem to have no foundation in our history our laws or even in commonsense.

If you wish to place a new right in a state or the federal constitution the correct way is to write such an amendment and get the people to vote for it not to pull it out of a hat one fine day.

You spit out ignorant garbage like this about "new" "constitutional rights" because you are uninformed, uneducated, and willfully blind. How many times does the truth have to placed on your plate before you're willing to consume it? What is holding you back? Obviously your personal bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance of disfavored classes of people acts as a cancer upon your brain cells making you incapable of rational thought. Try this little baby spoonful of the applicable constitutional language:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, Article I, Section 7: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws."

Exercise some reading comprehension skills: Where does this constitutional provision grant or confer any rights?

Isn't the constitutional language a restriction on state government? Doesn't it PROHIBIT the state government from depriving people of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law? Doesn't it PROHIBIT the state government from denying equal protection of the laws to a person?

The due process and equal protection clauses do not grant or confer rights to persons; these clauses are constitutional CHECKS against government abuse of power. (Majoritarian oppression of minorities through the operation of state laws is ABUSE OF POWER.)

Equal protection of the laws is exactly what it says--it's a person's protection against state discrimination. In substance and effect, the equal protection clause is a constitutional provision that protects ALL persons against majoritarian oppression. That means, if the state enacts a law that is intended to regulate familial relationships, duties, and responsibilities, then the law must be applied EQUALLY to all persons similarly situated.

Read the Constitutional provision again. Does it say this: A person, EXCEPT a gay person, may NOT be . . . denied equal protection of the laws?

NO. It doesn't say that. The applicable constitutional provision that protects people from government abuses of power does not carve out an exception for gay people. What does that mean? Obviously, it means that gay people are entitled to the same PROTECTION that you have against state government oppression and discrimination.

In this matter, state law regulates MARRIAGE--which is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Marriage was a fundamental right at time this country was founded. It is a liberty interest that the State may not deny to persons similarly situated under the equal protection clause.

Although modern families, like modern bearable firearms, do not resemble the families and firearms (muskets) that existed at the time this nation was founded, any argument that the Constitution protects ONLY those things that existed in the 18th Century is frivolous.

The Constitution protects modern day families against state discrimination (unequal treatment)--even those families headed by gay couples. Again, GAY people are PERSONS who are PROTECTED by the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

Until you LEARN and UNDERSTAND and APPLY these basic truths about the matter under discussion, anything you say on the matter lacks all credibility. You're merely spitting out ignorant garbage.

Understand?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You have to laugh first I was incorrect concerning my statements about the benefits that SS provide married couples over singles and now you are running from that and claiming that the extra benefits was not design from the beginning because women was not in the work force to anywhere the degree that men was.

Being home taking care of the children IE being housewifes. Mybe the framers of the SS program was bore so they decided on a whim to grant these extra benefits to married couples? Is that your theory as t why the program was set up that way?

In any case when I get a chance I will see if I can locate statements from the writters of he SS program. Bet you think that I can not find statements from the 1930s please don't count on it.

Lazy man is there an other information you wish this free research department to come up with before I get my apologize?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

You arrogant piece of liberal garbage!!!!

NOWHERE in the Constitution that you describes outlines any discrimination towards homosexuals.

You twist the meaning so as to attempt to validate a point of view that is in error.

Marriage is NOT a right outlined in any constitution. It is a social contract that has been defined as a union of a man and a women.

Your side wants to discriminate against single heterosexuals who also own property together and have entered into a "financial union" but allow only homosexuals to be recognized as married.

Again, you have no standing in law or common sense in your argument and you have failed in your attempt to convince those who think otherwise.

Outside of being able to file a joint income tax return, you need to show where there is discrimination against homosexuals. So far you have failed.

1 Reply

For those inclined to educate their minds concerning the basic principles of our constitutional republic, I recommend the Federalist Papers. So does Justice Scalia:

Quote:

“How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” Scalia asked. Relatively few hands went up. “You should be ashamed of yourselves,” Scalia lightly scolded the audience. “It should be required reading. Buy a copy.

“If you read the Federalist Papers you can understand how brilliant our framers were. If you want to understand the constitution; if you want to understand why they did what they did; and why we shouldn’t have another constitutional convention today, you gotta read the Federalist Papers.

Source: http://www.tjsl.edu/node/221

See Federalist Papers:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

Why did the framers insist upon separation of powers and checks and balances as essential to a constitutional republic?

OH . . . here's why . . . to prevent majoritarian oppression of minorities through the operation of our laws:

Quote:

Federalist No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself….

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure….

In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights….

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful….

What role do our courts play within this framework of separation of powers and checks and balances that is necessary to protect all the people, the weaker as well as the more powerful?

Quote:

The Federalist No. 78: The Judiciary Department

For I agree, that ‘there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community….

Wow. That perusal of the Federalist Papers was educational. Don't you think so, too?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You have to laugh first I was incorrect concerning my statements about the benefits that SS provide married couples over singles and now you are running from that and claiming that the extra benefits was not design from the beginning because women was not in the work force to anywhere the degree that men was.

Being home taking care of the children IE being housewifes. Mybe the framers of the SS program was bore so they decided on a whim to grant these extra benefits to married couples? Is that your theory as t why the program was set up that way?

Bill,

It's fine with me if that's your theory. But you have provided no evidence that shows this to be true. I believe the program was set up in the fashion that it is in order to properly account for the joint sharing of finance between two adults, not b/c of children. A large percentage of adult families have no children at all, yet they are treated exactly the same under SS. Your claim has not been substantiated.

Quote:

In any case when I get a chance I will see if I can locate statements from the writters of he SS program. Bet you think that I can not find statements from the 1930s please don't count on it.

I don't think you will find those statements. I think I will count on it, thanks.

Quote:

Lazy man is there an other information you wish this free research department to come up with before I get my apologize?

Apologize for what, Bill? In my first post responding to your (laughable) justifications to ban gays from marrying, I pointed out that - as a courtesy - I did search for the information you said existed. I was unable to locate it, not on Wikipedia and certainly not on the official SS website, not to mention anywhere else I looked. You aren't going to get a ******* apology, for I did nothing more than ask you to substantiate your position with evidence. As of this posting you still have failed to do so.

The burden of proof always lies upon the proponent of an idea, not his opponent. If you knew anything about debate you would realize this fundamental and simple truth.

You have not shown how gays marrying impacts your or anyone else's life in a significant fashion. In order to do so, you need to show how gay marriage is significantly different than straight marriage in terms of financial impact upon your life. You have not done this.

You're right about me laughing, but it's at the shitty quality of your argument and the lack of support you have given for your positions.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

If civil unions provide the same rights as marriage, would Bill, woiyo9, or Spendius get one instead of a marriage with their loved one?

If not, why not? What's the difference?

According to what I'm reading here, you guys would be super excited to have a civil union INSTEAD of a marriage.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

You arrogant piece of liberal garbage!!!!

Are you offended because your ignorance has been unmasked?

Quote:

NOWHERE in the Constitution that you describes outlines any discrimination towards homosexuals.

I didn't say that the Constitution "outlines discrimination towards homosexuals." If you read what I wrote, and if you are capable of rational thought, then you know that I said the equal protection clause protects gay people the same way it protects you from majoritarian oppression. The majority is prohibited by the Constitution from abusing government power to discriminate against disfavored classes of people.

Quote:

You twist the meaning so as to attempt to validate a point of view that is in error.

I didn't twist the meaning of anything. Read the applicable constitutional provision for yourself. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution are restrictions on the government to prevent the government from abusing its power.

Quote:

Marriage is NOT a right outlined in any constitution. It is a social contract that has been defined as a union of a man and a women.

You fail to understand that rights do not have to be enumerated in a constitution to be protected against state deprivations, denials, or infringements. The Constitution secures the entire universe of liberty against arbitary government infringements. It secures your right to marry, your right to form a family, your right to have children or NOT to have children, your right to wear a hat, your right to go to bed when you want, your right to spit in your own toilet if you choose to do so, and your right to snuggle (or have consensual sex) with your life partner in the privacy of your bedroom, and on and on and on.....

The Constitution secures the ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF LIBERTY INTERESTS (rights and freedoms) because our forefathers did not surrender ANY of our liberty interests when they framed our government for the purpose of securing liberty and justice for all.

Marriage (which is a fundamental right because forming committed relationships is essential to the happiness of individuals) is the primary means through which the GOVERNMENT regulates familial relationships, duties and responsibilities. Heterosexual couples may marry, gay couples may not. The Government does not have any compelling interest in depriving gay couples of the fundamental right to marry and to have their families regulated by the state on the same terms and conditions that it regulates all other families. Thus, the STATE is violating the equal protection clause that requires the STATE to provide all persons similarly situated with equal treatment.

Quote:

Your side wants to discriminate against single heterosexuals who also own property together and have entered into a "financial union" but allow only homosexuals to be recognized as married.

"MY side" is not discriminating against anyone. "MY side" insists upon the enforcement of our constitutional provisions that protect ALL individuals and minorities against state oppression and discrimination. Thus, heterosexual couples and homosexual couples must be treated alike. Both may choose to marry or NOT to marry according to whatever makes them happy as individuals.

Quote:

Again, you have no standing in law or common sense in your argument and you have failed in your attempt to convince those who think otherwise.

Arrogant or not, it is clear that I'm the one who knows what I'm tallking about, and you're just pulling ignorant **** out of your ass--and it smells very bad indeed.

Quote:

Outside of being able to file a joint income tax return, you need to show where there is discrimination against homosexuals. So far you have failed.

There's a lot more to marriage than the mere statutory right to file a joint income tax return. After all, the statutory right to file a joint income tax return is NOT a fundamental right. Thus our lawmakers may revoke that statutory right at any time so long as that revocation is applicable to ALL married couples. If you don't understand the most basic principles upon which our government was framed, then you're the one who has failed. You get an "F" on your report card for Government 101, Citizenship 101, and the Fundamentals of Constitutional Law 101.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Eat the following information with some heavy salt please:

Please note Abraham Epstein was one of the main drafters of the SS bill.

God I love the internet and search engines!

Oh what more nonsense are you now planinng on coming up with?

http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc.acc.051007.new.deal.htm

“THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR THE NEW DEAL”

Friday, Nov 21, 2006

by Allan Carlson, Ph.D.

Talk for the regional meeting of the Philadelphia Society Milwaukee, WI October 7-8, 2005

The Social Security Act of 1935 also presumed a very traditional family structure.
===============================================
As articulated by Abraham Epstein, one of the measure’s architects: “the American standard assumes a normal family of man, wife, and…three children, with the father fully able to provide for them out of his own income. This standard presupposes no supplementary earnings from either the wife or children.”
==============================================
As Grace Abbott, explained: “the mother’s services are worth more in the home than they are in the outside labor market.” The new Social Security system covered only industrial workers, overwhelmingly male. So-called “female jobs”"including teaching, nursing, and work for charities"were all exempted. Indeed, women gained Social Security benefits primarily through their ability to conceive and bear children, including Title V measures providing pre-natal and maternal programs and the Aid to Dependent Children provision.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Civil union? I am not for civil unions with any benfits from the tax payers being part of it such as SS benefits or tax benefits

If you mean civil unions would cover private matters only that a good will and power of attorney could also cover that I would have no problem with it.

So it depend on what a civil union would cover or not cover

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Bill, you're a moron.

Here is your original proposition:

Quote:

Let start with the SS trust fund where both partners benefits are calculated on the top wage earner due to the theory that one of the two is likely to be out of the work force for a time raising children. The trust fund is a zero sum game more for a gay person mean less for everyone else.

The idiocy of your second sentence in this paragraph not withstanding, what you have linked to does not support your contention.

This paragraph

Quote:

As articulated by Abraham Epstein, one of the measure’s architects: “the American standard assumes a normal family of man, wife, and…three children, with the father fully able to provide for them out of his own income. This standard presupposes no supplementary earnings from either the wife or children.”

Does not provide logical support for your contention that the top wage-earner was used b/c the woman would be 'out of work for a time raising children.' During the 1930's, our social standards as a society did not include employment amongst both members of a family as the standard; your statement was purely incorrect. Most women didn't work, and therefore didn't leave the workforce for a time to raise children. In fact, SS presumes that they didn't work at all. The truly funny thing about this is that gay and lesbian couples, without children, will pay more into SS than they will get out under the top-wage rule! Your contention is wholly backwards. Gays getting married, under the current rules, should provide you with MORE money than previously; their marriage is a net benefit to you, not an extraction of money from the SS fund.

You don't seem to realize that your evidence isn't supporting your contention. It's not that you have a bad opinion on the matter; it's that the record doesn't support the concept that SS was designed around Children in a way that would currently make gay and lesbian couples profiting unduly from it.

---

There's also a real question as to the veracity of this quote. The text of the speech from which the quote you linked is here -

http://members.cox.net/wcampbell14/carlsonwis.htm

I can't seem to find any independent verification that Abraham actually said this or anything like it at all. You'll have to do better than a speech by a Lutheran minister which gives unattributed quotes in order to convince me that this was the reason for the formation of the policy.

I applaud your attempt to provide supporting documentation, even though it failed, however. It's nice to see that you realized the burden is upon you to do so.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR THE NEW DEAL

Friday, Nov 21, 2006

Social Security, as it exists today, requires everyone (regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or marital status) who works and earns an income to pay into the system. The formula that our lawmakers use to adequately fund the system and to secure old age and death benefits for individuals and families was necessarily different in 1935 than it is today. As society evolves so must the laws that regulate society. And our social security laws are in a constant state of flux as demonstrated by the countless number of revisions that have taken place over many decades. Therefore, a social concervative's nostalgic review of society as it may have existed in 1935 doesn't mean very much today in view of our modern landscape.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You're dodging. I'll ask again.

If civil unions already grant the same rights, then why then would YOU choose to get married instead of getting a civil union?

T
K
O

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Civil union? I am not for civil unions with any benfits from the tax payers being part of it such as SS benefits or tax benefits. . . .

Gay people are tax payers too. You want to take their tax dollars and place those dollars in a public fund for YOUR benefit and kick the gays to the curb. Your plan doesn't seem fair.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Exactly Debra. I guess since according to Bill, gays contribute less to society, they, perhaps they should have to pay less in taxes too. They are going to get less for their tax dollar than a straight person.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Exactly Debra. I guess since according to Bill, gays contribute less to society, they, perhaps they should have to pay less in taxes too. They are going to get less for their tax dollar than a straight person.

T
K
O

Exactly. The bigots and hypocrits of this country embrace second-class citizenship among the people so long as they're the ones riding in the first-class compartment.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know