Skip to comments.How Ryan T. Anderson Responded to a Gay Man Who Wants to Redefine Marriage
Posted on 07/26/2014 3:27:07 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Daily Signal Commentary Video
Why should I, as a gay man, be denied the same right to file a joint tax return with my potential husband that a straight couple has?
Anderson also talked about the differences between the laws interest in contracts and in marriage
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
I believe the idiot is going to find out that married people pay higher taxes. And if you’re married and file separate then you REALLY pay higher taxes.
Nice use of calm rationality. Where was this presentation? The crowd was obviously impressed as well.
I think marriage, in the traditional sense, and by definition, has been abolished. It started when governments, local, state and federal first started injecting themselves into the marriage process. It was finished when gays were given the right to participate in the marriage contract in relationships that redefine marriage. ...Marriage was never a civil rights issue, but the government has treated it as one to accommodate sexual perversion and continue its assault on Western culture.
Great handling of a “Gotcha” question.
I don’t know anything else about Ryan Anderson, but I know this... anyone that is this smooth, collected, rational and affable at handling these type of questions has a bright future in politics.
In other words, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called gay rights that are now wrongly being legislated from the bench by activist judges.
Also, another thing that the gay gentleman doesn't seem to understand is this. The federal government is arguably going to make up for lost revenues on tax credits for married couples when the children of the staight couple grow up and become taxpayers.
And let's not forget that the corrupt federal government is also wrongly laying taxes which it cannot justify under Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. In fact, Justice John Marshall had clarified Congress's limited power to lay taxes as follows.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
A bright young man.
New rendition of an old fairy tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes.. Calling a gay relationship a marriage does not make it a marriage, any more than calling a a nude man a dressed one. Even a law that forces you to recognize this under penalty of death does not make it so. All that is left is to redefine the terms...
Great video but the discussion underneath was depressing..... We have slipped so far...
Would it not have been easier, in hindsight, to have changed the applicable clauses in the IRS regulations, and the entire rest of the government, to cover persons who have taken a vow of “civil union” as accepted under the regulations, and left the definition of “marriage”, with all its historic connotations, alone for the purpose it was created in tradition and the law, the union of one man and one woman?
But NOOOO, they had to get all “in your face”, in their frenzied haste to “throw off” all the symbols and trappings of a settled and generally comfortable arrangement that had worked perfectly well, even antedating the Christian traditions, and extending well back into tribal and clan roots, even before an agricultural society existed.
There ARE no new “family unit” arrangements that have not been tried over and over in history, only to come back to the generally accepted arrangements, of “one man, one woman”, with all its taboos and restrictions, that make for a much more civil and polite society, with its measured and defined roles. Of course family extends far beyond the “nuclear” model, but at its heart, the traditions are passed along from generation to generation, and no society goes far outside these traditions except at its own great peril, personally and for the broader community.
The homosexual should have just said, I think we should pay the same tax so that politicians can buy our votes.
The needle on my gaydar pegged as soon as the “Gay Man” started talking. In about 15 seconds, it began smoking and smelled of burning electronics.
In other words, “You can do whatever you like. Simply don’t expect special treatment (i.e. special marriage arrangements), don’t redefine marriage to suit you, and leave our children alone.”
Marriage wasn't created "in tradition and the law." It was created by God, at the very beginning. In just the same way "up" and "down" were created by God. It is what it is. Tradition and law are forced to deal with these realities, and to be just and non-destructive they have to conform to them, but they didn't create them.
This is not a nitpick. It's very important. The camel's nose in the tent is the idea that men, or governments, have any kind of legitimate choice in matters of natural law.
Thanks for posting this. I usually don’t watch these because I can’t stand the argument in the first place. Shad my the first minute had my stomach turning, but Mr. Anderson knocked it out of the park. Cool.
That was the stupidest part. He currently gets to file as two individuals. That is cheaper than filing married, even with the marriage “penalty” adjustment. Occasionally married people have gotten divorced just to say tax dollars.
There’s a lot more than that. The entire population is declining in terms of being married in the Netherlands, which was among the first nations to recognize SSM. I believe that even plenty of homosexuals are resorting to cohabitation for about the same reasons that the general population are. Divorce, like Karma,is a #$%^#.
The camel’s nose in the tent is the idea that men, or governments, have any kind of legitimate choice in matters of natural law.
...man has no legitimate choice in matters of marriage...?
Not in terms of defining what it is.
You can try to redefine “up” and “down,” but when you jump off eighty foot cliffs the rocks at the bottom won’t care.
Anderson is a clear thinker and an excellent advocate for marriage.