Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain the following:

What is the difference, from a government perspective, between a homosexual couple and two straight women who share an apartment?

In other words, if we grant benefits to homosexual couples, why wouldn't we grant benefits to a stright pair of roommates?

[Jack]

That's the whole point of the "legalize same-sex marriages" movement. As it stands now, there is no difference legally. Personally and emotionally, there are differences. The gay couple has many more reasons to stay together than simply sharing the rent. And if they were allowed to marry, they would, whereas the two roommates would not. Just because I share a house with a woman and her child we are not a family.

[Dirty Name]

The gay couple has many more reasons to stay together than simply sharing the rent.

All of which are "personal and emotional" (your own words). I am asking you from a government perspective what the difference is. List them please. Don't just say there are "many more reasons" without explaining to us what those reasons are and why the government should give a crap.

I am looking for a compelling government interest to grant marriage benefits to same sex couples, while excluding the two straight women sharing an apartment. I see none.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr perfecto said:
Gays aren't being treated any differently than anyone else is.

I say:
Right, and there is no form of racism in this country either! :rolleyes:

Mr perfecto said:
The law is completely impartial towards people regardless of sexual preference.

I say:
That is why they are trying to get a bill clarifying marriage between man and woman only, right, so they can change that?

Mr perfecto said:
Where does the Constitution say this at? And even it did, taxes are not being levelled unequally. Being equal doesn't just mean exactly the same. It also means being impartial/unbiased/fair.

I say:
Well, first of all, that is a slight misquote of the Constitution on my part, for which I apologize.

Now, on this topic, let me lay a foundation of where I am coming from.

Our Declaration of Independence states one of the reasons we revolted against England was that England was violating our citizens inalienable rights, and one of those essential violations listed is a practice that has been happening here since the unconstitutional and incredibly vague 16th Amendment was passed.

Allow me to provide a couple select and important quotes:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

One of these essential facts?
"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

Taxes have been an issue since our creation, hence the reason they wrote specifically about them in the Constitution, and they stated that:

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Now, income taxation is CLAIMED to have been approved by this passage of the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.he Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This amendment however, directly calls for law to violate the Constitution, which as the Constitution states, makes it invalid on its face. Income tax is a DIRECT TAX, and is exactly what the Constitution FORBID!

Article VI states this:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This clearly states that judges are BOUND to uphold the Constitution, any laws of any state or Constitution in contradiction, NOTWITHSTANDING.

As stated by William J. Benson:
"There is not one state -- not one -- that has ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the most amazing documents I found was in the national archives in Washington D.C. -- a 16-page memorandum written by Ruben J. Clark, then the attorney for Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox, on February 15, 1913. What he says is that in the certified copies of the amendment passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the 16th Amendment, it appears that only four of those resolutions -- Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico -- have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly what was proposed by Congress. The other 33 resolutions contain either errors of capitalization, spelling or wording. ... "

He also states:
"On page 15 of the 16-page memorandum, the attorney says, "further under the Constitution, a Legislature is prohibited from altering 'in any way' the resolution proposed by Congress." The right of the Legislature is merely to approve or disapprove the amendment. The last page is also interesting because it says the department has not received the copy of the resolution passed by the state of Minnesota, but the secretary of the governor of the state has officially notified the department that legislators of that state have ratified the proposed 16th amendment."

He also states:
"In order for the federal government to collect anything from you, they must have a law. The 16th Amendment is what they collect the tax on. And I have proven beyond a doubt with 17,000 certified, notarized documents that not one state out of the 48 has ratified the law. They have all rejected it."

Joe Bannister recently proved this point when the IRS failed to provide a valid reason for income tax, on U.S. citizens, born and working in the United States for a United States company.

Withouth Income Tax being Constitutional, which it is has now been proven, but covered up, it is illegal to even COLLECT the tax, let alone SET DESCRIMINATORY PREFRENCE TO MARRIED COUPLES. :rolleyes:

Links for you, which I am sure you will scream are "not valid sources", even though they are.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=17398
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=14719
http://www.givemeliberty.org/

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr perfecto said:
I'm not quite sure what this means...

I say:
It was aimed at Dirty Names argument that it is the "ceremony" is religious, not marriage itself.

Mr perfecto said:
The exclusion of people who don't fit that requirement eliminated the need to spell it out any more clearly. Certainly no one was confused on this issue 200 hundred years ago.

I say:
Or is it just that they realized it was up to PERSONAL BELIEF? Don't read in to it was it not there, and remember this was STATED....

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

This shows that even though they may have been a "Christian majority" they also believed there should be no intermingling of religion and politics, nor should it be used as a litmus test for beliefs. Why would they go to great lengths to write this, and then accept that government should STIPULATE what constitutes "marriage", a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION?
:rolleyes:

Mr perfecto said:
Unconstitutional because? What would be the point of giving any couple benefits? Are you suggesting that marriage was created and that benefits were added based on marriage for no reason whatsoever? If not, then what was the rationale for creating marriage in the first place?

I say:
Well, I clarified above why income tax is Unconstitutional. Obviously it is in my view wrong to TAX anyones income, especially to play favorites based on participation in a religious institution.

Mr perfecto said:
You might at least consider the insanity being touted as rational thinking as a prime contributing factor.

I say:
You might want to in fact check out the story, and realize your wrong. Bannister did indeed prove his case, though he pays income tax VOLUNTARILY. He does this to insulate himself from the wrongful imprisonings performed in the past, based on the Un-Constitutional 16th Amendment. It is one who ignores the truth, or evidence that suggests it, that should truly be considered insane.

Mr perfecto said:
Why is it so hard to offer some possible social benefit as a reason for same-sex marriages?

I say:
It is not hard, but it is wrong to do it by any un-constitutional means, and that is what the tax break for married men and women is.

[belverron]

I'd like to look at this from a slightly different angle. I'm going to make a case for gay marriage a little more complicated than "Equality!".

The government has an interest in reducing the spread of STD's, especially HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS has a high incidence among gay men; the government therefore has a legitimate interest in discouraging promiscuity among gay men. Marriage promotes a long-term, monogamous relationship, so, logically, marriage for gay men just makes sense.

Now, Dirty Name and others, how is this argument in any way inferior to yours?

[Osborn F Enready]

Belverron said:
Marriage promotes a long-term, monogamous relationship, so, logically, marriage for gay men just makes sense.

I say:
That is a beautifully simple, and until now that I have noticed, overlooked point!

The whole case for the "marriage license" was to prevent the spread of blood borne diseases being spread by those who got married not knowing they were carrying the disease. This point you make follows along the EXACT same rationale. Excellent point, and post Belverron.

Dirty Name and others, we look forward to your replies.

[Dirty Name]

At least you are trying (in vain) to come up with a compelling government interest. But there are at least two reasons why your response is wrong, Belverron (and by association, Osborn).

1) Controlling promiscuity is not the reason why marriage is recognized. Fidelity does not require marriage, nor does marriage limit promiscuity. Think about it...are you saying that gay men would be somehow less promiscuous if only we could legally allow them to be married? That the absence of a marriage license or certificate, or the lack of a handful of government benefits causes them to have multiple sexual partners? I think not.

Such an argument is absurd on it's face. If a federal tax break is going to keep someone from straying, then marriages in this country wouldn't have the divorce rate that we see today. The fact is, spouses still stray, despite the fact they are married. Fidelity to a partner is a product of personal integrity. Marriage doesn't change that one iota, nor is there any statistical proof whatsoever that recognition of homosexual marriages would reduce STD transmission.

2) Even if I were wrong, and there were some statistical proof (there isn't), it doesn't change the fact that heterosexual marriage still represents MORE of a compelling interest than homosexual marriage. Every imaginable compelling government interest which stems from homosexual marriage will also necessarily apply to heterosexual marriages. However, the same cannot be said in reverse. In other words, heterosexual marriages have at least one compelling government interest that gay marriages can never have.

I look forward to further discourse on this subject.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
Such an argument is absurd on it's face.

I say:
Obviously that doesn't mean anything to you, because your entire argument is built on that premise (absuridty) and yet you still persist in trying to discredit others, and provide no facts to back up your argument.

Where is the outline regarding society regulation through government? Can you show me ANYTHING pertaining to any official concept or practice of society management as the type you speak of, through the marriage tax break? NO.

So, as you were saying, about ABSURDITY?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Where is the outline regarding society regulation through government? Can you show me ANYTHING pertaining to any official concept or practice of society management as the type you speak of, through the marriage tax break? NO. So, as you were saying, about ABSURDITY?

