Am I missing something here?

[Jogeephus]

With the supreme court fixing to give their opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act I can't help but wonder what interest the government even has with marriage. Its always been my belief that marriage is the holy union between a man and a woman before God and the members of their church. I've always wondered why a couple had to pay a tax to get married because this is a religious union and not something the government should have any say. It would seem to me that maybe the Supreme Court should rule on the constitutionality of this licensing. I also wonder what is the true motivation of all those who are for same sex marriage. No one is stopping them from living together or doing whatever it is they do so it must have something to do with benefits. No one is stopping anyone from leaving their life insurance policies to whomever/whatever they want so it must all be tied to the tax treatment of the married versus individuals. I could see where this might be viewed as unfair so why don't we just ban any government interference in a church's ability to marry people and go to a flat tax on everyone with no loopholes and no exceptions. Would it not be more constitutionally correct to do these two things by giving the religious freedom to the churches while also treating everyone as equals rather than a lobby group?

 

[dun]

What you're missing is simply that what was popular when the DMA was passed is no longer as popular and popularity means vots.

 

[Jogeephus]

Its going to be an interesting day in history. I believe this wouldn't be an issue at all if we had true seperation and a flat tax but your right.

 

[greybeard]

Yep--it's all about getting votes.
So is immigration reform.

 

[chippie]

It has to do with health benefits. If a person is legally married, spouses can be on the other's health insurance. You can't put a "friend" or companion on your insurance policy.

 

[Jogeephus]

There are some companies that already allow this and and with Obamacare will this not be a mute point?

 

[Limomike]

It has to do with health benefits. If a person is legally married, spouses can be on the other's health insurance. You can't put a "friend" or companion on your insurance policy.

Thats exactly what its all about. When I worked for a major airline, a few years back, they even changed their insurance policy to say it covered "significant other" ..
Kinda funny now.. Mz clinton used to be against gay marriage, now shes all for it. *sniff sniff.. do I smell a rat wanting to run for office in the near future?
I agree with Jo on his comments about the union between a man and woman. but a good friend of mine told me, "hey, why not let em be married and miserable like the rest of us".... :lol2:

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Rarely is the ultimate goal challenged head on with progressives. Like gun control, a little is chipped away at a time until there are enough holes in the defense that it won't hold water. "Assault" weapons are bad right? So shouldn't we ban high capacity clips, and guns that have pistol grips, and well pistols have pistol grips and you can change clips really fast, just ask the gun advocates so they should be banned, and you don't need a semiautomatic gun to hunt, you should just take ethical shots and a bolt action is all you need.

Is the second about hunting, no. So why is it mentioned ever in the debate?

Jo, I've had the same exact thought, you should maybe be concerned. If we went to a flat tax, it wouldn't matter in regards to tax breaks. I would think a single person would have just as much grounds to sue on unfair taxation. And in regards to healthcare, everyone will be without shortly, so that won't matter. But even prior, I would think a civil union would solve this.

I think it has more to do with forcing acceptance on people and trying to alter religious doctrine in the church. I thought it might be a back door way of altering adaption regulations as well, but that has already been changed in many areas. But that was about altering the family structure. There is an all out assault on timeless universal truth in our society. I see it as an attack on security and liberty. I don't believe progressive ideology has freedom for the individual, or the masses as the ultimate goal.

 

[Dave]

[quote
I agree with Jo on his comments about the union between a man and woman. but a good friend of mine told me, "hey, why not let em be married and miserable like the rest of us".... :lol2:[/quote]

My boss is a lesbian and you would never know it to just meet her. But she was married twice with three kids before deciding to bat for the other team. Her and I were talking about the gay marriage issue and her comment was, "are they nuts?" She isn't getting married again to anyone. Been there done that twice neither time worked worth a darn.
I think there are two groups pushing this. The "I am gay and I want to be noticed" group and divorce lawyers. I wonder what the divorce rate would be in gay marriages?

 

[melking]

Well put Dave

 

[Jogeephus]

I don't know when they are going to make their decision but its going to be a big one for sure.

Since healthcare was brought up I don't see why we can't follow the same path as the UK. I've got some friends there and they told me that everyone there pays what amounts to 6% of their income to pay for the welfare programs and healthcare. According to all, they have a great system. It would seem to me that if we followed their model then we could get by at less than 6% being we are already funding these other programs. This would mute this issue as well and give everyone access to healthcare.

 

[orton]

Forget the UK, the 6%, etc. If I need "healthcare" I'd rather pay my own way anytime. Get the gov. out and let the price reflect the real cost. Next thing on the way will be shoes for everyone. Them Air Jordans (or what ever) is out of reach for the poor working class, should we not fix that too?

 

[Jogeephus]

I'd rather them stay out of it too but that's not an option. Just saying that I'd rather have something that is fair across the board than something that just punishes those who produce tax revenue rather than take. And for the air jordon's, that is their target market don't you think?

Last night I listened to the hearings and it was pretty interesting. It sounded like the pro-gay people had a weak argument to change the definitition of marriage. One of the justices asked in lawyer talk what would keep someone from wanting to marry a dog or a sheep if this passes. But I don't want to get my hopes up.

 

[dun]

I'd rather them stay out of it too but that's not an option. Just saying that I'd rather have something that is fair across the board than something that just punishes those who produce tax revenue rather than take. And for the air jordon's, that is their target market don't you think?

Last night I listened to the hearings and it was pretty interesting. It sounded like the pro-gay people had a weak argument to change the definitition of marriage. One of the justices asked in lawyer talk what would keep someone from wanting to marry a dog or a sheep if this passes. But I don't want to get my hopes up.

Are you wanting to marry a sheep?

 

[snake67]

With the supreme court fixing to give their opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act I can't help but wonder what interest the government even has with marriage. Its always been my belief that marriage is the holy union between a man and a woman before God and the members of their church. I've always wondered why a couple had to pay a tax to get married because this is a religious union and not something the government should have any say. It would seem to me that maybe the Supreme Court should rule on the constitutionality of this licensing. I also wonder what is the true motivation of all those who are for same sex marriage. No one is stopping them from living together or doing whatever it is they do so it must have something to do with benefits. No one is stopping anyone from leaving their life insurance policies to whomever/whatever they want so it must all be tied to the tax treatment of the married versus individuals. I could see where this might be viewed as unfair so why don't we just ban any government interference in a church's ability to marry people and go to a flat tax on everyone with no loopholes and no exceptions. Would it not be more constitutionally correct to do these two things by giving the religious freedom to the churches while also treating everyone as equals rather than a lobby group?

Jo

Just back from a short trip to a warm place and your post is the first I opened. I have a response to your question - "Am I missing something here?"

I am about to insult you - but I am one as well so you and I are in fairly good company.

You are a dinosaur - plain and simple! You live your life straight up and actually have values.

All these things seem to be disappearing over the past few years.

Stay safe - my best

Bez

 

[Jogeephus]

I'd rather them stay out of it too but that's not an option. Just saying that I'd rather have something that is fair across the board than something that just punishes those who produce tax revenue rather than take. And for the air jordon's, that is their target market don't you think?

Last night I listened to the hearings and it was pretty interesting. It sounded like the pro-gay people had a weak argument to change the definitition of marriage. One of the justices asked in lawyer talk what would keep someone from wanting to marry a dog or a sheep if this passes. But I don't want to get my hopes up.

Are you wanting to marry a sheep?

Hadn't really thought of it but depending on their decision I could have the option. But rest assured, if I do, she's going to have to graze for the government cause I want to get on their benefit program. Of course, maybe I'd be better off marrying one of those endangered species like a snowy owl.

 

[larryshoat]

I'd rather them stay out of it too but that's not an option. Just saying that I'd rather have something that is fair across the board than something that just punishes those who produce tax revenue rather than take. And for the air jordon's, that is their target market don't you think?

Last night I listened to the hearings and it was pretty interesting. It sounded like the pro-gay people had a weak argument to change the definitition of marriage. One of the justices asked in lawyer talk what would keep someone from wanting to marry a dog or a sheep if this passes. But I don't want to get my hopes up.

Are you wanting to marry a sheep?

Surely you're not so bigoted as to try to stand between the marriage of a man and his sheep. After all if they love each other that's all that counts isn't it? Why all the Churches could have pens in the back so the bride to be could get a little hay before the ceremony. I mean surely God would bless the union of man and sheep if they truly love each other, that's the criteria isn't it?

Larry

 

[Jogeephus]

You know, we joke about this but in all seriousness if we continue to move the moral line in the sand where do these politically correct compromises lead us as a nation?

 

[Ryder]

If a furener married a US born sheep, could he/she then get a green card or whatever kind of card?

 

[larryshoat]

You know, we joke about this but in all seriousness if we continue to move the moral line in the sand where do these politically correct compromises lead us as a nation?

I know, I wrote that to illustrate how silly their argument is. As a United Methodist I can tell you that the liberal homosexuals have infiltrated the church in sufficient numbers that once the legal battle is out of the way they will push for the church to do homosexual weddings.

Larry