- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 4, 2012 at 9:57 pm #747263
SmittyParticipantYou forgot racists. There’s got to be a way to fit that in somehow…..
February 4, 2012 at 10:52 pm #747264
JanSParticipantSmitty…you sure are fixated on racism and purported racists, aren’t you?
February 4, 2012 at 11:16 pm #747265
dobroParticipantWhat other reason is there to be against equal rights for gay people besides religious bigotry or homophobia?
February 5, 2012 at 12:10 am #747266
SmittyParticipantJan really?
You can’t say one thing about our current President without someone in the media hinting at racism. Do you watch the news? I just thought since dobro threw out the bigot and homophobe cards he might as well go for the cycle! The “tolerant” Left is tolerant of all ideas…….as long as they agree with them.
February 5, 2012 at 1:23 am #747267
JanSParticipantSmitty…explain to me what the hell Obama has to do with whether WA State okays same sex marriage or not? Why does someone, anyone, always have to throw Obama into every conversation. I don’t live under a rock , for G-d’s ake. Yes, I know that there are people in this world who object to Pres. Obama because he is black. It has nothing to do with this conversation, nor does race. Religion and being homophobe does, however.. If you deny that, you’re the one living under a rock – lol..
February 5, 2012 at 2:10 am #747268
junctiongardenergirlMemberas someone who grew up being the very happy product of lesbian parents, i am so pleased to hear about the senate passing this legislation. it is definitely long overdue. i have had the unfortunate experience of being called to the emergency room when my biological mother was very ill and her partner was not allowed to see her. i can’t think of a better reason why they deserve the same basic rights that my husband and i have.
February 5, 2012 at 3:26 am #747269
JoBParticipantkootch…
how much money do you think the religious right will spend trying to buy votes in a referendum election on same sex marriage?
i can think of many better ways for Christians to spend their money…
can’t you?
February 5, 2012 at 5:25 am #747270
maudeParticipantWow. If only my partner and I had to worry about making over $200k per year. But since we probably will never have that concern, it sure would be nice to get survivor benefits if one of us kicks it. True, it isn’t the women and children clause Kootchman speaks of but my partner or I on our own would not be able to afford our home. Suppose it’s a good thing we both have life insurance and we are listed as beneficiaries. Now lets hope that the laws prevail and the family of whichever of us goes first doesn’t contest the will.
February 5, 2012 at 6:22 am #747271
dobroParticipant“I just thought since dobro threw out the bigot and homophobe cards he might as well go for the cycle!”
I was actually addressing the subject of the thread and answering a question that was posed. I know its tough for the wingnuts when they get knocked off their talking points but, jeez, try to focus!
Here, try this, smitty…I asked a question in #28 that relates to the thread. Got an answer or even a relevant comment?
February 6, 2012 at 4:00 am #747272
datamuseParticipantThe main reason that religious institutions are involved in marriage at all is because for fairly long stretches of history, the local minister was the only person around for miles with sufficient literacy to write down that people had, in fact, gotten married.
Well, that and forbidding their own clergy from marrying so that any lands they inherited would go to the church upon their deaths…
February 6, 2012 at 4:56 am #747273
kootchmanMemberAs they were required to do for tax purposes. Marriages were recorded long before property rights were established or inheritance was even possible… at least so for feudal Europe. Jan, it has a lot to do with Obama…. because the IRS treats property as property as defined by the states. And he be the man that is trying to bring back the marriage penalty… and with good reason. Married couples traditionally accumulate more wealth, and earn more income.. hence have more to tax. They are the most stable tax base. Larger though, is the family income of same sex couples. So are estate taxes. Health benefits are also taxed as income. It is merely a precautionary tales…. since the state has inserted itself into “marriage”, rest assured it has a financial interest. Before ya head to the alter…consult a tax attorney. Unless recognized by the federal government, you may indeed have no benefits in a state that does not recognize Washington same sex marriage. They may not even recognize years of joint asset accumulation or allow the property transfer between couples without an estate tax penalty upon the death of one spouse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all
February 6, 2012 at 6:33 am #747274
metrognomeParticipantand, ’til death do us part’ was about 10 years, if you were lucky. Same sex couples accumulate more wealth than straight married couples??? On what planet??? Health benefits are taxed as income??? On what planet??? The state has ‘inserted’ itself into “marriage”, so the state’s motivator is money?? (nice pun, by the way) How about equal rights?? Now let’s list the reason churches got involved in the whole marriage thing … money … power … money … money … absolute control from cradle to grave … money.
And, yes, one should never make decisions based on emotion if money could be even remotely involved. Where do you come up with this bilgewater, kootchman? Maybe your only motivation in life is money, but for a lot of the rest of us, that’s a ways down on the list.
February 6, 2012 at 6:39 am #747275
JanSParticipantKootch…pay attention. What I was referring to was the big paperwork change if (as someone suggested) the gov’t. got out of the marriage business, and everyone was changed to being in a “domestic relationship”. That was all..just a big paperwork change. I wasn’t referring to tax laws, or who pays what, or who decides what, or who disagrees with Obama or congress or any of that other BS. So, no, Obama has not a damned thing to do with what I said. For cripes sake, give it a rest. Not everything is an effing conspiracy to get you to pay more than your share. What I said had absolutely nothing ..got that? NOTHING…with Obama or tax laws. Just the effing paperwork change it would mean. Good grief!
February 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm #747276
kootchmanMemberOn this planet. tyypical metro..read the links and follow the threads or better yet. you can find the same information. Marriages precede church involvement by centuries. The reasons vary greatly but the underpinning of the institution is property accumulation, inheritance rights and later, taxes. As churches were also feudal constructs, marriage was documented to assign work and land, track the birth of work units (children) and form the basis for taxing output without measuring production. A wee bit o’ the history of marriage… by Ms. Woodbury. Your rant against the “church” is a rant.. not much historical evidence to support your theory.
What I find most interesting is, marriage was a far more liberal institution prior to state sanctioning… twas’ the state that put forth the discriminations as to gender, race, class etc…
“Marriage as we know it now is a new institution. While ‘love’ (at least among the upper classes) transformed the internal workings of marriage in the modern age, prior to the Middle Ages, marriage was a contract between two families, with no relationship to the Church or State at all. Even once the Roman Church got involved, it still had nothing to do with the State.”
Income:
http://www.mygayweb.com/info/advertising/
I was not even referencing your post JaN… see the threads other than your own. One of the most cited reasons for expanding marriage to same sex couples was economic parity. That parity may well involve a financial penalty. It’s BS to you? Anything that points out a reality based conclusion that points to another taking by liberals is BS to you. You are in the finest tradition of WS bloggers. Fact being, I hope same sex couples do contemplate the vast array of financial penalties about to be levied against state recognized unions….
February 6, 2012 at 3:59 pm #747277
JanSParticipantAgain…you aren’t listening to what I’m saying. You’re reading things into it that aren’t there. I wasn’t calling BS on taxes and Obama. When you said my name in your post, I guess I just assumed that you were addressing me and what I said. Gee, wonder how I misunderstood? Anyway..seems that we’re having two separate conversations….since what you’re talking about has nothing to do with what I was talking about.Again, I was just talking about paperwork changes.
Oh, and I’m not a blogger (none of us here are unless we write our own “blog”)…just a commentor with opinions other than yours. You’re not right or wrong, I’m not right or wrong…just opinionated.
February 6, 2012 at 7:15 pm #747278
sydneyMemberToo late for me, I’m financially ruined because my twenty-year relationship came to an end and the home I’m living in is nominally also the property of my ex.
Without divorce laws I was not protected. I can’t afford to refi and can’t get her off of my title!
February 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm #747279
maudeParticipantmetrognome, it’s true. On this planet health benefits are considered taxable income for domestic partners. I was on my partners policy briefly and she had to claim the premium as income. Separate but equal.
February 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm #747280
kootchmanMemberYou probably would have had to cash out your partner, or sell if you were married. Ya split the goodies acquired in marriage 50/50 down the middle. Imagine a same sex couple, where one brings dependent children into the “marriage”… and then has to maintain the dependent domicile until they are 18 or out of college. Yikes!
