| Author | Message | ||
     Cityxslicker |
The IRS has the death tax thing nailed down. read the bill To Qualify for 'Health Care' you will have to have your assets means tested - meaning that if you want to be treated/or are confined to one (voluntarily or otherwise) in a facility that is owned by the FED or accepts assignment of billing by the FED - your property, accounts, assets, payroll, and any IP can and will be assessed against the cost of that care. and if you transfer them to avoid it - they will be based on the last full year of taxation that was not quantified for means testing. Remember - you had to Pass the bill to find out what is in it..... No need to tax you after you die - they can do it while you lay in bed comatose or what not. Don't have a power of attorney assigned for your possessions and wealth ...? Don't worry - one will be appointed for you. carry on with this stream of distraction; the real show starts soon enough | ||
| Aesquire |
City, I can't find the video, but one of the Obama minions gave an interview/rant that private pensions and 401k's etc. were "not fair" because people who hadn't worked for decades didn't have them... then changed the subject at warp speed. I interpret this as the prime reason for gun confiscation laws, in light of Cyprus, since the vast pension fund & retirement savings plans are almost the only remaining source of income for this admin to give to campaign donators. I could just be paranoid, have you seen the rant? A bit more on topic, Jeremy Irons speculates that a man could "marry" his son to avoid inheritance taxes. It's noe incest, as there is no possibility of inbreeding. Interesting take and attitude. | ||
| Blake |
Alfau, Jeff (HootOwl) is a brewer of some very good beverages. I'd call him "honey" for a pint any day.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Hmm, reminds me of the story.... Don't recall if it's G B Shaw, or some other English writer. At a party, he asked a distinguished aristocratic lady if she'd sleep with him for a million Pounds. She thought about it then said, yes. He asked if she'd sleep with him for 10 pounds. "What do you think I am?" she angrily replied. "We've established that, We're just haggling over the price". | ||
| Hootowl |
"You keep asserting that marriage is a religious function, but it is rarely entirely a religious function in America, and in some marriages it is not religious at all." This is because the state has usurped the power of the church, and made marriage a requirement to receive certain government benefits. When the state stops doing that, marriage will once again be a religious function. Divorce, or the dissolution by the state of a religious joining, appears to violate the separation clause as well. The state should stop doing that. That's not to say an abused person needs to stay with the abuser. Assault is illegal, regardless of the personal status of the people involved. And if two people want to go their separate ways, and they are having a property dispute, a court of law seems the appropriate place to resolve that conflict. But the state can not dissolve a marriage, because the state, according to the constitution, can not create a marriage. | ||
| Blake |
Non religious don't marry? How does a judge determine property rights between two people if there is no state understanding of any contract, even one unspoken, between them? If it is beneficial to society, if it is the foundation upon which civilized society is built, then why shouldn't we promote family and marriage? I'm just not seeing a good reason not to. Just stick to the traditional definition of marriage being a union of man and woman, the definition assumed when all the federal legislation was written and made law. There need not be any reference whatsoever to any sexual orientation, so it would thusly apply the same to all. Sexual preference is out of the equation. (Message edited by blake on April 09, 2013) | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, if you remove the sentence, "Just stick to the traditional definition of marriage being a union of man and woman, the definition assumed when all the federal legislation was written and made law." You have just made the best argument for marriage, Period. Nicely done. If you leave it at that, not only do you win, but you can get back to looking at how the Federales are going to steal your 401k, your right to religion, arms, life, and freedom. | ||
| Britchri10 |
I don't know for certain (I'm not an attorney) but isn't co-habitation between a man & a woman covered by common law with reference to property rights, division of property etc'? (Common law "marriage") Chris C | ||
| Geedee |
Property and Custody Right "There is a perception that there are no protections for property rights and/or child custody concerns in a common law marriage. That is one of the many inaccurate perceptions of common law marriage. All marriages, statutory and common law, are based on a contract. In the case of a statutory marriage, the contract is between three parties - the husband, the wife, and the State - the State being the superior party of interest. In such marriages, if the husband and wife wish to dissolve the marriage they must do so through a court that is enforcing that State's Family Law Code. We say "must" because once the State was involved in the contract as the superior party of interest, the husband and wife are legally bound to obey the State in matters that are controlled by the State's Family Code. In the case of common law marriage, there are two ways that property rights and child custody issues can be addressed. The first and most desirable method is to structure the contract to include the mechanism by which a termination of the contract shall occur. The parties to the contract (husband and wife to be) can sit down and agree on how they would want to dissolve the marriage if that circumstance were to occur. In a section of the contract concerning the dissolving of the contract, the parties can specify how property is to be divided and how child custody issues will be addressed. Often times constructing a framework for such matters when you're happy and in love will help provide a smoother road if the unfortunate occurs. We suggest structuring methods that involve submitting your possible disputes to your church elders or to a small panel of trusted friends. In this way the decisions that you're seeking will be rendered by people who know you and love you, rather than by some government bureaucrat in a black robe." http://www.originalintent.org/edu/marriage.php | ||
