Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8?

[yongrel]

Total bullshit. The LAW should establish equal rights to every citizen of every STATE. Thus, marriage should not be FEDERALLY MANDATED and should be left up to the STATES' citizenship, which you are voicifericiously against.

Hate to break it to ya, but the tenth amendment doesn't give the states permission to be unjust.

 

[revolutionary8]

Hate to break it to ya, but the tenth amendment doesn't give the states permission to be unjust.

What is "unjust" about states' rights? You don't like it- MOVE.

 

[Kludge]

What is "unjust" about states' rights? You don't like it- MOVE.

Injustice shouldn't be tolerated at any level. If we can prevent states from imposing unjust laws on their people, we ought to. I'm a human before a Michigander and/or an American.

 

[yongrel]

What is "unjust" about states' rights? You don't like it- MOVE.

Oh FFS... this isn't about states rights. This is about the government applying he law differently to its citizens based on their sexual orientation. The law should apply the same to everyone, regardless.

If the government is going to allow two people to enter into a binding legal contract, they should allow any two people. To permit heterosexual couples to enter into this contract and not allow homosexual couples the same privilege is injustice. Clearly in this situation, all of California's citizens are not equal in the eyes of the law.

States rights have nothing at all to do with this.

 

[revolutionary8]

Injustice shouldn't be tolerated at any level. If we can prevent states from imposing unjust laws on their people, we ought to. I'm a human before a Michigander and/or an American.

What is an unjust law? FORCING their citizens to gain a LICENSE before marriage?
I would say so. Why in God's name homosexuals are BEGGING for regulation and taxation is beyond me.
Heterosexuals were duped, why on EARTH homos would FIGHT for the same is beyond comprehension and complete insanity, IMO.
(unless they were duped themselves of course by TBTB)

 

[revolutionary8]

Oh FFS... this isn't about states rights. This is about the government applying he law differently to its citizens based on their sexual orientation. The law should apply the same to everyone, regardless.

If the government is going to allow two people to enter into a binding legal contract, they should allow any two people. To permit heterosexual couples to enter into this contract and not allow homosexual couples the same privilege is injustice. Clearly in this situation, all of California's citizens are not equal in the eyes of the law.

States rights have nothing at all to do with this.

replace taxation and regulation with "Law" in your diatribe. It is the same. You automatically accuse me of being anti- rights by your diatribe. I am quite the opposite...
I am anti- taxation and anti-regulation, and thus pro-freedom.

 

[yongrel]

replace taxation and regulation with "Law" in your diatribe. It is the same. You automatically accuse me of being anti- rights by your diatribe. I am quite the opposite...
I am anti- taxation and anti-regulation, and thus pro-freedom.

Way to totally avoid the argument. Well done.
:bunchies:

 

[revolutionary8]

Way to totally avoid the argument. Well done.
:bunchies:

I didn't avoid anything. state your question. :bunchies:
Once again,
I am anti regulation, and anti taxation, and ESPECIALLY without representation. I do NOT feel that marraige should be regulated, licensed or taxed- whether it be between a man and a woman or a man and a sheep or a trolluping llama for that matter...
read my sig.

 

[yongrel]

I didn't avoid anything. state your question. :bunchies:
Once again,
I am anti regulation, and anti taxation. I do NOT feel that marraige should be regulated, licensed or taxed.

You said that this was an issue of states rights, to which I responded that no government has the right to be unjust. If a law is to exist, it must apply to all people the same as a prerequisite to being just. Proposition 8 is not just, for it applies the same law differently to citizens.

Your only response to this was a nonsequitar about taxation and regulation, which does not respond at all to my point about what makes laws just.

I agree that marriage is a nongovernmental issue, but that is not the matter at hand. If marriage exists as a legal institution, it must exist for all citizens.

 

[revolutionary8]

You said that this was an issue of states rights, to which I responded that no government has the right to be unjust. If a law is to exist, it must apply to all people the same as a prerequisite to being just. Proposition 8 is not just, for it applies the same law differently to citizens.

