Foamy On Gay Marriage

[repeter1977]

Foamy always has some great points, and usually pretty funny as well. Should the government be involved in so much, no. But, since it is, might as well have it start to recognize everyone's marriage. Maybe Im missing the big point on why everyone is so against it. Its not my cup of tea, but I know why they want to be recognized. For the same reason that straight people want their marriage recognized. They want to know their loved one will be taken care of after they leave the world. Hell, we have people leaving their estates to dogs and cats, but we draw the line at gay lovers? Even funnier, if they are straight lovers, they can be covered too. Yep, makes perfect sense. Hell, the way some guys try to get out of marrying a girlfriend, you would think they would speak out against straight marriage, so they have an excuse not to marry, haha

 

[Pocketman]

You're absolutely right.
The government has no business being involved in the marriage business.

To back this up, my girlfriend and I are getting married next month.

We're going to have our minister marry us, but we AREN'T going to get a state "marriage license".
Our personal beliefs are that God marries us and not the government.
(others are free to have their own beliefs)

Instead of a state "marriage license", we'll cover the CIVIL bases with Wills, Powers of Attorney, joint ownerships, etc.

We don't want our marriage to be a "threesome" with the government.

On the subject of "gay marriage", there's no legal reason why gay people couldn't do the same thing my girlfriend and I are doing.

Does this arrangement exclude you from the IRS marriage penalty?

 

[edporch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
You're absolutely right.
The government has no business being involved in the marriage business.

To back this up, my girlfriend and I are getting married next month.

We're going to have our minister marry us, but we AREN'T going to get a state "marriage license".
Our personal beliefs are that God marries us and not the government.
(others are free to have their own beliefs)

Instead of a state "marriage license", we'll cover the CIVIL bases with Wills, Powers of Attorney, joint ownerships, etc.

We don't want our marriage to be a "threesome" with the government.

On the subject of "gay marriage", there's no legal reason why gay people couldn't do the same thing my girlfriend and I are doing.

Does this arrangement exclude you from the IRS marriage penalty?

I believe it does, because the IRS won't consider us married.
(Though I'm not a lawyer)

According to the IRS: (see section "Marital Status: Considered Married")
Publication 17 (2011), Your Federal Income Tax

1. You are married and living together as husband and wife. (N/A)
2. You are living together in a common law marriage that is recognized in the state where you now live or in the state where the common law marriage began. (N/A)
3. You are married and living apart, but not legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance. (N/A)
4. You are separated under an interlocutory (not final) decree of divorce. For purposes of filing a joint return, you are not considered divorced. (N/A)

According to Indiana law as I read it, a marriage done without a "marriage license" is not a valid (or "solemnized") marriage.

"Marriage license required to marry
Sec. 1. Before two (2) individuals may marry each other, the individuals must obtain a marriage license under this chapter."

Indiana has also not recognized "Common Law" marriage since 1958.
"IC 31-11-8-5
Common law marriages entered into after January 1, 1958
Sec. 5. A marriage is void if the marriage is a common law marriage that was entered into after January 1, 1958."

I plan to live with her but keep my nearby present residence which is just in my name.
So to the government, we will simply be two people filing Individual Tax Returns.

 

[CarmelHP]

Hell, we have people leaving their estates to dogs and cats, but we draw the line at gay lovers? Even funnier, if they are straight lovers, they can be covered too.

I must have missed that day in Wills & Trusts class. Who says you can't leave an estate to your gay lover?

 

[Pocketman]

Does this arrangement exclude you from the IRS marriage penalty?

...
I believe it does, because the IRS won't consider us married.
(Though I'm not a lawyer) ...

There have been changes to the tax code that lessens the marriage penalty, but there can still be advantages of filing as single. My taxes went up several thousand dollars when I got married.

 

[sepe]

Gay couples should be allowed to be as miserable as straight couples that decide to get married.

My only question about booty froth is why does he care so much about what happens in the bedroom? Does he have some man on man home videos out there or something?

 

[edporch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pocketman
Does this arrangement exclude you from the IRS marriage penalty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
...
I believe it does, because the IRS won't consider us married.
(Though I'm not a lawyer) ...

There have been changes to the tax code that lessens the marriage penalty, but there can still be advantages of filing as single. My taxes went up several thousand dollars when I got married.

This may be true, but OUR motivation ISN'T based on the IRS.

We just realized that making our marriage a "threesome" with the government was against our liberty and best interests.
More couples are coming to this conclusion over time.

After all, "marriage licenses" have their origin in the USA for the purpose of controlling inter-racial marriage.

 

[Pocketman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pocketman
Does this arrangement exclude you from the IRS marriage penalty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
...
I believe it does, because the IRS won't consider us married.
(Though I'm not a lawyer) ...

This may be true, but OUR motivation ISN'T based on the IRS.

We just realized that making our marriage a "threesome" with the government was against our liberty and best interests.
More couples are coming to this conclusion over time.

After all, "marriage licenses" have their origin in the USA for the purpose of controlling inter-racial marriage.

Of course the IRS isn't a motivating factor. I understand your logic. (Wish I'd thought of it.) Perhaps this "new" idea will catch on. Best wishes.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The annointed one just came out. He approves of gay marriage.

 

[mrjarrell]

The annointed one just came out. He approves of gay marriage.

Good for him. Glad to see he came down on the right side for once.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Good for him. Glad to see he came down on the right side for once.

Why the paradigm of only two acceptable forms of marriage?

 

[J_Wales]

Why the paradigm of only two acceptable forms of marriage?

Exactly what NAMBLA says.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why the paradigm of only two acceptable forms of marriage?

Why, indeed? If government were out of the equation then whatever consenting adults wanted to do in the realm of marriage would be OK with me. But, since the government IS in the marriage business, (and is not going to get out of it during my lifetime or yours) it behooves us to take incremental steps till we reach true marriage freedom.

 

[mrjarrell]

Exactly what NAMBLA says.

You're seriously equating marriage between two consenting adults to child molestation? You're getting farther out there all the time.

 

[J_Wales]

You're seriously equating marriage between two consenting adults to child molestation? You're getting farther out there all the time.

Oh mrjarrell, must you hate people simply because they love differently than you?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Exactly what NAMBLA says.

Make no mistake, I deplore the various depraved beliefs and proclivities groups like NAMBLA advocate. But as I asked in another thread that appears to have been closed or removed: from where does the moral authority come that requires all unions amongst two or more people be consenting?

Maybe I belong to a culture (with many other families) that firmly believe I have the right to give my daughter, or son, or wife, or whatever (with or withiut their consent) to another person in marriage. Who are you (we) to say "no"?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why, indeed? If government were out of the equation then whatever consenting adults wanted to do in the realm of marriage would be OK with me. But, since the government IS in the marriage business, (and is not going to get out of it during my lifetime or yours) it behooves us to take incremental steps till we reach true marriage freedom.

What is true marriage freedom?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh mrjarrell, must you hate people simply because they love differently than you?

Logically speaking: if I can't tell a woman what she can do with her in born, what gives us the right to tell that same woman what she can do with her born child?

 

[mrjarrell]

What is true marriage freedom?

The freedom for consenting adults to gather in marriage in whatever form they choose. Might be 2 guys. Might be a girl and 2 guys or a group or what have you. As long as they are consenting and of legal age, (as required under most aspects of contract law) then let anything go. Marriage has taken many forms over humanities history. No reason it shouldn't evolve further. But this is getting off topic, which is what you seem to want.

 

[strahd71]

The freedom for consenting adults to gather in marriage in whatever form they choose. Might be 2 guys. Might be a girl and 2 guys or a group or what have you. As long as they are consenting and of legal age, (as required under most aspects of contract law) then let anything go. Marriage has taken many forms over humanities history. No reason it shouldn't evolve further. But this is getting off topic, which is what you seem to want.

Waaaaaaay offfffff


Jake