Please Explain Same Sex Marriage Amendment.

[JustMissed]

Would someone mind explaining the same sex marriage amendment to me.

I was reading at the Drudge Report that the Senate voted against the amendment that would make same sex marriage illegal.

The article said that although John Kerry did not vote against the amendment, he said he was against it. I don't know why he didn't vote, but anyway, does this mean he "is for same sex marriage".

You don't think he is for a man marrying a man do you?

JM

:p

[Tom]

I think this issue is confusing becasue there seem to two very real schools of thought on it.
One feels that the Constitution must not be changed unless for compelling reasons and as a last resort. And never to limit freedoms, only to guarentee them.
The other feels that the sanctity of marriage meets this logic and must be done asap.
You can be against both same-sex marriages and the ammendment both and not be contradictory.

[Buckeye]

I don't know.

Are they registered voters?

[JustMissed]

Thanks Tom, That makes sense to me.

I believe I read in that same articule that there have been over 1,100 failed amendments to our constituition, the reason being that it is a pretty big deal to amendment the constituition.

Some say this was an Republician ploy to have Kerry and Edwards vote against same sex marriage when in fact they were just voting against a subpar amendment. I cetainly don't have a problem with either the ploy or the K/E vote.

Just curious though, I wonder how Kerry and Edwards do feel about same sex marriage. Do you know?

This could be a real problem between individual states as to whether one state recognizies same sex marriage as their neighboring states does not.

Can't wait till the debates. A lot of interesting questions to be asked.

JM

:)

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Tom
One feels that the Constitution must not be changed unless for compelling reasons and as a last resort. And never to limit freedoms, only to guarentee them.
The other feels that the sanctity of marriage meets this logic and must be done asap.


Wow Tom, Sorry to double post but after I reread your post several times I realized how powerful the message was. Especially the part about never to limit freedoms, only to guarantee them.

Pretty powerfull stuff.

JM

[Tom]

I thik what will happen is that rational states (unlike MAss) will refuse to recognize these circus-marriages under their right to ignore license agreements from other states.
I can see a lot of court battles over this, though.
And of course, that lovable merman-Teddy Kennedy is right there accusing Bush of trying to put biggotry inthe contitution. This tub of lard is really clueless. I am so tired of listening this ignorant bag of wind go on and on about everyone elese morals when HE is the coward wo ho let a girl drown while he worried about his political career. The onyl thing you can say about TK is that he is the Kennedy that wasn't worth a bullet. Disguting vermin.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Individual states do not now recognize laws of other states unless they want to, including marriage laws. Only Utah recognized Ute polygamists, Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage was not recognized outside MS. This was a 1 issue (marriage). The US Constitiution should not be used to make 1 specific law- that is why Prohibition did not work. Too hard to enforce.
There are good health reasons for only allowing the marriages that we do.
Personally, ok by me for civil unions for ghays. More chicks left over for me!

[Tom]

Ken....you got to the heart of it! :)

[CryingForTheHorses]

I myself am not for same sex marriage,I think its a farce.Its a good thing Adam met Eve,Would have hated to see the outcome if he hadent.I also think its a sacred bond between a man and a woman. What the hell are they thinking??.In a world with AIDS,Sars the cat crap,and all the other sickness in the world,This to me is the sickest! I am not even for giving them special treatment!
I dont have anything against gays,I just think its NOT right.God made Adam and Eve,NOT Adam and Steve.

[Tom]

Look at it this way, with all these same-sex marriages, pretty soon there won' t be any on left in favor of them - same sex=no kids.

[Suff]

We wrote civil benefits and Cultural laws that Benefit Married couples...


Different Tax Basis, Tax codes, Credit Rating, Death Benefits, Will and Testament Benefits, Medical Rights and Benefits and many other forms of "Benefits" if you behave a certain way....e.g Marry.

Gay people don't want to be married to Trample on the institution of Marriage...Nor simply to be like straight people.

The fact is...they just want and in many cases need the same benefits.

As I stated before.. Marriage is a farce in todays culture.

A divorce rate of over 50% and of the marriages that remain intact...close to 25% of those report they are unhappy.


We simply wrote to many civil rights and Benefits into the institution of Marriage.....and the Life , Liberty and Equal benefits for all caught up with us.

[Steve 'StatMan']

We sure could use a working national health plan (both parties fault!), and an easier legal system for the exchange of property, etc. Much of what this same-sex marriage issue is about benefits, transfer of estates, right to know (as in 'spouses' health), etc. Shouldn't have to feel you must keep a job to keep your health benefits. Shouldn't have to stay or pretend to be married to get/keep benefits. Then folks wouldn't need to say they are same-sex lovers like a marriage to need/keep benefits.
Sure is disturbing to a single/divorced person like myself (with no current health insurance).

If two people of the same sex are happy together, all right, I'll say fine, I'll try to be happy for them, and I'm not going to try telling them they're relationship it isn't 'special'. But calling it Marriage? Please, call is something else, or the 90+% of the married population is going to have to call ourselves something like MF-Married, or Church-Married, in the future. Besides, "married life" sadly isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I know many of the same-sex partners tend to be extreme liberals, and are upset that the right seems to be making this a campaign issue. But I sure don't remember members of the right telling people to go out and violate the laws and publicly push the limits on marriage laws, in the months leading up to the national election, either.

Sounds like another 'unpleasant something' being 'shoved down the public's throat', shall we say. ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Suff
As I stated before.. Marriage is a farce in todays culture.


You've got it wrong.

Marriage isn't a farce. It's "today's culture" that is a farce.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
You've got it wrong.

Marriage isn't a farce. It's "today's culture" that is a farce.

Excellent point. BTW..........my latest farce has lasted 18 years and gets better every day............like anything else Suff........it's all about the people involved...........and their Morals etc...........lay down with dogs and you get up with fleas.

[Larry Hamilton]

If two queers are allowed to call their relationship MARRIAGE, we can expect marriages to pets, dead people, siblings, brothers, sisters, parents and even inanimate objects, there will be no limits. Hell, you could even be married to an address.

Why is this an issue that MUST be addressed by Congress?

1) I could marry my grand son. Then, I could put him on medicare with me to share my benefits.

2) I could marry my dog, incorporate him, and become his spokesman (as he has a speech impediment) for his wealth.

3) I could marry my address, as we have lived together so long, surely, you wouldn't separate us.

4) I could marry more than one "thing" as who is to say how many or what to marry is correct.

[JustMissed]

Other than social security, aren't most benefits assignable upon death. I know life insurance is, IRAs, annunities, cash in bank, and maybe most pension and retirement plans.

Also, isn't it standard now to sign a medical document(can't remember what's it's called)to have someone make medical decisions for you.

As far as tax law goes, most special provisions have been passed to appease certain voting blocks anyway:

Home mortage interest deduction(home builder, realestate)
Charitable contrbution deduction
Child tax credits(encourage gals to work for less money)
Earned income credit(help out the poor folk)
Tution credit
Joint filing and depend excemptions, etc.

Congress can do away with these anytime they want.

I'm not a history buff but hasn't the marriage concept been around a long time. I remember it being discussed in the Old Testament of the Bible. Also seems like part of the tithe they gave the Temple went to help widows and orphans. Also seems like they didn't care much for homosexuals, so they wouldn't have anything special for them.

Maybe since the U.S. was founded on Christian values and principles and British common law, the marriage concessions that were a part of Jewish law have been incorporated into our laws.

Maybe someone that knows about this stuff would care to post.

JM

[Mike at A+]

Well, here's my 2 cents. I think that all same-sex unions should enjoy the same rights and benefits of opposite sex unions. But for heaven's sake, don't call a same-sex union a "marriage" if only for the sake of not confusing our children. Not to mention making us the laughing stock of the free world.

[Tom]

Same-sex, opposite sex, blah blah blah.,.....this whole union thing is discriminatory to signles! Why should anyone get a tax break because they live with someone? It is a person's right to choose. You dems use that argument all the time. Shouldn't my choice to be single have as much clout as some woman's right to tear her unborn baby apart witha vacumm cleaner? Pro-choice, boys-I am having my constitutional rights violated by not having the same tax rate as a mariied couple.
Your argument about seperation of church and state mandate that marriage is defined by state laws, and theses laws are illegally granting more rights to state-coupled people than single people enjoy.
This is unconstitutional.
The only way to make up for this is to pass affirmative actin taxatin laws - whereby single people enjoy huge tax breaks for the next millenium or so, becasue we have over-paid so much all these years. And I am not even going to think about reparations at this piont. But my lawyers will.
(Damn, this liberal thinking can be fun!)

[Lefty]

I don't see how people feel that the right is iniating this as a campaign issue when they started doing these same sex marriages illegally in MA and CA. Seems to me the right is just responding to an issue started by the left.
Most of the Dems are against same sex marriages but don't have the guts to vote the way the talk. Once again they want to have it both ways. Disgusting!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Be careful- only Gays can call each other Queer; onl,y blacks can call each other ******; I cannot use either tern but lots of special groups can disrespect me by calling me Boss.
I know about that stuff; I'm part Wap (but don't callme that unless you are Italian).

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Excellent point. BTW..........my latest farce has lasted 18 years and gets better every day............like anything else Suff........it's all about the people involved...........and their Morals etc...........lay down with dogs and you get up with fleas.


WELL said Ralph
I had a 85yo man ask me one time if I knew when life gets better..He told me when its almost over! He also told me he has been married 55yrs,Told me to NEVER quit COURTIN my girl.That courtship has lasted 14yrs and is stronger everyday.Like you say..DEPENDS on the people together

[delayjf]

IMHO, This whole gay agenda is about one thing... social acdeptance, not tolerance which they have now, but society viewing their lifestyle on par with Heterosexuals. In the hopes that some day society will "progress" to the point that two mothers watching their two sons playing together would wistfully postulate the future prospects of their children "getting together" It makes me sick.

It's not enough that they are free to live their lives the way they want, but now they want our churches to recognise their relationship and everyone else as well.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Yes, and base their decision for President on their lifestyle choice DURING the War on Terror (regarless of how one feels about Iraq)! THAT'S what bugs me most about it right now. They can 'live happily together' right now. They can legally lick each other as often as they want, wherever they want, no matter what I or anyones may think or care. But PLEASE! Sacrifice/Delay this one GD issue during a 'war time' and honestly base your decision for President on what really best for this country, and eventually, the free world! If the decision on who leads this country right now gets determined in a close call on this issue, it really spells doom for our country, and folks like myself sure as hell won't be as nice about this issue as I've tried to present it above.

[Lance]

"If the decision on who leads this country right now gets determined in a close call on this issue, it really spells doom for our country,"

Why?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Why?

If enough people make their decision on who leads the country during a terror war soley on who is more likely to let them marry their same-sex partner than how they would handle the terror war, and other issues, both foreign and domestic, doesn't that show a total selfishness that, whether intended or not, puts the rest of us at risk?

If those voting truly belive that the candidate they vote for will be the better choice during these challenging times, then I can really have no greivance for who they vote for. But if this issue is the only reason, or is the tie-breaker, I know I won't be happy the results, and I will lose my last bit of respect for those championing gay rights.

[Lance]

"I will lose my last bit of respect for those championing gay rights."

Why not lose your respect for those who will vote for Bush because he wants to change the Constitution to prevent states from deciding the issue?

[Steve 'StatMan']

If their anti-gay rights stand is the only reason to vote for Bush, then they too, are too narrow-minded to gain my respect.

What I am saying is, this same-sex marriage/gay rights issue shouldn't be what turns this election. Really one way or the other.

That enough people are pushing the limits of laws and the vast majority of our people's social and moral views, at this time, and trying to force the need for a political resolutions, at either state or national levels, to define this issue, is the problem.

It'd rather see us deal with this properly after the election is over, no matter who wins the election.

[Lefty]

Lance, because in states like MA and CA they have legislators and mayors who are willing to break the law and the will of the people be damned. John Kerry and Edwards do not blve in gay marriage either. They just don't have the guts to vote their conscience. They, as usual, want it both ways. That's why, Lance.

[Lance]

"If their anti-gay rights stand is the only reason to vote for Bush, then they too, are too narrow-minded to gain my respect."

That is a consistent position, Steve. Thanks.

"because in states like MA and CA they have legislators and mayors who are willing to break the law and the will of the people be damned."

The MA Supreme Court interpreted the MA law, Lefty. Some mayors are willing to violate the law. Your answer is to change the Constitution so they can violate that, too? Why not rely on the will of the people and let them handle this at the state level?

[Lefty]

nice spin, lance. Bush is not violating gay rights. Ma interpreted the Constitution? Give me a brk. What about that Mayor sin CA ? What was he doing?Ask your candidate if he blves gays should marry and when he says no, tell me he has violated gay rights. No, it's certainly not the only thing to vote for Bush on. There are many. And I will.

[Buckeye]

Originally posted by Steve'StatMan'BTW
What I am saying is, this same-sex marriage/gay rights issue shouldn't be what turns this election. Really one way or the other.
It won't.
Kerry won't say he's for them because he'd lose votes. He can't debate the issue because he can't afford to have an opinion other than "Let the States Decide"
What's his position? He wants to be President. That's nice :rolleyes:

[Lance]

Lefty,

The MA Supreme Court interpreted MA law. You don't like their interpretation. So you want to amend the US Constitution. This is a step backwards for states rights. I disagree with Bush and Kerry on this. I think gays should be allowed to marry in every state. I think gay marriage is just as legitimate as heterosexual marriage. But at this point I think it's best to leave it to the states. As for your point about the CA mayor, I don't get it. He can violate the US Constitution, too. Finally, the Constitutional Amendment appeared to prohibit civil unions, too. I think this was a horrible idea. Bush knew his amendment would not pass. He just wanted the issue.

[Steve 'StatMan']

The Pols have to say something about it, otherwise the people, or the critics, will say, 'where are our national leaders'.

I may not like it if MA descides it's legal or not. I'll try to accept it. While the MA Supreme Court may have interpreted their laws to say that same-sex marriage is not illegal, that may or may not be what the citzens of MA believes or wants.

I think the residents of MA should decide what happens in MA.

Admittedly, plenty of hetero men won't be happy when they someone asks them in they are married, and they reply "yes", then the questioner says "I didn't know you were gay!".

[Buckeye]

If gay men want to get married, it needs to be a women they're marrying, simple as that, otherwise, it's not really a "marriage" now is it?

[Lance]

Politicians can say something about it without trying to change the US Constitution. And ultimately, the people of MA are responsible for MA laws and MA courts. Indeed, the MA governor found an old, obscure state law that prohibits people from going to MA from other states for the purpose of taking advantage of MA marriage law. In other words, if your home state won't allow you to marry there, you can't get married in MA, either. That is my understanding, anyway. Please don't quote me on that.

[Lance]

Buckeye,

That depends on the law, now, doesn't it?

[Buckeye]

Lance,

My reasoning is etymological. The word marriage means something, does it not? Forget about taking a poll, forget about ammending the Constitution, forget about what the gay community says it means, simply look it up in the dictionary. A gay marriage does not appear to fit the definition.

[Lance]

Buckeye,

I understand your point, but "etymological" means the origin and DEVELOPMENT of a word. Words change meanings as conventions change. That is why it is possible for certain definitions to become archaic and be noted as such in dictionaries.

[Mike at A+]

Originally posted by Lance
Lefty,

The MA Supreme Court interpreted MA law. You don't like their interpretation. So you want to amend the US Constitution. This is a step backwards for states rights. I disagree with Bush and Kerry on this. I think gays should be allowed to marry in every state. I think gay marriage is just as legitimate as heterosexual marriage. But at this point I think it's best to leave it to the states......

I wouldn't mind leaving it to the states. As long as it was done with a POPULAR vote and not by a handful of politicians and judges.

[Lefty]

Bush didn't start this as an issue. The legislature in MA and that rogue mayor in CA did. Bush responded. He has a base that would demand a response. If gays can marry, why not polygamists and other groups? Maybe make bestiality legal. Hell the ACLU is already defending Nambla. Where does it end?

[Buckeye]

While the institution of marriage may indeed be archaic, the meaning of the word as it is applied today is well understood. I seriously doubt the meaning is ambiguous or likely to change anytime soon.`

[Tom]

Why should a couple - married or civil union0have tax advantages over a single person?
That is blatantly unfair, as a couple doesn't contribute anything to society over and above what a single person does.
I say it is a violation of my constitutional rights.

[Buckeye]

Tom,

Don't entirely agree or disagree. Couples do, at least in theory, produce future taxpayers. :)

[Lance]

Buckeye: If marriage laws change, dictionary definitions will change as well. Dictionaries follow culture. That's why they keep getting bigger and more confusing.

Lefty: I agree. Bush's base demanded a response, and Bush responded by trying to change the Constitution.

Lefty wrote: "If gays can marry, why not polygamists and other groups? Maybe make bestiality legal."

Following your logic, wouldn't it be necessary to outlaw gay sex? Would you support doing that?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Tom,

Don't entirely agree or disagree. Couples do, at least in theory, produce future taxpayers. :)


Not gay couples. Or old couples. What about abortion.
And many of them produce future social leeches as well. :p

[Buckeye]

The tax code is not attempting to punish single people. Married couples raising children are not getting rich because of preferential treatment. The benefits they do derive are intended to support their enterprize, and society has deemed it worthy to do that. I don't think it's unfair or unconstituional to favor to some degree the children as we all once were.

[Lefty]

lance, how can you take a logical argument and twist it so? I don't give a damn what anybody does in the privacy of their bedroom as long as it doesn't involve children.
The Constitution has been amended plenty and it's time to do it again.

[Lance]

Lefty,

I certainly don't want to twist your logic, so please explain to me what your logic was when you wrote this:

"If gays can marry, why not polygamists and other groups? Maybe make bestiality legal"

Is this a slippery-slope argument?

[Lefty]

Of course it's the old "slippery slope" and you know it. If gays get their way, you don't think other groups will try for theirs? And saying would I outlaw sex for gays is just changing the argument.
2000 yrs marriage has been between aman and a woman. Works for me.

[delayjf]

Lance,

I'd say it is. Nambla exist solely for the purpose of lowering the age of legal consent. In short they want to legalize or normalize having sex with what are now considered minors. You can't tell me that their are not poligamist out there that also want their "rights" as well. Bottom line, either Society can define marriage as it see's fit or it cannot. If it cannot, then nobody can challenge anybody on what the defination of marriage is.

I firmly believe that society has the right to establish and enforce the traditions and morals through it's laws. This is the problem that secularist have with the religious majority, they don't like to be judged by society when they want to deviant from the norm. They want to live a "life without limits" as one of my liberal friends puts it. I'm not advocating outlawing Gay sex. But like it or not, society puts a stigma on gays, which I believe Society have the right to do, as long as they don't violate their individual constitutional rights. America as a whole tolerates gays but they really don't want to associate with the gay community. They're fine as long as they are in San Francisco or the Village, but they don't want to live next to them.

I would be happy to let the states decide the issue, but the gay movement has always lost at the ballot box, their only victories have come from judges.

Another thing that has occurred to me is that two heterosexual people may get "married" just for the benefits that come with the license.

[Lance]

Lefty, Delayjf,

OK, you two are going with the slippery-slope argument. Please let me ask you this: Why is gay marriage a move DOWN the slope? Why not consider it a move UP the slope, if you will? Lefty, you mentioned your concern that gay marriage could lead to the legalization of bestiality. This is why I asked if you would outlaw gay sex. By raising an issue (bestiality) that isn't directly related to marriage, you opened the door to me questioning you about matters of laws on behind-closed-doors sex.

The slippery-slope argument can be used against opposite-sex marriage, too. If we continue to let men marry women, soon we will have people who want to marry their phone books or their dogs. I consider the slippery-slope argument to be illegitimate because it can be used against ANYTHING. If someone claims that we should spend some money on national defense, someone else will say: "If we spend 500 billion on national defense this year, eventually we will end up spending ALL our money on national defense, and there will be no money for food. We will be well-defended, but we will starve to death. It's a weak argument, I think. The check on the slippery slope is the people. We can refuse to permit laws allowing people to marry their dogs, and we can refuse to spend all our money on national defense.

Delayjf wrote: "Another thing that has occurred to me is that two heterosexual people may get "married" just for the benefits that come with the license."

You mean homosexual, right? After correcting the typo, let me ask you whether heterosexual people might do the same thing. If so, is this an argument for outlawing heterosexual marriage?

[Lance]

Delayjf,

I'm sorry. Now I see that it was not a typo. You meant heterosexual. Still, I think the same point applies. Different-sex couples could get married for this reason, too.

[Lefty]

Lance, marriage between a man and a woman been the norm over 2000 yrs. So, the same arguments DO NOT apply.

[delayjf]

Lance,

My point is that society as it now exist has a standard for Marriage that being one man and one woman. Yes, it is a religious (Christian view point), but none the less one shared by the majority of people in this country. If you allow another group (in this case gays) to redefine marriage, how can you then deny the same privilage to other groups as well. This would dbe akin to dening civil rights to Asians or Hispanics, while doing so only for blacks. Nambla will claim their right to "pursue happiness" as will the poligamist or those who think incest is OK . It's all a matter of were do you draw the line. If socity today can't hold the line against gay marriage, and if the Gay movement prevails, how could anyone expect the line not to move further to the left. Right now, society says no, IMHO, the courts have an obligation to listen to them.

Concerning the marriages of convience. I don't know if it will become common or not. Only that the thought had occurred to me that if we diminsh the institution of marriage to the point that it has turned into a way around the tax code or insurance benefits, more and more people might file for a marriage license just for that purpose.

[Lance]

Lefty wrote: "Lance, marriage between a man and a woman been the norm over 2000 yrs. So, the same arguments DO NOT apply."

First of all, Lefty, the Bible is full of polygamy, but I'll accept your terms for the sake of argument. Here's my point. 2000 years ago, marriage was between one man and one woman. That was the norm. 600 years later, Muslims were taking four wives. 1850 years later, Mormons were taking 40 wives. The slope appeared slippery. But culture evolved, and in the US, at least, polygamy is illegal and the laws against it are actually being enforced somewhat. The point is that slippery slopes can be avoided if people are intent on avoiding them. If we don't want gay marriage leading back to polygamy, we can prevent it from leading back to polygamy.

[Steve 'StatMan']

We don't have polygamy here because our wives won't let us! :D

[Lance]

Steve: If you've been watching Jeopardy recently, you'll agree that the champion right now, a Mormon, should be allowed to marry every woman in Utah. It will improve the breed.

[Lance]

delayjf wrote:

"My point is that society as it now exist has a standard for Marriage that being one man and one woman. Yes, it is a religious (Christian view point), but none the less one shared by the majority of people in this country."

I agree.

"If you allow another group (in this case gays) to redefine marriage, how can you then deny the same privilage to other groups as well."

By denying it. That's my problem with slippery-slope arguments. They presume determinism where none exists.

"This would dbe akin to dening civil rights to Asians or Hispanics, while doing so only for blacks."

I would argue that denying gays the right to marry is analogous to this situation.

"Nambla will claim their right to "pursue happiness""

And if they act on it, we can put them in jail.

"as will the poligamist"

He, too, can be put in jail if he acts on it.

"It's all a matter of were do you draw the line."

I agree. I would draw the line after allowing gays to marry. You wouldn't. We have an honest disagreement. My job is to convince you I'm right. I have a hunch I will fail, but I've enjoyed the discussion.

"if the Gay movement prevails, how could anyone expect the line not to move further to the left."

By people like you and me preventing the line from moving further to the left.

"Right now, society says no, IMHO, the courts have an obligation to listen to them."

The courts will listen. But that's not their job. Their job is to interpret the law.

"Concerning the marriages of convience. I don't know if it will become common or not. Only that the thought had occurred to me that if we diminsh the institution of marriage to the point that it has turned into a way around the tax code or insurance benefits, more and more people might file for a marriage license just for that purpose."

This is a problem (pretty minor, really) with marriage in general. It's not specific to gay marriage. I have a hard time believing that allowing gays to marry will cause more heterosexuals to marry for financial reasons. Some gays will get married for financial reasons, but, again, this is an argument that can be thrown at marriage in general.

[Lefty]

Yes, I know Bible full of Polygamy but here we are with marriage between 1 man 1 woman being the norm. You say we can stop the slip from the left to polygamy. Well, if we allow gay marriage it will be much harder to stop the slip to the left as it will become a shove. Like it or not this is mostly a Christian Nation and the majority should rule. Bring on the amendment.

[Lance]

Like it or not, our elected representatives killed the amendment. I guess they read the polls.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Buckeye
The tax code is not attempting to punish single people. Married couples raising children are not getting rich because of preferential treatment. The benefits they do derive are intended to support their enterprize, and society has deemed it worthy to do that. I don't think it's unfair or unconstituional to favor to some degree the children as we all once were.

Allowing gays to marry isnot supporting society. Elderly peple marrying wtih no childdren are not getting a tax break to help them raise a family.
I am serious about this, and I am seeking legall advice-I have no doubt I can find a wakco laywer to get this rolling. There is no reason to give tax breaks to married couples and not to single people. It is discrimination and I am not going to sit here and be exploited. As a homeonwner, I am requried to pay school taxes and I do not derive benifits from those hoodlums wasting 12 years and then graduating not knowing how to read and write. We are using my tax money to fund future liberal welfare recipients, who I also have to support. Screw that.
Take this example.
Three guys - two gays and me. We all live in house next to each other. The tow gay guys get married and now have a tax break., I dont and get none.
This is fair? I pay more because I am normal????
THIS is why I consider democrates more of a threat than Al Qeada. The DNC is an amoral, bottom feeding organization of sick wackos out to destroy this country.