Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A SCOTUS Among UsFollow

#52 Jun 27 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.

I've been paying federal marriage benefits for California's legally wed first cousins, despite first cousin marriages being illegal in my state. Pay back is a bitch, eh?

Quote:
Either we'll see all states recognize *** marriage (which is presumably what the SSM advocates want)
I think people just don't want to discriminate.





Edited, Jun 27th 2013 9:11pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#53 Jun 27 2013 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,852 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.

Probably because it's not an issue. It's federal tax money being disbursed through the federal system. If your state is creating a barrier to accessing that money, that's an issue with the state, not the federal government.

Out of your outcomes, I'd see if far more likely that states are forced to remove that barrier than a massive change in apportioning the money. Really though, I expect the real (federal) outcome from that avenue to be nil and married SS couples in states legally recognizing the marriage will get the benefits and those who don't won't. And they'll either continue to petition the states or move to friendlier climates.


I'm curious how currently Federal benefits are handled in first cousin marriages across state lines (Married in California, move to Nevada). I don't know how they are, but I'd imagine how ever they are handled will weigh in pretty heavily on how the SSM marriages will.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 3:15pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#54 Jun 27 2013 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.
I've been paying federal marriage benefits for California's legally wed first cousins, despite first cousin marriages being illegal in my state. Pay back is a bitch, eh?

Presumably though Maine recognizes first cousin marriages from CA as valid should those people move across country and start a moose ranch. A SSM couple moving to Indiana doesn't have that luxury.

Gbaji's argument is that the fine people of the Hoosier State are paying for lawless Sodomites to get joint social security benefits when said lawless Sodomites aren't allowed to be classified as legally married in Indianapolis no matter what liberal bastion of sin they hail from.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Jun 27 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.
I've been paying federal marriage benefits for California's legally wed first cousins, despite first cousin marriages being illegal in my state. Pay back is a bitch, eh?

Presumably though Maine recognizes first cousin marriages from CA as valid should those people move across country and start a moose ranch. A SSM couple moving to Indiana doesn't have that luxury.

You'd have to go to Canada to get a Moose Ranch Permit.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#56 Jun 27 2013 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,852 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.
I've been paying federal marriage benefits for California's legally wed first cousins, despite first cousin marriages being illegal in my state. Pay back is a bitch, eh?

Presumably though Maine recognizes first cousin marriages from CA as valid should those people move across country and start a moose ranch. A SSM couple moving to Indiana doesn't have that luxury.

Gbaji's argument is that the fine people of the Hoosier State are paying for lawless Sodomites to get joint social security benefits when said lawless Sodomites aren't allowed to be classified as legally married in Indianapolis no matter what liberal bastion of sin they hail from.


lolWiki has a table.

If you moved, and your marriage was Voided... would that mean no Federal benefits, or would it just mean the State doesn't recognize that other State's valid license, but Federal would still?

I'm glad I'm single...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#57 Jun 27 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
From the looks of it, three states have laws voiding the marriage of first cousins who moved (as a married couple) into that state. And a whole bunch of "unknown"s.

I had assumed that all states reciprocated in observing that union. Shows what I know. Guess I never had reason to look into marrying my cousins.

I honestly don't know the answer to the second question. I could see an argument for saying that the feds should consider you married and an argument for saying they shouldn't. I guess the answer should be the same as "Do 'married' cousins in Arizona get federal benefits?"

Anyone know any married cousins in Arizona? Or have a hot cousin they'd be willing to run an experiment with? For political SCIENCE!?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Jun 27 2013 at 2:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I had assumed that all states reciprocated in observing that union. Shows what I know. Guess I never had reason to look into marrying my cousins.


It doesn't have a big a lobby behind it, nor is it as much of a wedge issue. Same legal issue at hand though.

Quote:
I honestly don't know the answer to the second question. I could see an argument for saying that the feds should consider you married and an argument for saying they shouldn't. I guess the answer should be the same as "Do 'married' cousins in Arizona get federal benefits?"


Decent question. Don't know the answer either. I would assume that they do, but that no one has really cared enough about it (for the same reason as above). Difference is between where the dividing line is, versus not having one at all.


