Political Crossfire Forums

[Vulcidian]

The Issue of Gay Marriage(This appeared as a Letter to the Editor in "The Dispatch", a newspaper in Davidson County).


This letter is written in consideration of the attempt by constituents in Thomasville to support the movement to redefine the North Carolina Constitution to define marriage as a union specifically between a woman and a man.

It is true the democracy is one of the founding principles of our collective government. When an assembly of citizens gather to vote on an issue, it is the general agreement that the majority will rule.

However, another founding principle of our government is the right of every individual to privacy and protection of property. This is to prevent the threat of the so-called "tyranny of the majority". There are certain issues and rights which are protected, and thus no legitimate vote can be made to have these rights taken away from any citizen, or in a philosophical sense, any human being.

Another principle of our government is the separation of religion from the public sphere of society, meaning the government. While religion may be the business of regimes in countries like Iran, it should be of no consequence within our government. This protects us from the tyranny of a church, no matter what creed it may follow. It also protects us from the tyranny of one church over another, so we do not have to live in a society plagued by religious wars of supremacy, such as in Iraq. The government is meant to protect the rights and property of the individual. Thus, within the private sphere, which encompasses everything else, all is permissible as long as it does not violate the right to privacy or property of another citizen. Other matters are not open to change, you cannot vote away your rights, and you cannot vote away the rights of another citizen.

Homosexual individuals who are citizens of this country have the same rights as the rest of us. This includes the right to happiness and liberty. Allowing homosexuals to marry before the state does not have a negative or legitimately unlawful effect on the property of any individual. Thus, homosexual couples have the right to have their union recognized by the state, if the state chooses to recognize as well the state of union between a man and a woman.

The churches who do not agree with this are protected by our government as well. The state cannot force these churches who do not wish to marry these couples to do so. The church has no bearing in the public sphere and the state has no business in the sphere of the church. Any individual who asserts the supremacy of their church doctrine over the state is violating the social agreement he or she consented to explicitly or tacitly, and thus is not entitled to protection of their person and property by the state. The only thing at hand is the protection of liberty and property.

Some might suggest the following: that if homosexual marriage is allowed, then there would be nothing to stop polygamy or other forms of objectionable union; that it would destroy the American family; that it goes against what is natural; that it is against the Bible.

I answer that while homosexual marriage does not violate the rights of the individual, these other forms of marriage would do so. Polygamy is known to often be a forced process, and so must be outlawed for the protection of the individual. Also, that there is no evidence suggesting that the American family would be harmed by this, if anything it would help our staggering divorce rate. Finally, evidence of homosexuality as a natural phenomena are abundant, and once again Religion has no bearing in public discourse.

It is clear then that what the constituents of Thomasville, and others throughout the country are trying to accomplish is immoral and incompatible with the founding principles of our government. Should we wish to hold to these principles, these referendums must be dismissed. It is acceptable and required that one tolerate the opinions of a fellow citizen as long as they do not violate the rights of another citizen. But, if citizens attempt to impose a morality that is clearly against what is accepted in government, then other citizens have the right to ignore the decision.

The want of Homosexuals to marry can only be defeated by force, and to use force in this case is wrong. To attempt to force these individuals to do this is clearly violating their rights. They, on the other hand, only wish for citizens to respect the rights which they are already entitled to have. The many attempts of individuals to impose this immoral morality upon our fellow citizens is, upon close inspection, unacceptable and bound to failure.

I will not include my views as to if it is right or wrong in my eyes for homosexuals to marry. I can only say that as one who respects what began in 1776, that while I may attempt to persuade others to alter their views, that I could not respect myself for denying them the freedom allowed to me.

[Snake]

There's only one reason, one very important reason to advocate for homosexual marriage. Marriage effects how much you pay in taxes. Common law marriage is not recogised by the church, but is treated as a legal marriage with regards to tax benefits, for this to be a government of the people, homosexual unions must be recognised.

No religious rhetoric about man and woman, no homosexuality is unnatural (which it actually is) none of that. If it effects how much you pay in taxes it has to be recognised. End of f*cking story.

[johnflesh]

Kamel wrote: There's only one reason, one very important reason to advocate for homosexual marriage. Marriage effects how much you pay in taxes. Common law marriage is not recogised by the church, but is treated as a legal marriage with regards to tax benefits, for this to be a government of the people, homosexual unions must be recognised.

No religious rhetoric about man and woman, no homosexuality is unnatural (which it actually is) none of that. If it effects how much you pay in taxes it has to be recognised. End of f*cking story.

Indeed. And doesn't moneys paid into divorce filter into our economy? Yes, they do. Chances are there will be divorces in gay unions/marriages that will, in the end, benefit the economy as normal unions/divorces do. Part of this issue at hand? Perhaps not at the moments but that is why I should put emphasis on; 'in the end.'

A friend of mine was asked; "do you agree with gay marriage."

His answer was; "depends on if the chicks are hott or not."

As he is an outspoken politico, this is a indication that it is a non-issue and since it has to be, it simply shouldn't be.

[Snake]

This issue is actually proving that the church is not seperate from state. That goes against the Constitution. I would much rather have experienced law makers and justices dictate my laws, not preachers. Yes, I'm a Christian, but that doesn't mean I want our government putting Jesus into our law books.

[callous]

The battle over gay marriage will continue until the word marriage is struck from all government documents for either sexual preference.

[micfranklin]

My view on gay marriage is that if it's not causing you any harm or effecting you in any way, then let it go.

[Tono]

callous wrote: The battle over gay marriage will continue until the word marriage is struck from all government documents for either sexual preference.

While I agree that should be the case, I disagree that it's the war that is being fought. The current battle is to include homosexuals in marriage, not to exlude the government from marriage.

[micfranklin]

Tono wrote: callous wrote: The battle over gay marriage will continue until the word marriage is struck from all government documents for either sexual preference.

While I agree that should be the case, I disagree that it's the war that is being fought. The current battle is to include homosexuals in marriage, not to exlude the government from marriage.

Anybody wanna take bets that this "war" will turn out just like the war on drugs?

[U seless N ations]

not pointless but its never ending and the mods locked the last one finally after 26 pages.....
and here we are a new one lol
I guess I should make a new Senior Citizens in Gov topic since that got locked within 2 pages lol
but Im not cuaze apparently they locked it for a reason and Ill respect that.
You guys had 26 count em 26 pages to debat this its not gonna end its not pointless but the fact that it will never end is simply :lol:

[Vulcidian]

I feel that gay marriage is a trivial issue compared to things like the deficit and global warming. As well as our tragic lack of funding for science and the space program.

I feel that the republicans especially are using gay marriage as a comfort point. The party itself is obviously not as committed to outlawing gay marriage as its supporters are. It's a campaign trick to keep bible thumping fundamentalists in their voting block, it's not like they are going over to the side of the democrats.

The democrats try to hit at the issues, but I think they are also afraid to do so. Somebody is going to have to raise taxes to fix the deficit, or we're going to have to have a massive cut in government programs. Either way someone is going to have to suffer at some point for the lack of fiscal responsibility our government has had.

I think gay marriage, like abortion, is an easy do-nothing, no real gain or loss topic that republicans and democrats use to keep people from grasping how much trouble we are in. Because who really wants to deal with that?

[Vulcidian]

I feel that gay marriage is a trivial issue compared to things like the deficit and global warming. As well as our tragic lack of funding for science and the space program.

I feel that the republicans especially are using gay marriage as a comfort point. The party itself is obviously not as committed to outlawing gay marriage as its supporters are. It's a campaign trick to keep bible thumping fundamentalists in their voting block, it's not like they are going over to the side of the democrats.

The democrats try to hit at the issues, but I think they are also afraid to do so. Somebody is going to have to raise taxes to fix the deficit, or we're going to have to have a massive cut in government programs. Either way someone is going to have to suffer at some point for the lack of fiscal responsibility our government has had.

I think gay marriage, like abortion, is an easy do-nothing, no real gain or loss topic that republicans and democrats use to keep people from grasping how much trouble we are in. Because who really wants to deal with that?

[The Grandmaster]

It's like the abortion debate. You just can't resolve it. People want to be left alone. The others simply can't leave them alone. Just can't do it.

micfranklin wrote: My view on gay marriage is that if it's not causing you any harm or effecting you in any way, then let it go.

That'll just never be good enough for so many people.
Many people simply cannot be happy unless they control the lives of others, period.

[micfranklin]

The Grandmaster wrote: It's like the abortion debate. You just can't resolve it. People want to be left alone. The others simply can't leave them alone. Just can't do it.

micfranklin wrote: My view on gay marriage is that if it's not causing you any harm or effecting you in any way, then let it go.

That'll just never be good enough for so many people.
Many people simply cannot be happy unless they control the lives of others, period.

Oh, of course, how could I have forgotten. And I won't participate in it but people have the right (at least IMO) to do it.

[perdidochas]

Kamel wrote: There's only one reason, one very important reason to advocate for homosexual marriage. Marriage effects how much you pay in taxes. Common law marriage is not recogised by the church, but is treated as a legal marriage with regards to tax benefits, for this to be a government of the people, homosexual unions must be recognised.

No religious rhetoric about man and woman, no homosexuality is unnatural (which it actually is) none of that. If it effects how much you pay in taxes it has to be recognised. End of f*cking story.

Yep, being married increases the taxes you pay. My first week of marriage cost me about $2k in taxes.

