Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) Shows Us Exactly Why Republicans Suck

[peplaw06]

I don't know how you can claim that tax treatment is the main reason this issue exists. Even if you could know that for a certainty, if the tax issue were fixed, there would be another issue come up. All of the ones I mentioned are relevant, and there are others.

When people die without a will, the law provides for certain people to inherit through intestacy. If a state doesn't allow gay marriage, then a homosexual partner of a person who passes away gets nothing.

 

[Iamtdg]

You can leave anything you want to anyone. I'm not following this.

You can leave a dildo to a gay friend of a friend if you want.

If your point is no will being in place, then that's on the dumbass that didn't leave a will.

 

[Iamtdg]

And as far as I know there isn't a state alive that won't allow a gay couple to buy a house.

 

[Hoofbite]

And as far as I know there isn't a state alive that won't allow a gay couple to buy a house.

Are any states alive at all?

 

[peplaw06]

You can leave anything you want to anyone. I'm not following this.

You can leave a dildo to a gay friend of a friend if you want.

If your point is no will being in place, then that's on the dumbass that didn't leave a will.

Do you have a will?

Anyway, that's really not the point. People die without wills all the time. When they do, the law has to provide for someone to inherit. You wouldn't promote a man's wife losing all of the couple's property to the state because her dumbass husband didn't leave a will, would you?

 

[peplaw06]

And as far as I know there isn't a state alive that won't allow a gay couple to buy a house.

I'm not really sure why you're arguing with me. You appear to have little to no idea how community property laws work.

 

[Iamtdg]

Do you have a will?

Anyway, that's really not the point. People die without wills all the time. When they do, the law has to provide for someone to inherit. You wouldn't promote a man's wife losing all of the couple's property to the state because her dumbass husband didn't leave a will, would you?

Yes, I do have a will.

 

[Iamtdg]

I'm not really sure why you're arguing with me. You appear to have little to no idea how community property laws work.

The fags can own a home as one just like a straight couple.

I'm not sure why you're "arguing" either.

Is there a law that says two males/females can't own a home together?

If the issue is what happens if a breakup happens then a prenup should have happened.

 

[Iamtdg]

You wouldn't promote a man's wife losing all of the couple's property to the state because her dumbass husband didn't leave a will, would you?

It wouldn't be an easy transition, but getting the govt out of the way is the answer, not the solution.

 

[peplaw06]

The fags can own a home as one just like a straight couple.

I'm not sure why you're "arguing" either.

Is there a law that says two males/females can't own a home together?

In every state, when a divorce occurs, a court is tasked with dividing the couple's property. If a state doesn't recognize a homosexual couple as having to be divorced, then no, they can't own a home as one just like a straight couple.

In a community property state, each person in a couple technically owns the home, even if both persons names are not on the deed. Again, if the state doesn't recognize the homosexual couple as being the same as a married couple, needing a divorce, then the same rules do not apply to them.

That means that a homosexual couple would each have to be on the deed in all instances if they want to protect themselves. And even if that happens, if there's no "divorce court" there's no division of that property if they break up.

If the issue is what happens if a breakup happens then a prenup should have happened.

You're gonna have to explain to me how you can have a "prenuptial" agreement if there can be no "nuptials."

 

[peplaw06]

It wouldn't be an easy transition, but getting the govt out of the way is the answer, not the solution.

How do you propose that property be divided on someone's death without government involvement? You're either going to have to have the government mandate that everyone have a will, or you're going to have to have the government involved when someone doesn't have a will.

 

[lons]

Turn all "Marriage Licenses" into "Civil Unions", let the man on man woman on woman man on woman woman on man begin.

If you have the license, you don't need a ceremony. The "Church Wedding" is about what "Churches" recognize, not the law. The minute you go down to the court house and get your license you are married, period as it is now.

I'm pretty sure that gays want the ability to FORCE churches that do marriages for hetros to do it for homos and that is the only "real" issue I have with the entire thing. You are taking something that is a government issue and making it a religious issue when it just isn't.

I do worry that after Gays are done with all this, it will then be the Tranny's turn. And then the Pedo's turn. And on and on it goes. You can't deny a subset the same ability to do this or that that another subset does after all. And it took only 1 generation of them changing a couple laws to see the gay marriage thing take off.

Already there are parents in CA suing the school that won't let their 6 year old tranny use the little girls room. So that parts coming folks. How does a 6 year old know what kind of clothes it wants to wear without being told? Anyway...

To keep divorce within the realm of reason, you have to have a license to civil unite seems the only way to go here, without the Govt forcing Churches to wed gay folk. It would stop before it starts the same issue we are facing with the Govt forcing religious institutions to offer birth control on their insurance when it is against their religion. Why force something like that on folks? If they don't offer it and someone else does, then the folks that want it will go there.