Your only response to this was a nonsequitar about taxation and regulation, which does not respond at all to my point about what makes laws just.

I agree that marriage is a nongovernmental issue, but that is not the matter at hand. If marriage exists as a legal institution, it must exist for all citizens.

if your state votes to abolish Gay Marriage, and you do not like it,
Move.

What will happen when the federal Government, or WORLD Government votes to abolish gay marriage?
where will you go then?
This is why states' rights are so important.
Relax, in another 2 years they will have it on the ballot again, and it just might pass, but until then, FTLOG, stave off the feds... KAY????

 

[yongrel]

if your state votes to abolish Gay Marriage, and you do not like it,
Move.

What will happen when the federal Government, or WORLD Government votes to abolish gay marriage?
where will you go then?
This is why states' rights are so important.
Relax, in another 2 years they will have it on the ballot again, and it just might pass, but until then, FTLOG, stave off the feds... KAY????

You seem to be missing my point. The ability for me to leave its jurisdiction is not an excuse for a law being wrong. I can leave the District of Columbia any time I want, but that doesn't mean the insane gun laws here aren't insane and wrong. I can leave America any time I want, but that's no excuse for the Patriot Act.

Government has a responsibility and obligation to be just. My ability to leave its purview does not make any law automatically legitimate.

Proposition 8 is unjust, and I don't understand why it's so hard for some folks here to admit that point.

 

[revolutionary8]

You seem to be missing my point. The ability for me to leave its jurisdiction is not an excuse for a law being wrong. I can leave the District of Columbia any time I want, but that doesn't mean the insane gun laws here aren't insane and wrong. I can leave America any time I want, but that's no excuse for the Patriot Act.

Government has a responsibility and obligation to be just. My ability to leave its purview does not make any law automatically legitimate.

Proposition 8 is unjust, and I don't understand why it's so hard for some folks here to admit that point.

No Yongrel,
I stated your point earlier in this thread:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

-Ron Paul (was right)- October 1, 2004

Prop 8 is another Gloria Steinem (feminist style *homosexual*movement) CIA controlled psyop.

And before you bash me:

The New York Times, February 21, 1967
New York freelance writer disclosed yesterday that the Central Intelligence Agency had supported a foundation that sent hundreds of Americans to World Youth Festivals in Vienna in 1959 and Helsinki, Finland, in 1962.

Gloria Steinem, a 30-year-old graduate of Smith College, said the C.I.A. has been a major source of funds for the foundation, the Independence [sic -- Independent] Research Service, since its formation in 1958. Almost all of the young persons who received aid from the foundation did not know about the relationship with the intelligence agency, Miss Steinem said. Ironically, she said, many of the students who attended the festivals have been criticized as leftists. The festivals are supposed to be financed by contributions from national student unions, but are, in fact, largely supported by the Soviet Union.

Miss Steinem said she had become convinced that American students should participate in the World Youth Festivals after she spent two years in India.

"I came home in 1958 full of idealism and activism, to discover that very little was being done," she said. "Students were not taken seriously here before the civil rights movement, and private money receded at the mention of a Communist youth festival."

 

[nickcoons]

if your state votes to abolish Gay Marriage, and you do not like it,
Move.

This statement presupposes that the state government has the right to abolish non-violent activities in the first place, which is a very anti-freedom position to take.

 

[libertea]

The government has no business in the marriage business. Marriage licenses were originally issued to control inter-racial marriage. The heterosexuals should be the ones rising up to get the government out of their business.

Did George and Martha get a "license" to get married? Hell no. It is nobodies F'n business except the 2 individuals involved.

We have a government that robs us blind and kills thousands in the process and we have to waste time on this. Although I do not agree in principal, I would be willing to give the gays anything they want in order to not have to waste time on this ever again. If the gays would put as much effort into ending the fed, the IRS or the empire, they, and everyone else, would be considerably better of than a few "benefits" that they are whining about.