February 6, 2012 at 8:33 pm #747281
JanSParticipantWe can agree on something, Kman…when I divorced, I stayed in my house for 2 years..struggling to keep up with the maintenance after a long illness right after my divorce. Eventually, he wanted me to cash or come up with his half. I decided to sell, the only home my daughter had known. It was very upsetting. But, even though technically half was his, he wouldn’t even come help mow the lawn.
Sadly, in 1997 when I sold, my mortgage payments were $615/mo..plus insurance and utilities, of course.
Sydney..is there any way you can get your ex to sign a “quit claim”? Since your ex’s name is on the title, are you getting any kind of payment in exchange? Name being on title makes one financially responsible, right? Isn’t that true? Name also on the loan?
February 12, 2012 at 3:05 am #747282
sydneyMemberJanS You have no idea how messed up it is. I can’t even understand it. Our son grew up in our house with both of us until he joined the Marines, at least, but now I’m stuck because the house isn’t worth anything. My family paid my ex a bunch of money so she wouldn’t come over and kick in the door and such. The police think it’s okay because her name is on the mortgage. I can’t take her name off because neither of us can refinance alone, the house is underwater; I can’t damage her credit by falling too far behind, et cetera.
February 12, 2012 at 10:21 pm #747283
kootchmanMemberTake her up on the deal. Stop paying the mortgage. It will take a year or more to evict you. It’s a long long proces… when the creditors start hounding you…. give them your partners address and pull her back into the fray. Save the payments in safe deposit box… and if her credit standing is at risk.. she may well sign a quit claim. Then get current with your set aside. Never pay off a bully. They just come back for more. Have you seen an attorney? Take her to court, she is on the loan application too. If you are underwater why fight to keep it?
February 14, 2012 at 9:39 am #747284
HMC RichParticipantI am happy for my gay friends and relatives.
As one of my friends stated, now the gay community can be as miserable as the rest of us.
But the bi-sexuals out there. You need to make up your mind. You can’t be married to a man and a woman at the same time. Or can you….someday?
February 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm #747285
KenParticipantThe history of marriage is directly descended from the long history of church and state being cozy bedfellows.
The “Great Experiment” referred to by the founding fathers of this country was the replacement of the usual government at the time, (church, king, and aristocracy) with executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
The catholic church has never gotten over being excluded from the US government and all other theocratic sects see the US as a the greatest target of all.
We ignore what the Bible says about slavery. We ignore what the Bible says about women. We ignore what the Bible says about executing women on their wedding nights if they’re not virgins. We ignore what the Bible says about lobster and polyester and farming and everything else. We have to learn to ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible got slavery wrong. Something as easy and obvious as slavery. Wrong. Jesus Christ: blah blah blah, sermon on the mount, you can’t shut that guy up. Not a word about slavery. All the “thou shalt nots” in the Ten Commandments, blah blah blah, thou shalt not… How about thou shalt not own other people? No, the Bible explicitly endorses slavery. The easiest moral question that there is, the Bible got wrong. If the Bible got slavery wrong, what are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100%.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ky5Jwi4-3o
— Dan Savage
“The equal toleration of all religions…is the same as atheism. [Pope Leo XIII, “Imortale Dei”]
“Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.” [Martin Luther]
“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” [Mark Twain]
February 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm #747286
JoBParticipantkootch…
maybe not the best plan to advise someone with an abusive partner to up the ante.
sydney.. is arbitration a possibility?
February 15, 2012 at 11:16 pm #747287
kootchmanMemberYea.. I forget that part. Ken, your history … it’s a tad slanted. The constitution PROTECTS religions from the powers of the state. The state must have an overwhelming interest to restrict the free exersize clause. (polgamy, human sacrifice. etc…) Warren himself expanded the protections against the state. It’s been an ebb and flow…but the courts have struck down hundreds of laws where the state did not demonstrate a “compelling” interest. Particularly when the state targets a specific religious practice. You are a funny guy..when I volunteered as a tutor for CC…. 75% of my students were Muslim, The Catholic Church operates more pallative care centers for AIDS throughout the world. And while our very special liberal city government won’t provide friggin drinking water to N’Ville … who do you suppose is one of the largest providers of temp, transitional, low income, housing, and emergency women shelters? With no regard to race, creed. color. gender, ? Oh that the rest of our society would put charity in the same perspective…..and donate as much time and treasure.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.