The Supreme Court - About to Play God Again?
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 ...
Magik.
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.
Think of the other fellow, i.e. the god of this world.
“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!
Won’t stop them from pursuing their form of “marriage”. They’ll find another phony issue to grandstand on.
No doubt about that.
Homosexuals want us to tell them they are just like the rest of us. They are not.
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?
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.
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.
I’m hoping for the day when I can go a full 24 hrs without seeing a gay article.
What a sick, delusional old witch.
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...
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.
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.
Avoid inheritance tax - you and your wife should “marry” all your children.
And it is getting worse. Who would have believed kindergartners would be getting sex ed telling them about homosexuality???
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.