Prop 8?

@Debra Law,

What do you expect from a Floridiot?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Cartoon land Diest Tko please name one state of the union where the failure to consummate a marriage is not ground for an annulment or for that matter any Western nation where that is not the case. Hell maybe lawyer Debra could name such a place.

In any case it not licensing having sex it is having sex that is likely to produce children where the state had step in to promote and to license.

The married contract is the state way of promoting long term sexual pair bonding between men and women for the benefit of the next generation.

This on it face does not and never will apply to gay relationships and therefore there is zero reason for the state to license such relationships.

The rules of who can not married such as first cousins or brothers or sisters etc is there for one and one only reason the state dose not wish to promote sexual relationships that does not tend to produce health children.

In the case of gay relationship there is zero children produce and zero reason for the state to care one way or another.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Oh Debra ? As I said a woman police officer was fire under that unconstitution law dear heart.

IRS refused to allow me to list my first wife to be and her children as my dependents even those I was their soul support because of my state law making such relationship illegaly in my state.

For an unconstitution law it seem to be apply fairly often.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

You've heard the term "you're screwed" haven't you? LOL

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Have nothing to do with religion it does however have everything to do with having a man and a woman around to raised the children of those bedroom acts.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Cartoon land Diest Tko please name one state of the union where the failure to consummate a marriage is not ground for an annulment or for that matter any Western nation where that is not the case. Hell maybe lawyer Debra could name such a place.

You don't understand that the issue of "failure to consummate" does not involve sex--it involves the validity of a party's CONSENT to enter a marriage contract. At the time the allegedly aggrieved party enters the marriage contract, that party must have a reasonable expectation of sex. Perhaps that expectation was the result of the other's party's fraud. If the allegedly aggrieved party asserts that his/her consent to enter a marriage contract was obtained by fraud, then that party has asserted grounds for annulment. A mere refusal or failure to consummate is insufficient to serve as grounds for an annulment.

Quote:

In any case it not licensing having sex it is having sex that is likely to produce children where the state had step in to promote and to license.

You are wrong because an ability, likely or otherwise, to produce children through sexual intercourse is NOT a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license.

Quote:

The married contract is the state way of promoting long term sexual pair bonding between men and women for the benefit of the next generation.

You are wrong again. Whether marriage exists or doesn't exist, people unite in committed relationships and form family units. The "institution" of marriage is the means chosen by the state, consistent with our concepts of "ordered" liberty, to deal with the rights and responsibilities that arise from familial relationsips.

Quote:

This on it face does not and never will apply to gay relationships and therefore there is zero reason for the state to license such relationships.

Again, you are wrong. Same sex couples throughout every state in this country are uniting into intimate partnerships and forming families. Their families EXIST. The State must necessarily deal with the rights and responsibilities that arise from these existing familial relationships. Relegating these existing families to the status of second-class citizenship is repugnate to our constitutional values.

Quote:

The rules of who can not married such as first cousins or brothers or sisters etc is there for one and one only reason the state dose not wish to promote sexual relationships that does not tend to produce health children.

Each and every prohibition must be examined and justified on its own merits. There is no evidence that homosexual couples are forming families that produce unhealthy children.

Quote:

In the case of gay relationship there is zero children produce and zero reason for the state to care one way or another.

You're ignoring reality. The real life existence of hundreds of thousands of children living in homes headed by homosexual couples as their parents renders your argument both illogical, irresponsible, and false.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Cartoon land Diest Tko please name one state of the union where the failure to consummate a marriage is not ground for an annulment or for that matter any Western nation where that is not the case. Hell maybe lawyer Debra could name such a place.

Quote:

11. Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this).

* Consumate: What is completed. A right is said to be initiate when it is not complete; when it is perfected, it is consummated.

* Consummation: The completion of a thing; such as the consummation of marriage, the consummation of a contract, and the like.

* Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.

source: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml

I know some states do this, but not all of them Bill. Check your facts.

BillRM wrote:

In any case it not licensing having sex it is having sex that is likely to produce children where the state had step in to promote and to license.

Since when do you have to have a license to have a child Bill?

BillRM wrote:

The married contract is the state way of promoting long term sexual pair bonding between men and women for the benefit of the next generation.

You omit that the married couple inherits benefits independent of having children. So if you don't have children, then what? The benefits and assistance (e.g. - tax credits) you get for having a child you get even if you are a single parent. Your argument is bogus.

BillRM wrote:

This on it face does not and never will apply to gay relationships and therefore there is zero reason for the state to license such relationships.

Never eh? What of the children being raised right now by someone who is gay? Do you not think that child deserves the same home stability promoted that you describe for married straight couples?

BillRM wrote:

The rules of who can not married such as first cousins or brothers or sisters etc is there for one and one only reason the state dose not wish to promote sexual relationships that does not tend to produce health children.

1) Totally irrelevant
2) Unsupported argument

Are you saying that the children raised by gays aren't healthy? The AAP has researched this exact topic, and found that children raised by one or more homosexual are just as well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.

BillRM wrote:

In the case of gay relationship there is zero children produce and zero reason for the state to care one way or another.

The state is interested in the success of all of it's citizens Bill. A straight couple with no kids is still in the state's interest to promote. If you would like to prove me wrong, it should be easy. Show me a law that will refuse a marriage license to someone who is infertile or otherwise handicapped in a way that would prevent reproduction.

Until then, I continue to graciously accept your concession on this point.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Pretty much posted everything I just said. lol.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oh Debra ? As I said a woman police officer was fire under that unconstitution law dear heart.

Please provide a link to the court case. Her personal lack of foresight does not render the law constitutional. She should have anticipated that the discriminatory bastards in her department would apply an unconstitutional law to question her fitness to be a police officer in order to get rid of her. As an officer of the law, she should have sought a declaratory judgment that the law was unconstitutional before she violated it.

Quote:

IRS refused to allow me to list my first wife to be and her children as my dependents even those I was their soul support because of my state law making such relationship illegaly in my state.

For an unconstitution law it seem to be apply fairly often.

My husband and I lived together for many years before we decided to marry. Accordingly, my live-in boyfriend could not declare me to be his dependent on his tax return. So what? That had absolutely nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of an unconstitutional state law that penalizes intimate associations or cohabitation. Are you trying to tell us that in states that do not have this law, live-in lovers may declare each other as dependents on their federal tax returns? You're full of crackers.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I have two heterosexual couples as close friends who are married but do not want children. There are many couples who may have had children in their first marriage, got divorced and remarried (maybe more than once) but do not want and do not produce children. We've just got to put a stop to this.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

I'm shocked. Debra living over the brush. And for many years.

Where I come from a chap married the first girl who granted him her favours and her Dad came round with a shotgun if he tried anything else.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Yes dear if you support someone then they are dependents just like my when wife to be and her two children was completley depended on my income and in states where there is not such law the IRS does indeed allow you to claim them as such or at least that what the nice lady at the IRS told me at the time.

Maybe she was nuts but I assume that a IRS employee would know more then you or I concerning this matter.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

TKO you have ground to have a marriage annul if sex did not happen not the same thing as your point in almost any state in the union.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The IRS often give out wrong info, so I wouldn't bet my house on it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Did some research and the nice lady at the IRS seem to had been right at least for the year 1980. They did a change around 2004 tax year. Take note of the <or is a member of the taxpayer household as long as the relationship does not violate local laws.>

Tax laws can give anyone a headache but there seem had been some ground for her positon that my relationship was in violate Florida law and that was the reason I could not claim them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A qualifying relative is someone who: (a) is a child (or descendant), brother or sister (or stepbrother or sister), father or mother (or ancestor), stepmother or stepfather, niece or nephew, aunt or uncle, or in-law (father, mother, sister, brother, son or daughter) of the taxpayer, or who (other than a spouse) has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of his or her household (unless the relationship violates local law); (b) has gross income in the relevant calendar year of $3,200 (for 2005) or less; (c) receives more than one-half his or her support in that year from the taxpayer; and(d) is not a “qualifying child” of any taxpayer in that year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a long link to the comment above good luck for anyone figuring it out.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:JXPaV6bsFN0J:www.drinkerbiddle.com/files/Publication/f937c023-cec5-49a3-903d-b7e6b5524ba2/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d25fbe88-c60d-4c43-bd4c-6435badf8747/ItwasntbrokenbutCongressfixed.pdf+history+of+depedent+code+irs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us&lr=lang_en

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Tax codes gives me a headache, and I'm no masochist. I use TurboTax (past 15 years or so) to do my taxes, and leave the regs up to the programmers to figure out.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I used Tax Cut myself ever sense that year when they did placed all the copy protection into Turbo Tax. That nosnese only last a year however Tax Cut is just as good in my opinion.

In any case here is another link/posting concerning dependents. Same thing as long list of who can be a dependent and then adding a member of the taxpayer household who relationship does not violate local laws.

Is there a CPA in the house?

http://law.gsu.edu/taxclinic/index/substantive_issues/dependency_exemptions

Member of Household or Relationship Test:
The taxpayer must show that the dependent was a member of his household for the entire year or was related in the following capacity:

Son or daughter, grandchild, stepchild, or adopted child;
Brother or sister;
Brother or sister by the half blood;
Stepbrother or stepsister;
Mother or father, ancestor of either;
Stepfather or stepmother;
Son or daughter of taxpayer’s brother or sister;
Brother or sister of taxpayer’s father or mother;
Son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law (the widow of a taxpayer’s deceased wife’s brother is not considered a sister-in-law); or
A person (other than the taxpayer’s spouse) who, during the taxpayer’s entire tax year, lives in the taxpayer’s home and is a member of the taxpayer’s household (but not if the relationship between the person and the taxpayer is in violation of local law).

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra children can be found in gay households just as children can be found in single households however not one child in the history of the human race was produce from a gay sexual relationship unlike heterosexual sexual relationships that happen to produce children fairly often say a few millions times a year in this country.

Seem a no brain that for that reason alone there is no justifaction in holding them out as the same as heterosexual relatioships or claiming they have an equal inpact on the soceity and therefore have some claim to had their relationships promoted on the same footing.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

What do you mean by "equal impact" to society? Please explain. Do you mean like that single woman living with her parents with nine children? That's "real" impact on society; we all pay to care for her children - which started with "free" medical care when she bore those children, the medical care as her children grows up, their schooling while the single mother pays no taxes, and the welfare their family will receive until all the children become adults.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

TKO you have ground to have a marriage annul if sex did not happen not the same thing as your point in almost any state in the union.

As Debra pointed out already, the understanding that sex was a part of the marital contract is to insure that sex is consensual and not forced.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know