 

[Hoofbite]

Turn all "Marriage Licenses" into "Civil Unions", let the man on man woman on woman man on woman woman on man begin.

If you have the license, you don't need a ceremony. The "Church Wedding" is about what "Churches" recognize, not the law. The minute you go down to the court house and get your license you are married, period as it is now.

I'm pretty sure that gays want the ability to FORCE churches that do marriages for hetros to do it for homos and that is the only "real" issue I have with the entire thing. You are taking something that is a government issue and making it a religious issue when it just isn't.

I do worry that after Gays are done with all this, it will then be the Tranny's turn. And then the Pedo's turn. And on and on it goes. You can't deny a subset the same ability to do this or that that another subset does after all. And it took only 1 generation of them changing a couple laws to see the gay marriage thing take off.

Already there are parents in CA suing the school that won't let their 6 year old tranny use the little girls room. So that parts coming folks. How does a 6 year old know what kind of clothes it wants to wear without being told? Anyway...

To keep divorce within the realm of reason, you have to have a license to civil unite seems the only way to go here, without the Govt forcing Churches to wed gay folk. It would stop before it starts the same issue we are facing with the Govt forcing religious institutions to offer birth control on their insurance when it is against their religion. Why force something like that on folks? If they don't offer it and someone else does, then the folks that want it will go there.

Wouldn't tranny be covered, provided they already aren't?

As far as pedophiles, pretty sure the differentiating factor is age of consent......aside from the illegality of having sex with children.

 

[Iamtdg]

In every state, when a divorce occurs, a court is tasked with dividing the couple's property. If a state doesn't recognize a homosexual couple as having to be divorced, then no, they can't own a home as one just like a straight couple.

In a community property state, each person in a couple technically owns the home, even if both persons names are not on the deed. Again, if the state doesn't recognize the homosexual couple as being the same as a married couple, needing a divorce, then the same rules do not apply to them.

That means that a homosexual couple would each have to be on the deed in all instances if they want to protect themselves. And even if that happens, if there's no "divorce court" there's no division of that property if they break up.

You're gonna have to explain to me how you can have a "prenuptial" agreement if there can be no "nuptials."

You're talking about ifs as if they were inevitable. They can own a home, they just have no way to divvy shit up in case they separate. Same with your next post about wills. They can leave shit to each other but you're arguing as if they won't write a will, in which case it's their own damn fault.

 

[peplaw06]

You're talking about ifs as if they were inevitable. They can own a home, they just have no way to divvy shit up in case they separate. Same with your next post about wills. They can leave shit to each other but you're arguing as if they won't write a will, in which case it's their own damn fault.

Damn... you are off the reservation here.

IT IS INEVITABLE that some homosexual couple somewhere will split up, even if they own property together. IT IS INEVITABLE that some homosexual person in a homosexual civil union will die without a will.

Is it the dead person's fault that they died without a will? Well, yeah. But what are you proposing when that happens??? DOES THE PROPERTY GO BACK TO THE STATE??

It's like you're just advocating for anarchy.

 

[Iamtdg]

Okay, we are well off the original path of this discussion. You are advocating that some govt regulation to a civil union must stay in place for property rights, and I'm saying that you don't have to change tax status' because of that union thereby eliminating that factor from the equation of the debate concerning homos getting married. I stand by that. Not sure how we ended up in left field.

 

[peplaw06]

Because even if you take out the tax break for married couples, there's going to be another issue come up... such as the ones I've brought up. If all taxes are equal across the board, then why wouldn't property rights be equal?

 

[JBond]

From the OP...

but this reveals exactly why Republican politicians suck. They don't think about things from other people's perspective. They don't have to struggle to eat, so they don't think about what happens when they cut food stamps and people who already have too little to eat have even less. They have retirement savings and won't have to depend on Social Security, so they don't think about how gutting SS effects people who depend on it to survive.

....like all dems in congress are poor and only care about helping other people...the only thing they care about is buying votes with other peoples money. Dems are the greediest people on the planet. The fucking jackass that wrote this is the same ass that wants to destroy SS. If any of you tards understand the time value of money take 12% of your income for life and figure out how much you would have if the government did not fuck it all up. A minimum wage earner could retire a millionaire.

 

[superpunk]

the only thing they care about is buying votes with other peoples money.

Empathy fueled legislation gains you support among the constituency? Who'da thunk it?

Certainly not republicans.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Marriage is a union between a man and a women. If gays want a civil union of some kind, I might would consider supporting it, but I will never support gay marriage.

That's according to the christian tradition and not even all of them. This is a secular state anyway.