Oh. Meant to answer your earlier question. Where do you think "federal funds" come from? We're still basically left with a situation where the majority of the voters in the US, and a majority of the states in the US, do not want their federal funds to be spent providing benefits to *** couples who marry in the small number of states that do recognize *** marriage. Whether that numerical majority shakes down to a legislative majority to make any changes to marriage benefits at the federal level is up in the air, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of that sort of reaction to this ruling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Jun 27 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Oh. Meant to answer your earlier question. Where do you think "federal funds" come from?

Payments made via taxes or other fees to the US Treasury office.

What's your point? People can "not like" it if they want. It's already been ruled that prohibiting legally married SS couples from those funds on a federal level is unconstitutional. No, there won't be any movement (of any force) to redefine how the federal government assigns benefits and other affected payments.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 3:23pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Jun 27 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,852 posts
gbaji wrote:
Whether that numerical majority shakes down to a legislative majority to make any changes to marriage benefits at the federal level is up in the air, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of that sort of reaction to this ruling.


They know the evil gays are coming, so they will ruin Federal marriage benefits for everyone just so those gays can't have them? I can't imagine any law maker making a serious try at removing key Federal benefits between married individuals just so gays can't have the benefits when they eventually win the fight to get them...

Oh, I'm sure a few crazies like Bachmann might, but I said "serious try".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#61 Jun 27 2013 at 2:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whether that numerical majority shakes down to a legislative majority to make any changes to marriage benefits at the federal level is up in the air, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of that sort of reaction to this ruling.


They know the evil gays are coming, so they will ruin Federal marriage benefits for everyone just so those gays can't have them?


Love the editorializing there. The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so. The problem is that when the laws were written at the federal level, no one considered that states might change their marriage laws to allow couples who can't possibly procreate to marry, so the benefits were tied to state issued marriage. Since that's changed, the benefits no longer make sense to tie to marriage, so the most logical course of action would be to remove the attachment of those benefits to "marriage", and tie them instead directly to Married couples with the potential for procreation" (or some similar language).

Let's remember that the courts have never ruled that these benefits cannot be tied to the sexual makeup of a couple, only that if you tie it to "marriage", you can't after the fact deny it to some marriages. If the benefits are tied to procreation from the get-go, that's no different than tying benefits to financial status, or health status, or any of a zillion other criteria we use to decide who can qualify for various benefits.

Will this happen? Can't say. But that will be what conservatives will be moving towards next. But yeah, barring the second part, they'd rather simply remove all federal benefits to married couples if the status quo is left in place. Those benefits serve no purpose otherwise.


Quote:
I can't imagine any law maker making a serious try at removing key Federal benefits between married individuals just so gays can't have the benefits when they eventually win the fight to get them...


Because you're thinking of this in an "us vs them" way, and not "do these benefits make sense"? I know that liberals think of benefits in terms of helping groups of people they like, but conservatives believe that benefits should have a purpose beyond just rewarding people we like. I suspect that this ruling will focus the issue more clearly on those benefits and their purpose. But time will tell, I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Jun 27 2013 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Like lower-taxes marriage benefits? I'm assuming we're talking about and not the other stuff? Or tying in other federally recognized benefits as well (i.e. your same *** spouse dies in military service or something)? Since if you're trying to "reward procreation" then having a marriage tax-break isn't the smartest way to go about it, even way back when.

So if you maybe want to bump up the child-tax credit, and in return get rid of some of the benefits of simply filing jointly as a married couple I promise not to complain. Smiley: wink

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:22pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#63 Jun 27 2013 at 3:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma wrote:
I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.


You see where you said that and then didn't give any arguments or anything at all to prove that what you are saying is based in reality? And then Allegory pointed that out and somehow you thought pointing him back to the post was a good idea.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:47pm by Aethien


That wasn't the explanation, but the conclusion. You can't ignore the answer and say it wasn't there.
#64 Jun 27 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,223 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I had assumed that all states reciprocated in observing that union. Shows what I know. Guess I never had reason to look into marrying my cousins.


Well, clearly your cousins suck.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#65 Jun 27 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but not well enough to marry 'em.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Jun 27 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whether that numerical majority shakes down to a legislative majority to make any changes to marriage benefits at the federal level is up in the air, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of that sort of reaction to this ruling.


They know the evil gays are coming, so they will ruin Federal marriage benefits for everyone just so those gays can't have them?


Love the editorializing there. The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so. .
The reality is that they believe (and this is from GOP folk shown on Fox) that they are sinful, evil, potential child rapists who are as corrosive to the American way of life as Stalinist Communism.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#67 Jun 28 2013 at 12:38 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma wrote:
I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.


You see where you said that and then didn't give any arguments or anything at all to prove that what you are saying is based in reality? And then Allegory pointed that out and somehow you thought pointing him back to the post was a good idea.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:47pm by Aethien


That wasn't the explanation, but the conclusion. You can't ignore the answer and say it wasn't there.
There must be a lot of imaginary text in that post that the rest of the world can't see because it sure as **** doesn't say what you think it says.

Here, let me quote the whole bit for you so you can read it again:
Alma wrote:
'Twas indeed different. I'm not a history buff, but you're allowing the negative connotation of "politics" skew reality. There is a difference between laying the foundation of rules and regulations for a nation vs purposely interpreting the aforesaid rules in a way to bolster personal motives. I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.

I don't see any arguments, facts or anything at all that makes me think that what you are saying is based in reality. In fact, you did quite the opposite by starting with saying that you are not a history buff before making your unsupported claim.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#68 Jun 28 2013 at 5:29 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
First, forgive me as I'm no longer in the US, so I don't have the full coverage as I did. The message that I received was that DOMA was deemed "unconstitutional". So, unless I'm missing something, it's either unconstitutional because it was federally mandated or unconstitutional due to the restrictions of marriage. Given that we have a ton of federal mandates, my assumption is that 'twas the latter.

So, if the main arguments used were that it should be a state's decision on the rulings of marriage, then it completely contradicts the aforementioned. That essentially says, "The restrictions of marriage is unconstitutional, but only at the federal level, it's ok at the state level"

The issue is that marriage has traditionally been left to the states to define. The argument made as that the federal government was infringing on the traditional domain of the state by effectively saying "You can call that marriage but it's not and we won't honor it". Without exceptional cause to justify the intrusion (as in miscegenation), that provision of the law was struck down.

That it was "marriage" is somewhat secondary except that you'd need something within the state's sphere to act as a catalyst for the case. For an opposite example, the SCotUS struck down provisions from Arizona's state laws regarding immigration enforcement; immigration being the traditional sphere of the federal government and the state not having the right to interfere.

Neither case was argued so much about "marriage" or "immigration" but rather "How far can the federal/state infringe into the working of the other?" If not for the social aspect, conservatives would be hailing this as a huge win for state's rights.


I don't have a problem with the argument for individual state freedom or the conclusion. I have a problem with labeling it "unconstitutional". It is not unconstitutional to have a federal mandate. Just because "we've always done it that way" is true, doesn't make it unconstitutional to have a change.

This is similar to the states trying to push the legal time limit to have an abortion closer and closer to conception. Roe v Wade made abortion legal with limitations. Can the individual states make those limitations more restrictive? I don't know, I'm not fully familiar with the case; but you simply can't call everything that you disagree with "unconstitutional" and everything you favor "constitutional".

LolGaxe wrote:
Am I the only one that has a good chuckle whenever someone argues that amendments shouldn't be changed, or interpreted based on 1800s culture?


If you're referring to me, then let me clarify that I'm completely for fully rewriting the constitution to accommodate the present time. That's part of my gripe. The constitution doesn't clearly address topics that we are discussing in today's world. As a result, people want to pretend that they know what the founding fathers would have thought on the subject and it always so happen to favor whatever political motive that they have. We can eliminate most, if not all, of that ambiguity and clearly write it anew.

Aethien wrote:
There must be a lot of imaginary text in that post that the rest of the world can't see because it sure as **** doesn't say what you think it says.

Here, let me quote the whole bit for you so you can read it again:

............


I don't see any arguments, facts or anything at all that makes me think that what you are saying is based in reality. In fact, you did quite the opposite by starting with saying that you are not a history buff before making your unsupported claim.

I figured someone would say "but you said that you're not a history buff!!" dur....
You know how people start off points like "I'm not a rocket scientist, but" or "I'm not a brain surgeon, but"? Usually the following statements indicate something that is common knowledge that it doesn't take someone of that caliber of knowledge to understand.

Clearly, you are even below that. How you can initially give a one sentence response as an argument and at the same time be incapable to understand a more in depth response in two posts is unrealistic. The answer is there. If you choose to be ignorant, that's on you.



Edited, Jun 28th 2013 1:35pm by Almalieque
#69 Jun 28 2013 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Shhh Aeth, he thinks using big words and antiquated language is sufficient. Jusby definition.t coo and tell him what a good boy he is.


[Edit]

It's unconstitutional to have a mandate that defies the constitution...

Also, this post is a good lesson on why you shouldn't post from your phone.

Edited, Jun 28th 2013 9:00am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#70 Jun 28 2013 at 6:06 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You know how people start off points like "I'm not a rocket scientist, but" or "I'm not a brain surgeon, but"? Usually the following statements indicate something that is common knowledge that it doesn't take someone of that caliber of knowledge to understand
Maybe this would actually work for you if you followed it up with something that is actually common knowledge.

As much as you may have convinced yourself that the answer is in that post of yours, it really isn't. But by all means, keep deluding yourself and pointing to that post as your savior.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#71 Jun 28 2013 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have a problem with the argument for individual state freedom or the conclusion. I have a problem with labeling it "unconstitutional". It is not unconstitutional to have a federal mandate.

It certainly can be.
Amendment No. 10 wrote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Jun 28 2013 at 6:48 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Id wrote:
Shhh Aeth, he thinks using big words and antiquated language is sufficient. Jusby definition.t coo and tell him what a good boy he is.


Please..tell me which word you think is "big". I've openly admitted to using GRE words in the past in preparation for my exam. However, I've had to temporarily change focus to the CISSP. Since then, I have not used any words in awhile, so please tell me what words you think are big?

Aethien wrote:
Maybe this would actually work for you if you followed it up with something that is actually common knowledge.

As much as you may have convinced yourself that the answer is in that post of yours, it really isn't. But by all means, keep deluding yourself and pointing to that post as your savior.


I'll give you a clue. It's after "I'm not a history buff" but before the statement in question. At this point, the fault is on you. I seriously cannot state it any simpler without going into analogies. Now, if you're seriously interested (at the risk of making yourself look more foolish) and want me to break it down post by post with an analogy, let me know. I'll have no problem doing so. Just note, given the difference in time zones, I might not respond right away.
#73 Jun 28 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
******
49,667 posts
gbaji wrote:
The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so
In the same sense that people believed the world was flat, the best way to cure psychosis was to drill a hole in someone's head, and that violence doesn't solve problems I guess.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Jun 28 2013 at 7:28 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have a problem with the argument for individual state freedom or the conclusion. I have a problem with labeling it "unconstitutional". It is not unconstitutional to have a federal mandate.

It certainly can be.
Amendment No. 10 wrote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Our interpretation of that is completely different. I interpret that as saying that IF the US hasn't delegated powers by the constitution or prohibited it to the states, then the states and/or the people have the authorization to operate off of said powers.

That doesn't prevent the US from federally mandating a traditionally state power. It's essentially saying that it's either one or the other. If it isn't already taken care at the federal level, then it's at the state level. That doesn't prevent powers from changing from/to state and Federal levels.

Given that the first condition is at the federal level, I assume that the federal preference outweigh the states. If it weren't as such, then there should be more information explaining what can or can not be at what level.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People having different interpretations (right or wrong, intentional or not). We need to just start over.
#75 Jun 28 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Quote:
The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so
What about same-*** couples who wish to adopt?
____________________________
Banh
#76 Jun 28 2013 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If it weren't as such, then there should be more information explaining what can or can not be at what level.

I disagree with your reading of the Tenth but it's sort of moot. Determining the grey areas is the point of judicial review.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (62)