The RNC and the Republican presidential candidate? Is that who took the bait?
Dude! This is your thread. Are you part of RNC? Are you assigned by one of the campaigns to come here and create distractions like this?
The RNC and the Republican presidential candidate? Is that who took the bait?
There are 4,260 mammals on the planet, and only man is homosexual?
Eliminating preferences and inequities in the income tax system by abolishing it and replacing it with something like the Fair Tax (or better yet returning to the system authorized by the States in the Constitution before adopting the Sixteenth Amendment) would address the inequitable taxation of income not only for those that choose the homosexual lifestyle, but for all citizens of the republic.
The solution is rather simple. But people have to get their panties in a wad over a word. Two people of the same sex aren't married. Ever. But I see no reason why they should be barred from creating the same spousal legal protections if they so choose just because they both pee standing up (or sitting down).
What about rights of survivorship, testate succession, spousal privileges/protections? The government recognition of marriage covers far more than the tax code problems. Not that I disagree with you, but your solution won't protect my rights as the spouse if my husband dies and no other means of verification of our union is in place.
I'm very proud of you for saying "within its boundaries," rather than, "in its cage." The difference in the two can be HUGE when debating and trying to win people over.We would be better served to put the state within its boundaries instead of asking it to expand its reach to meddling in private affairs even further.
The answer to everything they bring up is we need to worry about the economy first. Everything else is a distraction......
It is, but the evangelical base of the Republican party, and I imagine a few throwback Democrats, won't allow this to happen. As a matter of fact. the position of the RNC is to make sure this never happens via an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Strictly speaking, the Bonobo chimpanzees have been observed in homosexual pairings. Interestingly enough, the female has been known to flip around to face the male at the last minute too so that she can be properly stimulated. Just thought I'd throw the exception to the rule out there.
What about rights of survivorship, testate succession, spousal privileges/protections? The government recognition of marriage covers far more than the tax code problems. Not that I disagree with you, but your solution won't protect my rights as the spouse if my husband dies and no other means of verification of our union is in place.
The solution is rather simple. But people have to get their panties in a wad over a word. Two people of the same sex aren't married. Ever. But I see no reason why they should be barred from creating the same spousal legal protections if they so choose just because they both pee standing up (or sitting down).
It is, but the evangelical base of the Republican party, and I imagine a few throwback Democrats, won't allow this to happen. As a matter of fact. the position of the RNC is to make sure this never happens via an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Again, that's only part of the answer. The will only covers the part of the legal relationship once one of the parties dies.I suggest a will.
If you got married at a church you would have proof. All the people that showed up, the person that married you, and if I am not mistaken, even the church requires you to have witnesses.
A couple can get married in a church without the States blessing if they choose, there is no law anywhere that says if you get married you are required to get a license.
Well, unless some of those old marriage laws that required a license to marry outside of your own race are still on the books.
Marriage licenses were only created to give permission to someone that married outside of their own race, at least in this great free country of ours.
Ok, maybe not the only reason.
Again, that's only part of the answer. The will only covers the part of the legal relationship once one of the parties dies .
Just as contracts can and should govern matters while the parties are alive.
I've got to tell you... I want the state out of my bedroom and that of my neighbor's. Before long they will be regulating and taxing the act of flipping over for maximum stimulation.
Thank you for giving me something to add to my signature.Just as contracts can and should govern matters while the parties are alive.
I've got to tell you... I want the state out of my bedroom and that of my neighbor's. Before long the state will be regulating and taxing the act of flipping over for maximum stimulation.
Yes please.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not aware of any movement to force, or even encourage, churches to participate in gay marriages.
The solution is rather simple. But people have to get their panties in a wad over a word. Two people of the same sex aren't married. Ever. But I see no reason why they should be barred from creating the same spousal legal protections if they so choose just because they both pee standing up (or sitting down).
No kidding. But changing/eliminating the income tax won't do a damn bit of good.
How it could play out: Washington’s gay marriage bill: a frontal attack on religious freedom | Cry, Beloved Country
State sides with lesbian couple in fight against Ocean Grove association | NJ.com
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR
It could be potentially prosecuted under the guise of "discrimination."
I'm just as much against the state recognizing heterosexual marriages as I am them recognizing homosexual ones. What business does the government have establishing anything to do with marriage?
Thank you for giving me something to add to my signature.