It is neutral and next year they are reinstating the marriage penalty. There is a lot of talk of the benefits of civil marriage licenses, that cannot be gotten through some other method. but I have yet to see any.
They enjoy those breaks mainly because they produce the next generation of citizens which, obviously, gay “marriages” does not.
Uh huh. The reason I’m marrying this beautiful young woman is the following: “You know, I’m only doing this for the monetary benefits.” At which point she slaps me and walks away. Followed by me slapping myself for saying something so stupid.
Guess this thread ran out of steam!
In California they already have all the rights of marriage.
The benefits are given as an incentive to produce the next generation of citizens. Gays can’t have children so they shouldn’t get the benefits. You don’t get paid for work that you can’t possibly get done.
There’s a health-care penalty against married couples, as well, in the new bill.
What about married couples who do not procreate? should they be afforded the incentive?
Who says that they will limit it to those in sexual relationship? What is to prevent anybody from marrying anybody? You could marry your best friend, your roomate, whatever.
Sure. You never know if they might procreate.
And if they don’t? Perhaps a retroactive tax since they didn’t keep their end of the bargain?
You seem to be misinterpreting what I have said. According to another CAF member, marriage is a right under the US Constitution. If marriage is a right, then the 14th amendment would extend marriage rights to gays, as well as heterosexauls. It is a question of equal protection under the law.
Too difficult to police without an all invasive State, which I’m sure that you do not want.
Of course homosexuals have equal protection and the right to marry - nobody disagrees with that.
Their end is to *attempt *to procreate and to be open to raising the children that enter their marriage (whether through reproduction or adopting). The goal of marriage is to create nuclear families (mother, father, kids).
Dale_M, why do you keep bringing up this bogus arugment? Of course there is no “traditional definition” of marriage in the constitution. I’ve argued this point before, but I’ll argue it again. Until our generation, there has never been a question about what marriage meant - a union between a man and a woman, period!!! Why would you have to define something that is already completely understood and accepted by society. It never occurred to our Founding Fathers that people of the same sex would ever ask to be married. In fact, it never occurred to anyone in the history of mankind until the last 20 years.
Round and round we go…we already went over this. Yes, marriage was deemed a basic right in Loving v Virginia (I’m one of the CAF members who brought this up in the thread…possibly the one you are referring to
). Yes, equal protection dictates that you can’t discriminate and offer marriage to some people, but not others. Yes, that is the reasoning of the judge.Suppose they make “no valid attempt”? How do you know that the marraige is nothing more then a sham? As another poster said prior, its too tough to police.