[The Grandmaster]

perdidochas wrote:
Yep, being married increases the taxes you pay. My first week of marriage cost me about $2k in taxes.

I thought being married gave you breaks in taxes? I thought a single white male such as myself was the most heavily taxed? 2000$ in one week? How? That can't be every week, was it just the first, and if so, is there a "first week of marriage" tax? What is going on here?

[perdidochas]

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Yep, being married increases the taxes you pay. My first week of marriage cost me about $2k in taxes.

I thought being married gave you breaks in taxes? I thought a single white male such as myself was the most heavily taxed? 2000$ in one week? How? That can't be every week, was it just the first, and if so, is there a "first week of marriage" tax? What is going on here?

A married couple that has no children, and that make similar incomes have (or had in 1996) the worst taxes. The two incomes together puts them in a slightly higher tax bracket, primarily due to the fact that a single person's "standard deduction" at the time was $4k, and a married couple's was $6.7K. We lost out in deducting $2.7k in income. At our income levels that ended up putting us in a higher tax bracket. This is known as the "marriage penalty." In my case, I was married the last week in 1996. Due to that, I had to file as married for that year, and ended up paying $2k in taxes due to that.

Even now, there is a marriage penalty. It is less than what it used to be, but is still an issue.

www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=162&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=33

I have friends with kids who haven't gotten married, because they don't want to pay the extra taxes. Their oldest is 7 yrs old now.

[The Grandmaster]

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Yep, being married increases the taxes you pay. My first week of marriage cost me about $2k in taxes.

I thought being married gave you breaks in taxes? I thought a single white male such as myself was the most heavily taxed? 2000$ in one week? How? That can't be every week, was it just the first, and if so, is there a "first week of marriage" tax? What is going on here?

A married couple that has no children, and that make similar incomes have (or had in 1996) the worst taxes. The two incomes together puts them in a slightly higher tax bracket, primarily due to the fact that a single person's "standard deduction" at the time was $4k, and a married couple's was $6.7K. We lost out in deducting $2.7k in income. At our income levels that ended up putting us in a higher tax bracket. This is known as the "marriage penalty." In my case, I was married the last week in 1996. Due to that, I had to file as married for that year, and ended up paying $2k in taxes due to that.

Even now, there is a marriage penalty. It is less than what it used to be, but is still an issue.

www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=162&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=33

I have friends with kids who haven't gotten married, because they don't want to pay the extra taxes. Their oldest is 7 yrs old now.

Well f**k! :?

Do you at least get a tax return back nowadays? I always get one. Yours should be fairly large I would assume.

I suppose I don't have to worry about it, as a monster such as myself cannot get married anyway.

[Babylon_Horuv]

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Yep, being married increases the taxes you pay. My first week of marriage cost me about $2k in taxes.

I thought being married gave you breaks in taxes? I thought a single white male such as myself was the most heavily taxed? 2000$ in one week? How? That can't be every week, was it just the first, and if so, is there a "first week of marriage" tax? What is going on here?

If both spouses make a similar amount of money and are above the poverty level being married increases your taxes. If one partner makes considerably more it reduces your taxes.

[perdidochas]

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Yep, being married increases the taxes you pay. My first week of marriage cost me about $2k in taxes.

I thought being married gave you breaks in taxes? I thought a single white male such as myself was the most heavily taxed? 2000$ in one week? How? That can't be every week, was it just the first, and if so, is there a "first week of marriage" tax? What is going on here?

A married couple that has no children, and that make similar incomes have (or had in 1996) the worst taxes. The two incomes together puts them in a slightly higher tax bracket, primarily due to the fact that a single person's "standard deduction" at the time was $4k, and a married couple's was $6.7K. We lost out in deducting $2.7k in income. At our income levels that ended up putting us in a higher tax bracket. This is known as the "marriage penalty." In my case, I was married the last week in 1996. Due to that, I had to file as married for that year, and ended up paying $2k in taxes due to that.

Even now, there is a marriage penalty. It is less than what it used to be, but is still an issue.

www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=162&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=33

I have friends with kids who haven't gotten married, because they don't want to pay the extra taxes. Their oldest is 7 yrs old now.

Well f**k! :?

Do you at least get a tax return back nowadays? I always get one. Yours should be fairly large I would assume.

I suppose I don't have to worry about it, as a monster such as myself cannot get married anyway.

Well, being married without kids was rough in terms of taxes. Things are better with two kids. However, if instead of filing joint, my wife and I could file as separate singles (and one of us claim the kids and that we are a "head of household"), we would do even better taxwise. That said, marriage is worth it.

Also, after paying those extra taxes, the next year we adjusted our deductions, so more was taken out of our paychecks (to me that's better than paying a huge lump sum later).

[ubikk]

It should be decided by the states.