DOMA partially struck down, Prop 8 flattened

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-strikes-down-defense-marriage-act-provision/

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, striking down a provision that denied benefits to legally married gay couples.

The 5-4 ruling -- a major victory for gay-rights advocates -- means those same-sex couples would be eligible for federal benefits.​

What the ruling did not do was to remove the ability of states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages among residents who did not marry in that state. This protects States' Rights to set their own guidelines for what constitutes marriage. SCOTUS has essentially said the feds have no business interfering in those states' rights.

Prop 8, meanwhile, is gone. The Court declined to rule in the case, which leaves the California Supreme Court's ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional under state edicts intact.

 

[Salty]

However, one side of this is that now apparently homosexuals in military will be authorized to move into Government family housing - or if they decide to live off post - they will get BAQ allowance. An E-4 at Ft Hood would receive in excess of 1,000 a month; a Captain (O-3) would receive 1500 dollars a month.

They would receive the allowance at Fort Hood,
even if Texas does not recognize a homosexual marriage .

Couple this with the '73 Roe vs Wade decision - and we are watching our country falling apart.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

However, one side of this is that now apparently homosexuals in military will be authorized to move into Government family housing - or if they decide to live off post - they will get BAQ allowance. An E-4 at Ft Hood would receive in excess of 1,000 a month; a Captain (O-3) would receive 1500 dollars a month.

They would receive the allowance at Fort Hood,
even if Texas does not recognize a homosexual marriage .

Couple this with the '73 Roe vs Wade decision - and we are watching our country falling apart.

Agreed, but then again, when hasn't it been? It started about the time the ink was dry on the Constitution.

 

[church mouse guy]

Does this mean that people who say that they are married are entitled to federal benefits even if no individual state says that they have a legal marriage? For example, supposing that a person has several wives, is he entitled to tax exemptions for each one of them?

 

[Revmitchell]

The only reason prop 8 was struck down was because the people that brought it di not have the appropriate standing.

 

[Salty]

Does this mean that people who say that they are married are entitled to federal benefits even if no individual state says that they have a legal marriage? For example, supposing that a person has several wives, is he entitled to tax exemptions for each one of them?

Apparently, they would have to be "legally married" just as a heterosexual couple would have to be. - ie a man can not claim his girlfriend as a dependent for tax purposes. If their State or Commonwealth does not recognize said vile marriage, they would have to go to one that would do it legally. But one more thing - they could file Federal tax on a joint return, but their State or Commonwealth would require separate returns.

As far as polygamy - two things -
1) why doesn't the LBGT movement insist those folks lifestyle become legal
2) We will probally see that happen eventually.

Next time you talk to a political who believes that homosexual marriage should be legal - ask him if he would add polygamy to that as well. I would love to hear some answers.

 

[just-want-peace]

Anybody remember the loud & boisterous guffaws from the left when conservatives said we were getting on a slippery slope???

MARANATHA!!!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Oh Boy....Great!

However, one side of this is that now apparently homosexuals in military will be authorized to move into Government family housing - or if they decide to live off post - they will get BAQ allowance. An E-4 at Ft Hood would receive in excess of 1,000 a month; a Captain (O-3) would receive 1500 dollars a month.

They would receive the allowance at Fort Hood,
even if Texas does not recognize a homosexual marriage .

Couple this with the '73 Roe vs Wade decision - and we are watching our country falling apart.

Oh boy...ain't THAT great?? Another example of our TAX DOLLARS being used to fund something else ungodly and unbiblical that we can't or won't support!

Bro.Greg:BangHead:

 

[church mouse guy]

Apparently, they would have to be "legally married" just as a heterosexual couple would have to be. - ie a man can not claim his girlfriend as a dependent for tax purposes. If their State or Commonwealth does not recognize said vile marriage, they would have to go to one that would do it legally. But one more thing - they could file Federal tax on a joint return, but their State or Commonwealth would require separate returns.

As far as polygamy - two things -
1) why doesn't the LBGT movement insist those folks lifestyle become legal
2) We will probally see that happen eventually.

Next time you talk to a political who believes that homosexual marriage should be legal - ask him if he would add polygamy to that as well. I would love to hear some answers.

Okay, I agree with you and I agree with your logic. Now suppose that it turns out that Mormonism is an unstable cult and Utah or Nevada legalizes polygamy to rid themselves of the embarrassment that every county in Utah has polygamy, and perhaps Nevada counties the same. Then the Feds have to extend benefits, no? (I read today that Edmunds-Tucker was repealed in 1978, paving the way.) And could not the court rule that the Feds have no right to deny benefits to anyone even if no state acts, in your opinion? I don't want to stray off the topic but it relates on the question of benefits that were given today to unnaturals.

 

[Salty]

What a rocky road we are traveling down -

Where will it end?

come quickly Lord Jesus