Exactly. Thank you. :)

[italiangm]

People who believe government is obligated to support marriage of any stripe, beyond the scope of contract law, should not deceive themselves.

Not only are they socialists who encourage the perpetuation of the nanny state, but are just as guilty of social engineering as any of the people they accuse of doing the same thing.

Let's call a spade a spade.

[belverron]

Okay, another tack, then, Dirty Name. I mentioned it once before and you were conspicuously silent. Why, in this age where overpopulation is a concern, does government have an interest in promoting child-rearing? Why not discourage less economically able families from having children? It would redirect our taxes to educating those children instead of feeding them, thus guiding them to more successful futures, and promote individual accountability to boot.

So what's government's compelling interest in that area, again? Your argument seems to boil down to the silly old "If everyone were gay....", in a way.

[belverron]

Just to clarify, I didn't believe the STD's argument was particularly strong... but I do believe it is at least as strong as your child-rearing one. And the one I just posted I believe surpasses yours.

[Dirty Name]

Obviously that doesn't mean anything to you, because your entire argument is built on that premise (absuridty) and yet you still persist in trying to discredit others, and provide no facts to back up your argument.

Look who's talking. In spite of your hilarious claim that it is ME who is persisting in attempting to discredit others, over the last 13 pages of discourse, it has been you and those who oppose my beliefs that has tried in vain to debunk my position. Anyone who reads these pages can confirm the same. I posted my position, and have spent the last several days defending it from attack. Therefore, I dismiss the first portion of your last post in it's entirety.

The second portion is at least worth responding to in depth. I will reply in the very near future.

[Dirty Name]

People who believe government is obligated to support marriage of any stripe, beyond the scope of contract law, should not deceive themselves. Not only are they socialists who encourage the perpetuation of the nanny state, but are just as guilty of social engineering as any of the people they accuse of doing the same thing. Let's call a spade a spade.

Even if what you say above is correct (and I will explain in a later post why I don't believe that it is), you still fail to adequately address the issue of whether or not homosexual marriages should be considered the legal equivalent of traditional straight marriage. Your post only focuses on whether or not federal benefits such as tax breaks should be given to married couples. For example, it fails to examine the issue of whether or not a business should be forced by the government to recognize homosexual marriages.

As you could have guessed, I don't believe that any business should be forced to extend the same benefits to a married couple as to a homosexual couple. The issue, as it always does, revolves around childbirth and the needs of the nuclear family.

If a company wishes to offer life partner benefits, they are welcome to do so. But the federal government has absolutely zero business forcing a company to recognize gay marriage as equal to traditional marriage when it so obviously is not.

Finally, if the federal government forces companies to extend benefits equally, it will only be a matter of time before companies must extend benefits to ANY two people regardless of marriage. I've already explained this in detail, and thus far, not a single one of you has attempted to explain the difference between a gay couple and two apartment mates in terms of the legal needs. I am aware of no difference whatsoever.

[Jack]

This thread has hit a wall...but just so I can at least fathom a little of your position; what's the difference between a married couple and a man and woman living together?

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Mr perfecto said: Gays aren't being treated any differently than anyone else is. I say: Right, and there is no form of racism in this country either! :rolleyes:

Racism = Power + Prejudice. :)

The law doesn't reflect any bias so there is no power associated with whatever prejudice exists.

Mr perfecto said: The law is completely impartial towards people regardless of sexual preference. I say: That is why they are trying to get a bill clarifying marriage between man and woman only, right, so they can change that?

The forming of marriiage didn't have anything at all to do with homosexuality. And yet some people started trying to link the current definition with homophobia. People who are pretty much neutral on the subject are likely to take issue with being insulted. Maybe if you had taken a "this possibility has been overlooked" approach rather than a "this is the result of discrimination" approach, things might have gone differently.

I say: Well, first of all, that is a slight misquote of the Constitution on my part, for which I apologize.

Believe it or not, I am quite knowledgeable of the Constitution and my command of the English language is sufficent to understand it. I don't arrive at positions which differ from your own as a result of ignorance of the Constitution or American history.

Now, on this topic, let me lay a foundation of where I am coming from. Our Declaration of Independence states one of the reasons we revolted against England was that England was violating our citizens inalienable rights, and one of those essential violations listed is a practice that has been happening here since the unconstitutional and incredibly vague 16th Amendment was passed. Allow me to provide a couple select and important quotes: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." One of these essential facts? "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:" Taxes have been an issue since our creation, hence the reason they wrote specifically about them in the Constitution, and they stated that: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Now, income taxation is CLAIMED to have been approved by this passage of the 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.he Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This amendment however, directly calls for law to violate the Constitution, which as the Constitution states, makes it invalid on its face. Income tax is a DIRECT TAX, and is exactly what the Constitution FORBID!

What the Constitution says about taxes:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers,

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I'm not seeing how this violates the Constitution when the amendment clearly establishes that income taxes are not subject to the census.

Article VI states this: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This clearly states that judges are BOUND to uphold the Constitution, any laws of any state or Constitution in contradiction, NOTWITHSTANDING. As stated by William J. Benson: "There is not one state -- not one -- that has ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the most amazing documents I found was in the national archives in Washington D.C. -- a 16-page memorandum written by Ruben J. Clark, then the attorney for Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox, on February 15, 1913. What he says is that in the certified copies of the amendment passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the 16th Amendment, it appears that only four of those resolutions -- Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico -- have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly what was proposed by Congress. The other 33 resolutions contain either errors of capitalization, spelling or wording. ... " He also states: "On page 15 of the 16-page memorandum, the attorney says, "further under the Constitution, a Legislature is prohibited from altering 'in any way' the resolution proposed by Congress." The right of the Legislature is merely to approve or disapprove the amendment. The last page is also interesting because it says the department has not received the copy of the resolution passed by the state of Minnesota, but the secretary of the governor of the state has officially notified the department that legislators of that state have ratified the proposed 16th amendment." He also states: "In order for the federal government to collect anything from you, they must have a law. The 16th Amendment is what they collect the tax on. And I have proven beyond a doubt with 17,000 certified, notarized documents that not one state out of the 48 has ratified the law. They have all rejected it." Joe Bannister recently proved this point when the IRS failed to provide a valid reason for income tax, on U.S. citizens, born and working in the United States for a United States company. Withouth Income Tax being Constitutional, which it is has now been proven, but covered up, it is illegal to even COLLECT the tax, let alone SET DESCRIMINATORY PREFRENCE TO MARRIED COUPLES. :rolleyes: Links for you, which I am sure you will scream are "not valid sources", even though they are. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=17398 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=14719 http://www.givemeliberty.org/

It has been nearly a century since the 16th Amendment was announced as ratified. If the people there at the time considered it completely normal and raised no objection, it is hard to make a convincing case that they were decieved.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Mr perfecto said: I'm not quite sure what this means... I say: It was aimed at Dirty Names argument that it is the "ce.....

Marriage is not a religious institution--although there may be a religious institution by the same name. As I have already pointed out to you before, there is nothing in any state's marriage codes that I know that links marriage and religion in any way. Some states even actively forbid people from being prevented from marrying based on their religious affiliation or any specific sectarian doctrine. A Catholic and a Baptist can marry regardless of what their churches would say about the marriage.

Which ceremonies are you talking about? Bar mitzvahs? Baptisms? Rain dances? Solstice celebrations? It seems hard to classify something that was democratically created, is not under the control of any church, does not require anyone to in any way interact with a church, and was never intended to encourage religion as being religious.

[Osborn F Enready]

mr perfecto said:
It has been nearly a century since the 16th Amendment was announced as ratified. If the people there at the time considered it completely normal and raised no objection, it is hard to make a convincing case that they were decieved.

I say:
Too bad it has been proven in a court of law. The case was made, and won.

You don't honestly think the government is going to broadcast this though, do you?

Why don't you take two polls.

One poll, ask how many people would pay taxes ASSUMING Income Tax has been found to be illegal, and they would not incur any legal penalty?

In another poll, ask how many people would continue to pay taxes, voluntarily if they had a choice?

You seem to think that because it has been happening for years, and people have been struggling under the law, it is ok, even though it is illegal? I don't understand, please clarify.

As for the rest of the argument, I have made my points, and in my opinion I have not seen anything of any type, fact or opinion to make me re-think my positions. I can agree to disagree, but I see no sense in continuing since I feel I have established my points suffeciently and to continue would be more rehashing, and this thread is already 106 pages long.

I am not backing down, just agreeing to a final disagreement.