Why is the "Gay" movement so much more effective than the "Freedom" movement? Doesn't freedom appeal to everybody?

Gays please help us help everybody and everybody wins. You are effective at what you do, why not make it count?

 

[revolutionary8]

This statement presupposes that the state government has the right to abolish non-violent activities in the first place, which is a very anti-freedom position to take.

I see your perspective, but I am looking at it from the point of liberty. You have the liberty to move out of a state if the state becomes too heavily burdened by unjust "law" or unjust regulation. This is the beauty of States' rights- one can move to a different state w/in the union that is less inhibitive per say. Federal law is more difficult to escape.
This is my point= I don't mean to be "one of those people" who shout, "You hate the US, move to Canada!"- that is not my intention. I also believe that if certain states seek to abolish abortion, those states should be allowed to do so. By the same token, I believe that if certain states wish to pass laws that would allow terminally ill patients to take their own lives and relieve themselves of suffering, they should be able to do so.
Works both ways.

libertea,
exactly.It is MO, that the Feds and TBTB are behind the rainbow movement, just like they were behind the feminist movement. If "we", as individuals, can learn to respect states' rights, and individualism (state) over collectivism (fed gov), then we might have a chance at overcoming ulterior motives that undoubtedly exist in the shadows of separatism whittling away at higher levels...

 

[lucius]

...Why is the "Gay" movement so much more effective than the "Freedom" movement? Doesn't freedom appeal to everybody?...

Read After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of social engineering techniques once cataloged by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.

In their book Kirk and Madsen urged that gay activists adopt the very strategies that helped change the political face of the largest nation on earth. The authors knew the techniques had worked in China. All they needed was enough media-and enough money, which was provided by large foundations, such as the Rockefeller--to put them to work in the United States. And they did. These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.

The gay activists aims are for a redefinition of marriage. Gay activists now routinely name themselves as often and as publicly as possible as they wish to be defined. They strive to make the language used to describe them indicate that same-sex couples are "families" with the same values and child-rearing potential as heterosexuals. Paula Ettelbrick, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund proposes: "The norm in this society should be recognizing families in the way that they are self-defined." Just how far can repositioning of this idea go? Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, tells us: "[Gays] hold sacred seeds. . . . [T]o be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or struggle around gender is literally a gift from God and we [gays] have an enormous amount to teach this nation.", which leads to another book, Dennis Altman's The Homosexualization of America.

In 1982 Altman, himself gay, reported with an air of elation that more and more Americans were thinking like gays and acting like gays. There were engaged, that is, "in numbers of short-lived sexual adventures either in place of or alongside long-term relationships." Altman cited the heterosexual equivalents of gay saunas and the emergence of the swinging singles scene as proofs that "promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

The elite push this lifestyle/social-engineering, for it is applied eugenics, generally a reduce lifespan , don't have children and easier to control.

Once again, it is not my business what people do in the privacy of their homes, but I now understand why this degenerative lifestyle is being promoted by the elite, which was initially discovered by the 1954 U.S. Congressional Reece Committee.

 

[revolutionary8]

lucius wrote:

The elite push this lifestyle/social-engineering, for it is applied eugenics, generally a reduce lifespan , don't have children and easier to control.

Yes they do. It is undeniably difficult to not only raise a child with 2 moms or 2 dads, (or one for that matter) but it is near impossible for them to adopt.
It's sad.
Thank you for the documentation. I had always suspected the Rocks...

"promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

Must agree.
You take what you get.

 

[Conservative Christian]

The number of obvious social conservatives (AKA bigots) on this site is disgusting. Usually it's the very same people who backed a theocrat for president and are obsessed with "reviving" their precious GOP.

According to your dubious logic, Ron Paul is a bigot!


"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage....In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

--Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

 

[Quinn Rogness]

Same-sex couples deserve every right that heterosexual couples get. Our Constitution aimed to shoot down discrimination and by not allowing gays to get married defies our Constitution that our country should be based off of.

 

[JohnMeridith]

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage