What's new
By:

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

moevillini said:
My answers
to the first question: nobody has any problems with extending those benefits, rights, privileges, whatever to same-sex couples
to the second question: if they move to a state that does not allow/endorse gay marriage (or whatever you choose to call it) they should keep the federal benefits. Benefits granted by the state might be treated differently if the federal government allows this to stay a "states' rights" issue.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If a same-sex couple gets married in a state that allows it, the federal government will recognize it. (including the same-sex marriages that occurred in Utah). As of now, States that do not allow same-sex marriage are not forced to recognize these marriages for state purposes.

But a State will need to make changes to actively avoid affording same-sex couples these same benefits. For example, if a state (we'll use Indiana or Utah) doesn't allow same-sex marriage, but a same-sex couple legally married in California moves to Indiana or Utah. On their state tax return, (TC-40 in Utah IT-40 in Indiana) you put in your adjusted gross income. These couples would put in their AGI from being married. Unless Utah amends their returns/instructions to have an add back, then for tax purposes, the Federal AGI will govern on the state return. I deal with these issue with clients across the country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gary Herbert, John Swallow, mark Shurtleff, many other top GOP leaders, and payday loan lenders couldn't ask for a better distraction.

Immediately following one of the state's biggest political scandals comes this. Now everyone is losing their minds over gay marriage. Meanwhile, everyone forgets about the political corruption that possibly could have led to more politicians losing their positions and significant reform.

blagojevich is probably kicking himself for not bringing up gay marriage in Illinois. He might still have a job had he done that. If I'm a politician coming under scandal? I'm immediately changing the subject and will bring up abortion, gay marriage, and santa's skin color.
 
colton said:
Actually, I thought the main reason the Supreme Court struck down DOMA was due to state's rights--they ruled that the federal government had no right to not recognize a marriage solemnized by a state. That's why I think there's an excellent chance that the Supreme Court *will* find that states have rights to define marriage as heterosexual only.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how anyone can have any faith in the Supreme Court to buck the liberal social agenda.
 
One Brow said:
In 1967 13 states were forced to accept interracial marriage against their will. Because marriage laws vary by state, and the influence of the Full Faith and Credit clause, many states are forced to accept marriages that they would not permit.
Click to expand...

While interesting, I hope you don't think that was a rebuttal to my point.
 
One Brow said:
Do let me know when you can point to one of the mythical feminazis. I think they hang out by the unicorn herds.
Click to expand...

Feminazis Beverly Jones and Judith Brown: "The married woman knows that love is, at its best, an inadequate reward for her unnecessary and bizarre heritage of oppression."

Feminazi Marlene Dixon: "The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained."

Feminazi Robin Morgan: [marriage is] "a slavery-like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."

Feminazi Helen Sullinger and Nancy Lehmann: "Male society has sold us the idea of marriage.... Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it...."

Feminazi Vivian Gornick (tenured professor at the University of Arizona): "The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that."

Feminazi leader Sheila Cronan: "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

The Declaration of Feminazism:"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the
liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft."
 
colton said:
Well, the ruling against DOMA was only 5-4.
Click to expand...

Did you not notice the word against?

I guess you mean to say that ruling was so close that there is a chance...actually that ruling is part of the domino effect of court rulings that ain't going your way.
 
One Brow said:
It's very amusing that you seem to think you have provided evidence that this is not a learned behavior. People who are raised to be violent will be violent. People who are raised to be non-violent will be non-violent (yes, there will always be exceptions). We teach boys to be violent and girls to be non-violent, and they respond to their training.
Click to expand...

We don't need to teach boys to be violent anymore than we need to teach them to play with themselves.

In fact we need fathers(alpha males), non-Muslim religions, and marriage to good women to counter their dangerous inherent nature.
 
PearlWatson said:
While interesting, I hope you don't think that was a rebuttal to my point.
Click to expand...

To the narrow point of homosexual marriage, it was not. To the larger point of whether there is precedent for the federal government limiting the ways in which states define marriage, it was.
 
One Brow said:
We do teach them it is expected to use violence, while teaching girls it is not expected nor acceptable.
Click to expand...

No, we teach them acceptable uses of their violent natures, and when it ain't acceptable.

Don't hit girls! Don't bite your brother! Defend yourself but don't be the aggressor/bully. Protect women and children from violent uncivilized testosteronie males.

Channel their aggression into sports, take them to church to learn self-discipline, teach them to be chivalrous, etc.
 
One Brow said:
To the narrow point of homosexual marriage, it was not. To the larger point of whether there is precedent for the federal government limiting the ways in which states define marriage, it was.
Click to expand...

The larger point was that it is unconvincing to reassure me that something won't happen in the future because it hasn't happened in the past. There are many examples of things happening now that we have been reassured would never or couldn't happen.
 
PearlWatson said:
No, we teach them acceptable uses of their violent natures, and when it ain't acceptable.
Click to expand...

As opposed to girls, whom we teach that it is never acceptable to use their violent nature. Both boys and girls have violent natures. We train one in it, and the other out of it.
 
One Brow said:
As opposed to girls, whom we teach that it is never acceptable to use their violent nature. Both boys and girls have violent natures. We train one in it, and the other out of it.
Click to expand...

One has more testosterone, though.
 
PearlWatson said:
The larger point was that it is unconvincing to reassure me that something won't happen in the future because it hasn't happened in the past. There are many examples of things happening now that we have been reassured would never or couldn't happen.
Click to expand...

I wasn't reassuring you. I was informing you that the eventual ruling of universal homosexual marriage is inevitable, and has precedent in other SCOTUS actions.
 
One Brow said:
Men also have different testosterone levels from each other. Is there any evidence connecting testosterone levels to a propensity to violence?
Click to expand...

There are some contraditions in many of the findings, but yes there is a possible link between agression and testosterone. Not only that but the possibility for agression to be effective is much higher with higher levels of testosterone because there is a definitive link between testosterone and muscule mass and social dominance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top