Skip to comments.
Throw out federal definition of marriage altogether, Amash says ahead of Supreme Court hearings
MLive ^
| March 26, 2013
| Zane McMillin
Posted on 03/27/2013 8:05:46 AM PDT by DarkSavant
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-123 next last
To: DarkSavant
Obamanation Counterculture File.
21
posted on
03/27/2013 8:32:37 AM PDT
by
Graewoulf
(Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
To: laweeks
This is a federal issue for several reasons. One, social security survivor benefits are available to spouses. Including homosexuals in the mix will add untold billions of dollars to long term commitments we already can't meet. Second, military spouses are entitled to benefits, including housing, survivor pensions, travel, medical benefits. Now that the military has been turned pink, how much will that cost? No one knows. Third, spouses of federal employees are entitled to medical and pension survivor benefits. State Department spouses are also entitled to housing and travel benefits,and are issued diplomatic passports and privileges. Finally, immigration law permits issuance of visas to foreign spouses and fiances. This is already a wide open door to fraud. Can you imagine the future, when the problem is multiplied through homosexual “marriage”? Aging homosexuals importing comely young male “fiances” and “spouses” from the four corners of the earth? Whether we like it or not,this is a federal issue with enormous financial and social consequences. Amoral libertarianism bumps up against economic reality.
22
posted on
03/27/2013 8:32:41 AM PDT
by
Godwin1
To: sickoflibs
The federal definition of marriage is little more than a means of bribing the people through a tax definition.
23
posted on
03/27/2013 8:34:47 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: DarkSavant
This is the problem with Liberaltarians, anything goes.
We would be paying survivors SS benefits to Effing farm animals if they had their way. As long as they can smoke dope they don't care how immoral things get.
24
posted on
03/27/2013 8:35:08 AM PDT
by
Beagle8U
(Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
To: Mr. Jeeves
Sure, and in the larger view, is that when you get a marriage license; enter in agreement with the State, thus a polygamist.
Husband-Wife-State
25
posted on
03/27/2013 8:35:49 AM PDT
by
Theoria
To: posterchild
RE :”
I also dont want a federal definition of baptism, nor one of reconciliation, nor of bar/bat mitzvahs, last rites, etc.
Let civil unions be the only thing a judge/justice of the peace/cruise ship captain/elvis impersonator can bestow upon a couple. It should be much like LLC formation.” That wasnt what I was getting at.
I like DOMA and I want it defended. But judges need to stop writing new laws through modification. But both sides want them to do it, for their own issues.
26
posted on
03/27/2013 8:37:23 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
To: RIghtwardHo
The ONLY thing wrong with your post is it should read ... federal law suit(s) I stand corrected.
To: ConjunctionJunction
I don't see how this is a potential lawsuit. The Federal Government already treats it's own employees differently depending on states they live, including employee compensation. The thought is services and benefits in the Federal level with marriage clauses will use contractual language that does not include marriage.
If State Y defines a marriage a certain way, it's not relevant to employee benefits. The Feds see will word the benefit as a civil contract that isn't privy to an individuals state's definition of marriage.
To: Godwin1
It’s a damn shame that this is a federal issue. Social Security, Medicare, faggot marriage is a state issue. FDR never should have been allowed to start that over-budgetted, fraudulent social security to begin with. This whole thing is a cruel joke, and we elected the clowns that started and perpetuated it.
29
posted on
03/27/2013 8:44:17 AM PDT
by
laweeks
To: cripplecreek
RE :”
The federal definition of marriage is little more than a means of bribing the people through a tax definition.” Its a tax deduction like one on home loans, a probably a better one. And certainly a better than GWBs single Mom tax credit, which would stand BTW.
In some cases getting married actually costs y MORE in taxes than singles living together in sin. Here in Maryland Federal AMT does that to middle class where both in married couple work professional jobs, because combined income triggers it.
30
posted on
03/27/2013 8:46:32 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
To: sickoflibs
Like I said. Its a bribe and we will see who can sell their principles to keep the money coming.
31
posted on
03/27/2013 8:48:10 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: cripplecreek
RE :”
Like I said. Its a bribe and we will see who can sell their principles to keep the money coming.” If what you are getting at is that those deductions (or any tax law related to marriage) should be removed once gay couples get them then I agree.
32
posted on
03/27/2013 8:51:11 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
To: DarkSavant
If the Feds accept queer marriage but some states don't, the queers will get married in queer states and go back to normal states to live.
How the hell would they file taxes? Married on Fed forms and single on state?
There are millions of laws on the books that would have to be changed.
33
posted on
03/27/2013 8:52:24 AM PDT
by
Beagle8U
(Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
To: DarkSavant
I think this is the best we can get or we're going to get federally sanctioned homo marriage by the courts (and possibly even church micromanagement) - if not now - soon. Loving v Virginia cited as precedent.
Personally, my church will never recognize gay marriage and doesn't even like civil marriage in general. I'm offended that I need a license by the state. As far as threats to marriage go, gays aren't the same threat to it as divorce.
34
posted on
03/27/2013 8:52:43 AM PDT
by
Darren McCarty
(If most people were more than keyboard warriors, we might have won the election)
To: DarkSavant; All
The Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage, abortion, euthenasia, etc., automatically makes such issues unique state power issues. So DOMA, for example, was arguably pure political theater, winning votes for incumbent lawmakers from voters who don’t know about the Constitution’s division of federal and state government powers, such powers evidenced by the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment.
To: sickoflibs
That’s pretty much exactly what I’m saying. Do away with marriage licenses and allow the earners to name a beneficiary of things like social security.
Christians will still be married in the eyes of God and their church.
36
posted on
03/27/2013 8:56:06 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: cripplecreek
That is probably what we will need because Justice Kennedy was a key vote making same-sex-sodomy a new US constitutional right, so I am not optimistic here,
If it plays out that way Roberts may be sorry he was restrained on Obama-care mandate because throwing out that mandate would be nothing compared to judicial destruction of Marriage via new rights.
37
posted on
03/27/2013 9:00:30 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
To: zerosix
The difference is that abortion kills babies. What two consenting adult homos do in their home isn’t my business.
38
posted on
03/27/2013 9:12:59 AM PDT
by
Darren McCarty
(If most people were more than keyboard warriors, we might have won the election)
To: cripplecreek
I’ve said this all along. Marriage is a sacrament. If we continue to allow the state to meddle in the sacraments, things are going to go from bad to much, much worse. Do away with all government involvement with marriage and the issue becomes one of rewriting some tax code and ironing out some beneficiary legalities. The only possible exception I can think of is setting a reasonable age of consent.
39
posted on
03/27/2013 9:44:45 AM PDT
by
grellis
(I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
To: Theoria
Marriage should NOT be a matter of State. As instituted by God in Holy Scripture it is a sacred covenant. The State has nothing to do with it. But we allow the State to define the terms of the contract when we apply for a “marriage license” - the “benefits” of marriage (a contract sanctioned and controlled under under the State) also include State control over the issue (progeny) of said contract. That which is Holy should never be under State control, period. The first amendment does NOT give power to the State to control religious covenants. State, stay out of the Church!!!!!
40
posted on
03/27/2013 10:02:26 AM PDT
by
LibreOuMort
(I am still here, by the grace of God.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-123 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson