Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay marriage case’s Edie Windsor: marriage “magic” (i.e. a “magic word”)
Associated Press ^ | Mar. 28, 2013 3:07 AM EDT | Jessica Gresko

Posted on 03/28/2013 9:30:22 AM PDT by Olog-hai

When Edith Windsor got engaged in the 1960s to the woman who eventually became her wife, she asked for a pin instead of a ring. A ring would have meant awkward questions, she said: Who is he? Where is he? And when do we meet him? …

Windsor said the spirit of her partner of 44 years was watching and listening Wednesday, and she called marriage a “magic word.”

“For anybody who doesn’t understand why we want it and why we need it, OK, it is magic,” she told reporters.

Windsor is asking the court to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman. She said the argument before the court went well. …

(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: doma; edithwindsor; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; lawsuit; perversion; samesexmarriage; scotus
Now it’s associated with sorcery. How nice of them to admit it.
1 posted on 03/28/2013 9:30:22 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Magik.


2 posted on 03/28/2013 9:32:12 AM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Oh, I get it. God is a magician, like Merlin, and he can cast a magic spell to make this woman’s delusions seem, well, real.

At least to her.


3 posted on 03/28/2013 9:33:32 AM PDT by Albion Wilde ("Commies out of DC!" --Raoul Deming, 1954-2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Think of the other fellow, i.e. the god of this world.


4 posted on 03/28/2013 9:34:32 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“Windsor, whose wife, Thea Spyer, died in 2009, sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill she got after Spyer’s death. The pair married in Canada in 2007. Had Windsor been married to a man, she would not have paid any estate tax.”

It’s a tax issue. So change the tax laws and leave us the hell alone!


5 posted on 03/28/2013 9:36:04 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Won’t stop them from pursuing their form of “marriage”. They’ll find another phony issue to grandstand on.


6 posted on 03/28/2013 9:37:15 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

No doubt about that.


7 posted on 03/28/2013 9:42:44 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
At root, it's mainly about economic benefits. Pension survivorship, inheritance, access to partner's employer benefits as "spouse". If the laws were changed to say that partners of "civil unions" get treated like being married for the purpose of benefits, inheritance, taxes, etc, then most of the pressure would go away.
8 posted on 03/28/2013 9:43:51 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Homosexuals want us to tell them they are just like the rest of us. They are not.


9 posted on 03/28/2013 9:47:55 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
As I posted yesterday:

As noted in some of the argument in the court, what we are really do is arguing over language. Marriage, as used in the English language, is a union between a man and a woman. It contains a religious aspect, founded in the principles and traditions of the Bible and other religious teachings, a contractual aspect, and a public aspect. The contract is that the parties will combine into a partnership, financial, and spiritual, and will be as one entity to the outside world. The public aspect is that marriages are recognized by the state as creating certain legal rights between the married people and the state. For example, inheritance laws, child support laws, taxation rates, visitation, guardianship, and myriad ways in which a person has obligations or rights by reason of their being married to another person.

The contractual aspect of it can be taken care of no problem by making a standard contract that has all the elements of the marriage contract and allowing homos to sign such a contract as between themselves. The courts can, and I think they do, recognize such contracts as valid and enforceable. (In the past, such contracts might have been unenforceable as against public policy.)

The legal aspect can also be handled by simple changes to the laws as well. A state can create a civil union type of relationship, that carries the same tax, inheritance, etc. consequences as if the people were married. I am not for such laws, but I don't think that the Constitution bars a state from enacting such a law.

But a civil union is not a "marriage", at least not in the English usage. Thus, what is most disturbing to many people is the idea that homos want to take what we do, something holy, just, ordained, sanctified, good for the country and humanity, and turn it into another word for the ugly, disgusting, vile and hedonistic things that they do. They want to be change us by changing the words we use for ourselves. And we don't want to recognize them or what they do. How to resolve that?

Well, no matter what they claim, a marriage will still be a union between a man and a woman. Even if they try to claim that night is day, it will still be too dark to see. What we need are new words that convey the legal and contractual status that they want, but not using the word marriage, which theirs will never be. I propose the following:

1. Faggage--the union of two men, who will henceforth be known under the law as "ver-men", married not to their husband but to their "buttbro".
2. Lickage--the union of two women, henceforth known as wymmin, married to their Y-wife.
3. Trannage--any union in which one of the involved is a transvestite. The parties are trannies and wymmin or ver-men, and their spouses will be known as Trangles, in the case of a male tranny, or Donuts, in the case of a female one.
4. Baggage--a union of more than two people, which can consist of Trangles, Donuts, Buttbros, and Y-wives.

Let each state debate and decide whether they wish to establish the institutions of Faggage, Lickage, Trannage and/or Baggage (even the Wise Latina seemed to have problems with Baggage.) Those that do, like Massachusetts, great, you can go there to get your Faggage certificate. You can leave your estate to your Buttbro, and have everything you want. After all, the goal is not to destroy marriage and religion, but just to have what we have. Right?

10 posted on 03/28/2013 9:50:37 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat

Her case is based upon the high ESTATE taxes she had to pay when her partner died & left items to her.

END the ESTATE TAXES & we don’t have the gay marriage issue in front of the
Supremes.

I understand her anger over the estate taxes——but even those of us who are married or are heirs from parents, etc, are angered over the estate taxes.

These items left when someone dies were ALL paid for with after tax monies.

Taxing them again is just plain theft.


11 posted on 03/28/2013 9:52:47 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Language, eh. As Proverbs 18:21 says, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”. Dangerous game to do that. Also highly dangerous to think that God won’t fight against us.


12 posted on 03/28/2013 9:57:42 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

I’m hoping for the day when I can go a full 24 hrs without seeing a gay article.


13 posted on 03/28/2013 10:03:28 AM PDT by SUPman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

What a sick, delusional old witch.


14 posted on 03/28/2013 10:05:18 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The Supreme Court - About to Play God Again?


15 posted on 03/28/2013 10:06:46 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

For example, inheritance laws, child support laws, taxation rates, visitation, guardianship, and myriad ways in which a person has obligations or rights by reason of their being married to another person.

...what would the incentive be for any state that currently imposes inheritance taxes to extend the scope of ‘spouse’, when in most states spousal inheritance is not taxable? States like Pennsylvania, which would like to tax a citizen for breathing, stands to lose millions of dollars annually by doing such a thing...


16 posted on 03/28/2013 10:19:42 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Someone on Rush the other day nailed it...

“we’re not really ‘conservative’ per se, we’re NORMAL”

The left, liberalism, et al, exists as an ideology in order to normalize the abnormal.


17 posted on 03/28/2013 10:22:03 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

So the upshot of this article is that we should redefine an institution that has framed western civilization for millennia because that redfinition makes some mule-faced Brit dyke feel all oogey?

Hard to argue with that logic.


18 posted on 03/28/2013 10:22:32 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

Avoid inheritance tax - you and your wife should “marry” all your children.


19 posted on 03/28/2013 10:22:57 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrB

And it is getting worse. Who would have believed kindergartners would be getting sex ed telling them about homosexuality???


20 posted on 03/28/2013 10:23:21 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
The word marriage has a traditional meaning. Gays want the word applied to their relationships. I have been looking for a new word for them. What they are asking for legally is a "same sex civil union". So it could be SSCU, or CUSS.
How about CUSSO? This is loosely defined as the dried flower of a certain tree. That seems sort of appropriate. I am not sure what the O would stand for in CUSSO. I'm working on it.
21 posted on 03/28/2013 10:27:02 AM PDT by oldbrowser (They are marxists, don't call them democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

If it were only about economic benefits, then the activists would settle for legal unions. The fact that they feel a need to destroy the definition of marriage means that they want enforced acceptance.


22 posted on 03/28/2013 10:27:05 AM PDT by Pecos (If more sane people carried guns, fewer crazies would get off a second shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Or when you are 88 years old and on your deathbed, you can marry a 17 year old Guatemalan girl and she would receive inheritance and pension and Social Security for the rest of her life.


23 posted on 03/28/2013 10:28:15 AM PDT by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

These items left when someone dies were ALL paid for with after tax monies.

Taxing them again is just plain theft.

...that’s true up to the point where the asset is valued at the purchase price...but what about the accruals of interest on fixed or variable annuities, or other such deferred instruments accumulating value through investment? That’s where they’ve got you...and they certainly won’t go through the trouble to define the accuulation in excess of the purchase price...
...of course they know they are thieves...taxing on the total value of the inherited asset, rather than merely the subsequent accrual, but, there it is...and woe to he who does not abide by their thievery...


24 posted on 03/28/2013 10:36:22 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

and woe to he who does not abide by their thievery...

...uh, Mr. Brigade, that would be woe to him...objective case and all that...


25 posted on 03/28/2013 10:38:24 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
So the upshot of this article is that we should redefine an institution that has framed western civilization for millennia because that redfinition makes some mule-faced Brit dyke feel all oogey?

No, it's because not recognizing her valid-under-state-law marriage is costing her $363,000 in federal estate taxes.

26 posted on 03/28/2013 10:47:40 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Her “marriage” obviously doesn’t convey spousal benefits, so it can hardly be a marriage in the legal sense. Whatever arrangement she has with her fellow she-hag, it is not a legal peer to marriage. QED.


27 posted on 03/28/2013 11:00:06 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
So the upshot of this article is that we should redefine an institution that has framed western civilization for millennia because that redfinition makes some mule-faced Brit dyke feel all oogey? Hard to argue with that logic.

LMAO!!! -it is quite hard to argue against with all that magic THEN again one could a libertarian and just let the magic be imposed and call it something else altogether like states rights....

28 posted on 03/28/2013 11:09:32 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Her “marriage” obviously doesn’t convey spousal benefits, so it can hardly be a marriage in the legal sense. Whatever arrangement she has with her fellow she-hag, it is not a legal peer to marriage. QED.

Why doesn't it convey spousal benefits? That's the very issue before the Court-- whether she has to pay $363,000 in estate taxes that a "married" person wouldn't have to pay. You're just arguing in a circle.

29 posted on 03/28/2013 11:37:35 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

If faggage comes to Pennsylvania, then Pennsylvania will have to treat faggages the same as marriages for tax purposes. I’m not in favor of any state allowing faggages, but some are doing it anyway, and the Supreme Court may actually impose it on us. My suggestion is not to allow it, but to call it something other than marriage, because it is most definitely not marriage.


30 posted on 03/28/2013 11:45:14 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Dangerous game to call gay coupling “faggage”? Or dangerous to call it marriage? I believe the latter. Give what they want its own name. Don’t grant it, IMO, but at least call it something that distinguishes it from marriage. Then have the debate about it.


31 posted on 03/28/2013 11:47:02 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

“If the laws were changed to say that partners of “civil unions” get treated like being married for the purpose of benefits, inheritance, taxes, etc, then most of the pressure would go away.”

I doubt that. They have set their sights on marriage, and nothing short of that will satisfy them at this point.


32 posted on 03/28/2013 11:52:52 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Your argument is no less circular than mine: "She does not get the spousal benefits of 'marriage' even though she is married, and she's married even though she doesn't get any of the benefits that accrue to marriage." They by what measure can she be considered married?

The fact is, her marriage is nothing more than a feel-good sham without any moral, religious, or even legal weight. It is the adult equivalent of two children playing house, and commands no more gravitas.

33 posted on 03/28/2013 3:29:11 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
The fact is, her marriage is nothing more than a feel-good sham without any moral, religious, or even legal weight. It is the adult equivalent of two children playing house, and commands no more gravitas.

No, the difference is that her marriage does have all the legal benefits and burdens of marriage under the law of the state where she lives. But she nonetheless doesn't get the federal tax benefits of marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Supreme Court should invalidate DOMA. I was just responding to the argument that gays can get all of the benefits of marriage by contract. They can get many of those things by contract, but not all, and in the case before SCOTUS the difference is worth $360,000.

34 posted on 03/28/2013 3:42:44 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
Obviously the dead partner didn't trust her enough to distribute her estate down to where the entire amount would be tax free.

And I'll bet not a dime to charity.

Two selfish b......!

35 posted on 03/28/2013 5:37:26 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I thought about that. There are all sorts of trusts and other ways to give her the money.


36 posted on 03/28/2013 5:38:52 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Hell...a lot of government work places already give benefits to “domestic partners”....whatever that means.


37 posted on 03/28/2013 5:39:26 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589937602


38 posted on 03/28/2013 5:43:33 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson