In response to:

Support for Same-sex Marriage Crosses Party Lines

USMC63 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 8:09 PM
Same sex marriage is not about equality, that could be done with legal contracts with specific language, but about being legally declared as normal as heterosexual marriage. Funny thing is, a majority of humans on this planet know it is not normal, or we would not be having this argument. You can call a pig a horse but it does not make it so!
DagNabbit Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 9:15 PM
"Normal" is not a requirement to be a law abiding citizen in this country. Assuming you mean STATISTICALLY normal. Any other kind of normal is just your opinion, which means nothing in terms of the law.
Troglodite Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 9:31 PM
There are probably dozens of places in case and statute law where an appeal is made to the judgement of a reasonable person. In such a context, "reasonable" means "normal" and opinion does matter quite a bit. In fact, the opinion of twelve presumably normal people could mean the difference between a long spell in prison (or even a death sentence) and an acquittal.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 8:14 PM
USMC63 Wrote: 0 minutes ago (8:09 PM)
Same sex marriage is not about equality, that could be done with legal contracts with specific language

......

Sir it can not be done with contracts, Multiple court cases point to that, Immigration, taxes, employee health insurance, military housing etc
retire05 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 8:36 PM
Just as multiple court cases have upheld the wills, power of attorney, insurance death benefit assignments, et al between same sex couples.

BTW, the military is not a democracy. Just as any grunt who wants to date an officer.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 8:41 PM
retire05 Wrote: 1 minute ago (8:36 PM)
Just as multiple court cases have upheld the wills, power of attorney, insurance death benefit assignments, et al between same sex couples.

BTW, the military is not a democracy. Just as any grunt who wants to date an officer. ............

Yes but of course that still leaves Hundreds of benefits Not doable by contract. And I retired in 09, never said the Military was a Democracy but if the Enlisted or Officer gets out they can marry the one still in and they get all the benefits of marriage.
retire05 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 8:57 PM
What "hundreds" of benefits not doable by contract? That is a pretty vague statement. Be specific. Name the hundreds.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 9:09 PM
Look at taxes and immigration for starters. The gov lists out 1100 legal benefits the Federal Gov gives to married couples.

Here is an actual case. Two Female Postal workers. One gets married to a man one to a woman. Both live in Massachusetts. the one marrying the man, gets to put her spouse on her insurance, the other one does not. No contract will change that.
retire05 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 9:28 PM
Your Massachussetts example is only an example of employment based insurance benefits, not government benefits. Many companies give "domestic partner" insurance benefits.

As to taxes: I suggest you look at the normal deduction rates. The personal deduction for a married couple is double (as in two) what it is for a single person. No more, no less. So in reality, there is no benefit in filing a joint return since you could get the same personal deduction by filing "single.

The only benefit married couples get is a $255.00 Social Security Death Benefit. Now, if all a gay relationship is worth is $255.00, it's not much of a relationship. So give me some better example of your claim of 1,100 legal benefits.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 9:34 PM
No i said POSTAL workers as in US POST office, which is Federal Government.

As to taxes that is not true that I would get the same if I filed single. I have been married 25 years and get a large savings by filing jointly ever since my wife stopped working for pay over 20 years ago.

Not only do they get a social Security benefit they get estate tax benefits. a will does not eliminate that. That is another case currently before the Supreme Court. Then there is immigration, military housing, and others.

You can ignore it all you want but these cases are going forward
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 10:12 PM
You must never have filed taxes. If I filed as a single person as you say last year and I took the standard deduction, (I didnt) on income of 120K I would have taken 3,600 as you say. How much of a deduction would the wife have?

She would have a ZERO deduction because she earned NO income!

The USPS employer benefits ARE determined by the Federal Gov and it is DOMA that is used to deny them to couples. Same with the military, see the case of Gil V OPMA.

retire05 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 9:46 PM
So, you really know nothing about tax laws. Thanks for proving that.

Check the deductions on the IRS website. In 2011, the standard personal deduction for a single person was $3,600. For a married couple it was $7,200. You do the math. The standard deduction for a married couple (not personal exemption) was $10,600, $5,300 for a single person.

"No i said POSTAL workers as in US POST office, which is Federal Government"

The USPS is a quasi-government agency. But it is still the same, employer benefits which are determined by the employer, not the government.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 10:17 PM
"estate tax benefits," those tax laws apply to everyone, married or not.

Not at all true. There is a spousal exception. See again it is YOU that know nothing of taxes. See the case of Windsor which the SC will here in full this month.

Windsor was legally married according to her state NY when her spouse died, She was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes
retire05 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 9:48 PM
So, you really know nothing about tax laws. Thanks for proving that.

Check the deductions on the IRS website. In 2011, the standard personal deduction for a single person was $3,600. For a married couple it was $7,200. You do the math. The standard deduction for a married couple (not personal exemption) was $10,600, $5,300 for a single person.

"No i said POSTAL workers as in US POST office, which is Federal Government"

The USPS is a quasi-government agency. But it is still the same, employer benefits which are determined by the employer, not the government.

"estate tax benefits," those tax laws apply to everyone, married or not. If I leave my estate to my cousin, or best friend, they are held to the same estate tax laws
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 10:50 PM
Now you are catching on Retire,,,,,, You wrote retire05 Wrote: 1 minute ago (10:41 PM)
Your wife would not have had to file a tax return because she paid no taxes. No taxes paid, no exemptions or deductions.

Correct. So married filing jointly we get a 10K deduction but if we each file singly we get a 5K deduction. By filing jointly we get a bigger deduction then separately because MY income is her income. That is a benefit denied same sex married couples. Also since we are married she gets an IRA deduction (we didnt do Roth) She would not get the IRA ability without me.

And no I was talking about the tax benefits I described and the one being challenged in the Supreme Court

retire05 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 11:05 PM
Think about this: if you were not married, and your wife earned nothing, she would get all kinds of welfare benefits. And if she was too ill to work, or could present some kind of hinderance to working, she would be eligible for SSDI.
Just had this conversation with my CPA. He told me it is disheartening how many couples are getting divorced to save on taxes. But hey, same sex marriage will only serve to make divorce lawyers richer. And that's what the nation need, right?
retire05 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 10:41 PM
Your wife would not have had to file a tax return because she paid no taxes. No taxes paid, no exemptions or deductions.

Now, let's say you are a married couple and one, the husband, collects Social Security. His wife is still working. His Social Security is not considered taxable, UNTIL they file a joint return at which time 85% of his SS becomes joint income and is now taxable ant the joint earnings rate. Many times that amount will bump a couple into a higher tax bracket. So where is the marriage benefit? There isn't any. The woman can take all the deductions allowed by law (personal, itemized) if they are divorced, lower her tax rate and he pays no taxes on his Social Security.
Is that a benefit you were talking about?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 11:14 PM
Think about what you are saying retired! You already showed that by being married we save 5K on taxes at least. Those are YOUR numbers.

Now you change the subject to if I divorce her she could get Welfare? I thought we were talking about taxes?

About benefits that married couples get? We dont want welfare. We are not Democrats. But we do want every legally married couple to be treated the same!
In an opinion article in the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman announced that he has changed his mind and now supports same-sex marriage.

He wrote that on learning that one of his sons is gay he "wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister."

He is not the only prominent Republican to come to this view in this way. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is another.

And at the Conservative Political Action Committee convention, a panel sponsored by the...