BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this

Urin Asshole

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:42:39 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:31:55 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:03:44 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Why? You think marriages should be conducted by lawyers?

Divorces are conducted by lawyers, why shouldn't marriages be?
It is the 2 sides of the same coin and represents about half of all
marriages.

You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your
way. We won't.

I guess you have never been through a divorce. You pretty much need a
lawyer familiar with the laws in the state you are divorcing in, just
to figure out who gets the "stuff" and how to legally convey it. If
kids are involved it gets way more complicated than that.

You don't need one. Sometimes its a good idea. Sometimes its
unnecessary.

There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration.

At a certain point, why would anyone enter into a contract that
involves 1100+ different laws without legal advice?
If Edie Winter had better legal advice, she would not have been
slammed with that huge tax bill.

So, blame the grieving widow. You're claiming what exactly? She should
just write off her dying wife? I guess so.

You want that all changed, as Greg appears to want?
That's just radical libertarianism.

The question is why there are that many discrimitory laws benefiting
married people? It sounds like those evil churches influencing the
government.
Since there is very little uniformity among the states about who, how
and what marriage even means, it is silly that we have that many laws
about it.

Those are federal laws, relating to taxation and fed benefits.
Ever see the tax code?

Yes and it is a product of thousands of special interests, the church
being one of them. They discriminate against single people living
together or even married people if they happen to be gay.
That is pure church dogma,

Churches have nothing to do with it, except as they influence society.
It's society's desires, forwarded via elected representatives, and the
weight of the public sense on the SC that determines what's
"discriminatory." Not you.
Let me know when the SC deems the marriage exemption unconstitutional.

The trend seems to be going toward the idea of letting any 2 or more
people being able to say they are married.

Good grief.

So you can just forget about a simple flat tax and other wacko ideas.
The country has never worked that way and never will.
Just concentrate on waste and corruption.

As long as special interests still control congress, we will never
have a flat tax. I suppose you will be defending the carried interest
deduction next.

Nor should we. It's very regressive. It hurts those who can least
afford it. The rich do fine though.

The only question at hand now in DOMA is whether it violates equal
protection. Of course it does. It was discriminatory and
unconstitutional from the getgo. Nothing new either. Laws and actions
denying equal protection to blacks, women, Japanese-Americans come to
mind. Those were also corrected.

I agree DOMA is a violation of states rights and disrespecting the
will of the people in those states who have decided that gay marriage
is legal. Marriage is a state issue and has always been. The word is
not even mentioned in the constitution. The federal government never
had any business passing DOMA.

Nobody cares about DOMA in relation to state rights except airheads.
That's all bull****, no matter how the SC rules this time around.

That is exactly the issue in Winter. The state of New York honors
their marriage and federal law doesn't.
The thing that complicates this is they were actually married in
Canada but they did live in a gay marriage state.
If tossing DOMA assured universal gay marriage in all states, we would
not need the prop 8 case.

Who's saying getting rid of DOMA would do that? I haven't heard that
argument. Are you making that argument or are you just blowing smoke?

The real question is what happens when DOMA is struck down as I think
it will be and the SCOTUS simply punts on Prop 8, letting the appeals
court decision to strike it down, stand.
That would leave such similar laws in other states in limbo.

We may not be done with this.

Of course not. The SC will eventually be forced to step up and declare
discriminating against gay marriage unconstitutional under equal
protection. Because that's what society will demand.
The states will just fall into line, every single one of them.

We come full circle back to the idea that marriage is a simple
contract between anyone who wants to enter into it at that point don't
we?

That's fine with me.