Return  

Re: Storm

May 12 2012 at 11:39 AM
No score for this post

bronco  (Login broncobux)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
from IP address 24.234.30.172


Response to Storm

Storm,

I 100% agree.

All off this would never have been an issue had the government stayed out of marriage in the first place.
Coincidentally, if the issue comes before the Supreme Court, the #1 issue that may decide its fate - Tax Breaks for married folks.

Yup. That issue alone has the capability to strike down any marriage law on the books.

Why you might ask?

#1. Well, Because the marriage tax break is a "Federal State benefit". And pursuant to the equal protection clause of the Constitution, you cannot arbitrarily deny one person a state benefit and give it to another person. The issue is further darkened by the success (or lack there of) of marriage anyway. Most places have a about a 50 - 60% marriage success ratio. Hardly a reason to cite to. Divorce laws alone (in all 50 states) strike that one down anyway.

#2. Further , The US Supreme Court ruled Loving v. Virginia that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals and one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. After Loving, marriage is deemed a fundamental freedom protected by the constitution, and states cannot deny an individual of this basic right without an extraordinary reason. If its not a good enough reason for a state to prohibit someone from getting married because he committed a crime or failed to pay child support, then its probably not going to happen if the person is gay.

When Loving is coupled with the tax break issue, I simply cannot see what argument the Supremes could use to prevent gays from marrying.

The slippery slope arguments wont work, because the only argument put forward is that two consenting adults be allowed to marry. All of the garbage about marrying dogs (thank you, Dick Santorum) and polygamy (thank you crazy right wing Mormons) is hogwash. No one is advancing that argument.

Personally, I feel the goverment should stay out of marriage all together. You want a tax break? Apply for it. You want succession rights and property rights? Contract for it or create a will. You want hospital deathbed rights? Contract for it. Put it in a power of attorney. All couples should do this anyway when they are wed. You dont even need a lawyer for it in most instances (many places have self-halp law forms that have Power of Attorney that enable you to designate someone as the person to make life/death/medical/legal decisions for you should you become incapacitated).

"Insert witty quotation here"

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Response TitleAuthorDate
 Re: StormSynonymous BengalMay 12, 2012, 12:38 PM
 Re: StormpsychostatsMay 12, 2012, 2:05 PM
 Re: StormHomeyMay 12, 2012, 4:28 PM
  One of the many reasonsOldSchoolerMay 12, 2012, 6:31 PM
   Re: One of the many reasonsStormMay 12, 2012, 7:52 PM
    Basic History of the InstitutionuscthreeMay 13, 2012, 9:14 PM