Kennedy did what was predicted.....DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act?lite

I have my concerns that the Supreme Court may have over stepped their bounds on this, and I tend to agree with Scalia.........but I am happy for people being able to find happiness, but the legislative and financial impact of this court decision in my opinion should have been handled in Congress......this is going to open the door for loss of marital benefits.....tax credits etc......as anyone can form a partnership and call it marriage.

2seaoat wrote:http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act?lite

I have my concerns that the Supreme Court may have over stepped their bounds on this, and I tend to agree with Scalia.........but I am happy for people being able to find happiness, but the legislative and financial impact of this court decision in my opinion should have been handled in Congress......this is going to open the door for loss of marital benefits.....tax credits etc......as anyone can form a partnership and call it marriage.

I agree.

There should be no tax credit or benefit to being married or having children from the govt imo.

Government's recognition of the married family unit raising kids was an important part of policy which extended benefits to encourage the strength of the family. If this is going to be rendered to a simple partnership agreement independent of the rearing of children, you are going to see the government incentives decline, and married child rearing families facing greater financial burden as the government plums offered married people under the rational basis test are going to be cut back.......This should have been handled by congress..........I need to read the case before commented further.

I agree again, Seaoat.
Some people say that no one should be concerned about two gay people in love who want to be married and that it doesn't in any way hurt straight married couples. If that were true...then OK.
But you bring up very valid points and it's the same concerns that I have.

I used to be against gay marriage until my daughter came out four years ago to me and my wife. I now support gay marriage and agree with the Supreme Court decision today. Its all about love and my daughter deserves the respect and the right to marry as my wife and I. There are a lot of straight people who don't, or choose not to have children and still they are allow to marry. I will always love my daughter, and will continue to support her, and whoever she decides to marry, her spouse will be part of my family. Every family has a gay member, so who is gay/lesbian in your family and would you like them to be treated unequal? Inquiring minds want to know.

Nekochan wrote:If that were true...then OK.

In what way does gay marriage affect straight couples?

2seaoat wrote:Government's recognition of the married family unit raising kids was an important part of policy which extended benefits to encourage the strength of the family.   If this is going to be rendered to a simple partnership agreement independent of the rearing of children, you are going to see the government incentives decline, and married child rearing families facing greater financial burden as the government plums offered married people under the rational basis test are going to be cut back.......This should have been handled by congress..........I need to read the case before commented further.

My wife and I paid more in taxes married than we would have single. I calculated my taxes as single, married filing jointly, and married filing separately. Single was by far the best option, though unfortunately unavailable.

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Government's recognition of the married family unit raising kids was an important part of policy which extended benefits to encourage the strength of the family.   If this is going to be rendered to a simple partnership agreement independent of the rearing of children, you are going to see the government incentives decline, and married child rearing families facing greater financial burden as the government plums offered married people under the rational basis test are going to be cut back.......This should have been handled by congress..........I need to read the case before commented further.

My wife and I paid more in taxes married than we would have single.  I calculated my taxes as single, married filing jointly, and married filing separately.  Single was by far the best option, though unfortunately unavailable.

Start having babies.

I don't think it is a good idea to incentive people to have babies.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:If that were true...then OK.

In what way does gay marriage affect straight couples?

I don't know that it will, but I have the same concerns as Seaoat.
We're talking about more federal benefits but the country is already broke.

boards of FL wrote:I don't think it is a good idea to incentive people to have babies.

I would say it depends on the circumstances. In Japan, they sure need some kind of incentive.

Its all about love and my daughter deserves the respect and the right to marry as my wife and I.

Please do not misread my comments. I think government should stay out of folks lives as much as possible, and I am very happy with the decision which allows liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness......my concern is on the detail and ramifications of such a sudden change in the law....I need to read how the court has dealt with the equal protection argument. If they have bootstrapped sexual orientation to a fundamental right like religion, race, or ethnicity.......this is a quantum leap and will have ramifications beyond just the issue of marriage.

Let me give an example. People are going to be able to do strategic partnerships in tax avoidance plans.....let us take a look at one tax benefit like the capital gains deferral on the sale of a principal residence. The maximum per individual is 250k in a life time, but 500k for a married couple. A person who has used 150k of their lifetime could marry a person with the full 250 and save over 50k dollars if the capital gain exceeded both their allocations.....would it be worth executing paperwork...get a license....get married.....wait 6 months.....get divorced......the person with no assets gets 10k, and the person who had used his allocation pockets 40k.......we are going to see strategic tax partnerships......now they will be called marriage......there is a huge challenge ahead of congress to undue a 100 years of the tax code to address these abuses which will come as certain as the sun will rise.........the happiness thing is very good.....the reality however is still uncertain.

2seaoat wrote:Let me give an example.  People are going to be able to do strategic partnerships in tax avoidance plans.....let us take a look at one tax benefit like the capital gains deferral on the sale of a principal residence.  The maximum per individual is 250k in a life time, but 500k for a married couple.  A person who has used 150k of their lifetime could marry a person with the full 250 and save over 50k dollars if the capital gain exceeded both their allocations.....would it be worth executing paperwork...get a license....get married.....wait 6 months.....get divorced......the person with no assets gets 10k, and the person who had used his allocation pockets 40k.......we are going to see strategic tax partnerships......now they will be called marriage......there is a huge challenge ahead of congress to undue a 100 years of the tax code to address these abuses which will come as certain as the sun will rise.........the happiness thing is very good.....the reality however is still uncertain.

Is there really any tax scenario that is so great that it would be favored at the expense of oppressing a group of people?

2seaoat wrote:Its all about love and my daughter deserves the respect and the right to marry as my wife and I.

Please do not misread my comments.  I think government should stay out of folks lives as much as possible, and I am very happy with the decision which allows liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness......my concern is on the detail and ramifications of such a sudden change in the law....I need to read how the court has dealt with the equal protection argument.  If they have bootstrapped sexual orientation to a fundamental right like religion, race, or ethnicity.......this is a quantum leap and will have ramifications beyond just the issue of marriage.

Let me give an example.  People are going to be able to do strategic partnerships in tax avoidance plans.....let us take a look at one tax benefit like the capital gains deferral on the sale of a principal residence.  The maximum per individual is 250k in a life time, but 500k for a married couple.  A person who has used 150k of their lifetime could marry a person with the full 250 and save over 50k dollars if the capital gain exceeded both their allocations.....would it be worth executing paperwork...get a license....get married.....wait 6 months.....get divorced......the person with no assets gets 10k, and the person who had used his allocation pockets 40k.......we are going to see strategic tax partnerships......now they will be called marriage......there is a huge challenge ahead of congress to undue a 100 years of the tax code to address these abuses which will come as certain as the sun will rise.........the happiness thing is very good.....the reality however is still uncertain.

Straight people can do the same thing so what's your point?

2seaoat wrote:http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act?lite

I have my concerns that the Supreme Court may have over stepped their bounds on this, and I tend to agree with Scalia.........but I am happy for people being able to find happiness, but the legislative and financial impact of this court decision in my opinion should have been handled in Congress......this is going to open the door for loss of marital benefits.....tax credits etc......as anyone can form a partnership and call it marriage.

This is what I've been saying all along...

All I'm going to add is that it marriage is now allowed for multiple partners and should be limited to mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BzNNiWyvyE

boards of FL wrote:I don't think it is a good idea to incentive people to have babies.

So now you're saying that a single parent shouldn't be granted entitlements for having children?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M