| Hootowl |
Yes, Blake, the non-religious do marry, because the state has usurped the power of the church to create a marriage. But in reality, marriage being a religious function, what the state is really doing is creating a civil union. You're looking at the world through the prism of present reality, and that's a fairly logical view to hold. However, in this largely academic discussion, I'm looking at the world through the prism of the 1st amendment, I.E. the way it was and ought to be. You assert that the state holds this authority because it says it does. I disagree. I do agree with your definition of marriage (as I previously stated) but I do not agree with your view that the state has the authority to perform religious rites, and that is the basis of my entire argument. The state can create civil unions all day long. Civil unions are not the dominion of the church, and are clearly defined in law. Once again, let’s get the state out of church business, including the discriminatory tax code which prompts gays to demand state sponsored marriage. Controlling marriage is just another way the government has stuck its nose in our business and our wallets. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
wont marry in the US. the divorce law is such that the man is held hostage long after the woman has moved on to her next widget. I am not fond of the government taking 1/3 of what I make in social entitlements and taxes I have less excitement for a failed marital episode of getting half of the remainder. (nobody in my family is on their original marriage - divorce is not a tradition I wish to continue; and the way US laws are set up - it is pretty much a bingo for the exiting gal) meh | ||
| Blake |
I don't see the state being the usurper, at least not entirely. We have people getting divorced and seeking resolution to property and child custody in the courts. How does the state avoid getting involved? And why ought we the people not, through our govt, take positive steps to promote that which is bedrock to the success of human civilization? Simply stick to the traditional definition of marriage; no mention of anyone's sexuality is required, and in fact to do so would be unconstitutional as it would create a special class. | ||
| Blake |
Brian, I've seen the injustice of Community Property law in action. A spouse lies and cheats and abandons his or her spouse and still walks away with half of their accumulated estate. It was a knee-jerk over-reaction to prior injustices where husbands abandoned their wives and took the estate, sharing some with their good buddy the judge. Hopefully justice will find a proper balance. | ||
| Hootowl |
"How does the state avoid getting involved?" In a property dispute? It doesn't. I don't see a conflict. As long as those people filed for a civil union, and thus submitted themselves as wards of the state, the state has the right to divide assets. If they did not file for a civil union, their property and or custody issues would be handled the same way they are now when people have assets and children and are not contractually obligated. | ||
| Hootowl |
The state can't do what is in in the best interest of the people if it violates the constitution. For example, it could be argued that if everyone practices the same religion, or is a member of a certain political party, there will be less internal strife, and the country would be better off. I don't want to live in that country. The constitution is silent on the matter of marriage. The only ruling SCOTUS can make, and still be within the bounds of the document they've sworn to uphold and defend, is to say that the state has no authority to define marriage. They should go on to apply the 1st amendment to the states and prohibit state courts or legislatures from defining it as well. Or...we should amend the constitution to include a definition of marriage. That's the only constitutional solution. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
it is a broken widget - I don't intend to partake of it domestically, I was with a girl for 14 years, I told her during the first few weeks - we are not ever getting married, we are never having kids - if you want that - this is your out. And if you think I am going to change my mind - I can introduce you to my ex that I was with for 5 years that found out the hard way - I am pretty fixed and determined. No US Marriage - No US Divorce. I refuse to participate in the broken paradigm (she decided she did want to get married, and have kids - we were done by the end of the week) | ||
| Blake |
>>> If they did not file for a civil union, their property and or custody issues would be handled the same way they are now when people have assets and children and are not contractually obligated. Meaning no differently than if they had signed a marriage license? For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming the couple lived together for an extended time, enough to satisfy the requirements for a common law marriage. Why ought we the people not, through our govt, take positive steps to promote that which is bedrock to the success of human civilization? Simply stick to the traditional definition of marriage; no mention of anyone's sexuality is required, and in fact to do so would be unconstitutional as it would create a special class. | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, I think you've got it. The only part you're fuzzy on is "the traditional definition of marriage". That's a bit vague, but I'll go with it. Some will complain that your desires will require some laws to be revoked. I won't. Utah will remain a state and the Mormons, Muslims, and all the other polygamous types can "come out" and enjoy their traditional marriages. Now that that's settled, How do you feel about the current "budget" plan to limit retirement plans? By invoking class envy, the Prez hopes us to ignore that some of his minions have their eye on all retirement plans ( other than those that properly bribe the Prez for exemptions ) and seem to be looking to Cyprus as a model for future "tax" methodology. i.e. withdraw from your account without your knowledge or permission. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
yep- Washington State has a 7 year cohabitation community asset defacto determination. At six years we went and had a notorized declaration of assets filed. Meaning mine is mine, hers is hers, and there is no claim to future monies. Romantic as hell - but it bought us another 7 or so years together. I have seen too many divorces and dysfunctional families to participate or contribute to either. The legal system here is beyond F'd against the guy. (NONE of my friends that got married in or after college are married to the same one now - if they are married at all; all those cougars and milfs out partying on the ex's bankroll - soon enough the mass of men will catch on - It's a revenue game/ like everything else the state meddles in) | ||
| Blake |
>>> The only part you're fuzzy on is "the traditional definition of marriage". That's a bit vague. It's not vague in a majority of states, or in the history of America, or even to the federal govt; see DOMA. But to be clear, marriage is the union of man and woman. | ||
| Hootowl |
"But to be clear, marriage is the union of man and woman." I agree. Show me the part of the constitution that grants the federal government the authority to make that the law. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Yes, but DOMA's going down. And so will the rest of the barriers. Just like DADT. Get over it. | ||
| Aesquire |
DADT was an abortion from the get go. DADT, is not None Of Your Business. ( the proper response to rude questions. ) BY making a subject taboo, and still prosecuting violators of an arcane rule the hypocrisy just stinks. Separate, but Equal has a long history, none of it good. Speaking snarkily here, DADT was the perfect creation and insight into Bill Clinton's mind. A form of "wouldn't it be great if my wife couln't ask me if I was cheating on her? I'd only get busted if she actually caught me again with my pants down." Says a lot, eh? "...marriage is the union of man and woman" Ok, that's clear. Monogamy and Polygamy ok, "Same Sex" not. Correct? That covers you nicely on the "traditional" side. Thank you. | ||
| Kenm123t |
City why do you think Cougars and milfs chase younger guys. The young guys don't know when to RUN ! | ||
| Aesquire |
Actually I greatly regret my ignorance of the existence of Cougars when a young lad.  | ||
| Blake |
>>> I agree. Show me the part of the constitution that grants the federal government the authority to make that the law. It is the meaning of a word, once universally understood in America. Based on that meaning, some legislation was enacted to support and promote marriage being it is at the heart of a stable family, the bedrock of successful civilization. We might just as well ask where they get the authority to define the meaning of "retired", or "disabled", or "veteran", or "minority", or "dependent", or "unemployed", or "man", or "woman", or "child", or... How may govt function without a clear understanding of the most basic terms it employs to make law? Congress has the right to tax. They have the right to do so in keeping with constitutional limitations. Using marriage as a parameter to help determine tax rates or benefits is no different than using any other parameter; see list above. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Jim_cullen Posted on Thursday, April 11, 2013 - 08:26 pm: Yes, but DOMA's going down. And so will the rest of the barriers. Just like DADT. Get over it. Just like Rome did? Nice plan. Sodomy for all? Not my thing. You knock yourself out though. I serve a much higher authority than any rule by men. There's nothing the fascist vermin can do to cause me to have to get over anything. I'll keep praying for them too, in hopes that they might find truth and peace. | ||
| Hootowl |
"We might just as well ask where they get the authority to define the meaning of "retired", or "disabled", or "veteran", or "minority", or "dependent", or "unemployed", or "man", or "woman", or "child", or..." As of yet, no one has challenged their authority to do so. People ARE challenging their authority to define the word 'marriage', and the simple fact is that they do not have the authority. Homosexuals have a history of redefining words. Gay used to mean happy. Technically it still does, but no one uses it that way. Heck, they even took refracted light. Pretty greedy, gays. (Demetri Martin). They've redefined the meaning of attaching the suffix "phobia" to the end of a word. It no longer means an irrational and debilitating fear of something, it simply means "hater". I don't like it either. But it is NOT the role of government to define words. The gays are making a constitutional case here, and I think the position of the supporters of DOMA is without merit. The only way to make DOMA constitutional is to amend the constitution. The power the government claims in this realm is simply nowhere to be found in its charter. | ||
| Hootowl |
SCOTUS should rule that the government has no authority in the matter, and refuse to make a ruling, returning it to state courts. I think they should go farther, and disconnect government from marriage entirely. Congress should amend the constitution if they want to have authority in this matter. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Hi Blake Of course you know sodomy isn't limited to same sex couples, so objection to sodomy isn't really the basis for your argument, is it? And are you really trying to imply a cause and effect relationship to the fall of the Roman Empire? My, that's a stretch. Why not admit your indignation stems mainly from your religious beliefs? The political and legal arguments are just a smoke screen. 'Fess up - maybe that truth will set YOU free |
