New Jersey Gay Marriage: State Senate Passes Bill Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Bunch of opinion...gibberish..a dash of playing obtuse... no documentation and no credibility. Just as it usually is with you Rahl. I'm going to save my time and energy responding to actual debaters who actually bring a discussion, and not get caught up in a 10 page "no you are!!!" with you.. Ive already presented more than you care to actually read and digest.

 

That same segment that Governments are validating and installing...over the will of the people....while at the same time penalizing other people, for other choices they deem "unhealthy"

Really Rahl, noone could miss the hypocrisy. Play obtuse with someone else please.

Good bye Rahl.

 

Whether the state is consistent and whether it's a majority opinion is irrelevant if the rule or law is unconstitutional. Which, I predict is just a matter of time before the SC weighs in on the debate and they have a long track record of ruling in favor of civil rights.

 

The gay lifestyle is twice as deadly as smoking.

I expect the progressives to tax them accordingly, and increase their ObamaCare taxes....

 

Uncosntitutional is the key. i dont believe targeted , discriminatory taxation would hold up there either...but noones challenging it it seems.

 

civil rights???? wtf??

They have the same rights as everyone else.

 

Yup, people who hold your opinion on this matter better hope it never makes it to the high court.

What tax are you talking about?

 

run away all you want. I've read and digested what you've presented. besides being wrong, it's also irrelevant. I agree with you that sin taxes are stupid. But, as long as the govn't remains in the marriage business, they are bound by the 14th amendment to apply equal protection to same sex couples if they are going to license and sanction opposite sex couples the basic civil right of marriage(as defined by SCOTUS in loving v virginia)

 

Sin Taxes of course. When you determine one mans pleasure is a sin...and another mans is not, youve got a problem with consistancy which could be seen as discriminatory by the segment who is being targetted with the taxes.

Here in Massachusetts the state makes more on a pack of smokes than RJ reynolds does. And stories have shown the money did not go to the causes they claimed it would when they pushed the taxes through.

They put the money right into the general fund to be squandered as they see fit.

It's hard to see it as anything BUT a group of people simply wanting more cash in their pockets, and stealing from a segment theyve already demonized.

 

Ahh, well those are Pigovian (look it up if you're unfamiliar) in nature. Essentially your behavior inflicts costs on society that you don't pay for directly, sin taxes attempts to recoup those negative externalities. What costs you ask? Like increased health care costs and the damage done by second hand smoke.

 

Thats correct. The gay life style is twice as deadly as a smoker lifestyle.

 

run away all you want. I've read and digested what you've presented. besides being wrong, it's also irrelevant. I agree with you that sin taxes are stupid. But, as long as the govn't remains in the marriage business, they are bound by the 14th amendment to apply equal protection to same sex couples if they are going to license and sanction opposite sex couples the basic civil right of marriage(as defined by SCOTUS in loving v virginia)

 

Ok Rahl,

I appreciate that we do have some common ground. glad to see we are both on the same page with Sin taxes..so Ill offer you an apology of sorts of I came off rash to you as that is the crux of my gripe.

As to the 14th, all that needs to be shown is that all PEOPLE are afforded the same rights. The constitution doesnt deal with dispensing rights to Couples vs Singles..it hands them out on a humanity basis. All men etc etc.
So to be ok in the eyes of the 14th all we need to have is the open ability for any person to get affordede the same chances as another person. This is how it is right now. Every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.
If a Gay man brings a Woman to the church to get married and they turn him down..then you would have a valid breach and a case of inequal treatment. Just because the ruleset that we all are afforded isnt what someone might like it to be doesnt mean the 14th isnt being upheld.

As to Loving vs Virginia...this was solely about race. Nothing else. IIRC a NY court already ruled that Loving vs Virginia was not to be applied to anything else, as this was tried already. It solely applied to race.

 

and I've already agreed with you that sin taxes are stupid. the will of the people is irrelevant. a majority can't vote away the rights of the minority. that's why we're a republic and not a democracy.

run away, run away

 

Most all states still annul or dissolve marriages for a failure to consummate the relationship, for a lack of sexuality in the relationship, and you worked in the requirement of "non related". In other words, narrowed it down to "the gays", like I said.

 

Bullcrap.
Redefining marriage to suit homosexuals is IDIOCY, and it has been proven here again, and again, that there is NO difference in the law for gays than anyone else.

Give each other POA,and stop trying to FORCE your choices into everyone else's lives.

Redefining marriage SHOULD be voted on by the People of the state,as it concerncs them ALL, not just the Gay Guevaras...

 

Or by the spread of AIDS?

Heres another thought. Do you get second hand smoke exposure from Pre Packaged Cigarettes only? Or would you also get some if I stuff my own Smokes? We both know the answer of course...both would do it..however only the Pre Rolled Cigs are getting taxed out the wazoo. Ive reduced the cost of my smoking by 75% (or more), by simply buying the bags of tobacco and rolling my own. It just doesnt hold up to me to be about anything other than free revenue, from a segment you demonzied to the point where the public is ojk to see that segment robbed.

guess only SOME forms of tobacco are unhealthy? Or is it simply a poorly thought out revenue scheme?


Now what about the fat guy? if I weigh 400 pounds...what does it do to you?

I put no stock into the "cost to your fellow man" argument, as smokers live shorrter lives according to studies...so you non smokers will owe ME some money. ill be saving on healthcare that youc an use. On top of that, if cost to your fellows was a valid concern why are we not taxing the heck out of Illegals when they show up at the ER?

No...the cost is an enabler argument, just like the healthy argument IMO. Just an enabler that can get past the people, while the hand is deeper in your pocket.

 

really? two men or two women can marry in every state? when did this happen?

 

No, just like the heterosexuals, they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. SAME rights as opposed to special rights provided for the homosexuals.

 

Let's just say I go along with your premise that AIDS is an issue because of homosexuals. Then the argument becomes one of needing to tax the behavior, not ban it. Unless you want to be consistent and say we should ban cigs, and I don't think you want to do that.

Imposes higher health care costs, however no direct costs like with cigarettes and second hand smoke.

Doesn't matter whether you put stock in it or not, it's a simple matter of fact. Those deaths aren't natural and drive up the cost of HC for everyone.

If you want to talk about Pigovian taxes we can make a thread for that, but it's off topic for the civil rights issue we're discussing.

Nope a long understood economic principle and not one that's terrible hard to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

 

But, the rights havent been shown to have been voted away. We all are issued the same rights, on a basis of humanity..not sexual preferences. We all have the same rights now. We the people...not we the straight people, gay people, black people, white people...it makes no such distinction, and therefore exects us all the simply exist with the fair protections it already offers us.

if you want them to be something more thats one thing, but claiming there is a disparity in rights simply doesnt show itself to be true. My opinion of course.

 

I appreciate that, and also apologize if I came off as rash.

the problem with this line of reasoning is it has already been ruled unconstitutional. this same argument was used for interracial marriage. "everyone has the same right to marry a person of the same race"

that particular case was solely about race, but when the court declared marriage a basic civil right, this brought the 14th amendments protection into play. more and more federal courts are overturning bans on same sex marriage. This issue will inevitably be decided in the supreme court.

 

no state will annul of dissolve a marriage for a failure to consumate. a party in the marriage must seek this action.

nope. any non releated same sex couple. sexuality is irrelevant.

 

failed argument. this didn't work for interracial marriages either.

 

California's prop 8

except same sex couples are being denied the right to marry.

I disagree. this is the same argument used against interracial marriages. everyone had the equal right to marry someone of the same race.