“Not quite. At least not in the eyes of part courts. Reynolds is the clear standout case. Polygamy was able to be banned regardless of any religious tradition it was a part of. It was not deemed appropriate by law. The court decided that religion did not make it right.
Any decision to the contrary will really force polygamy into the discussion again. I do not expect polygamy legalized in the next 20 years, but it might happen. I think that would force the abandonment of benefits for married status though, which is why I think it is really unlikely.”
Oak of Magellan on May 1, 2014 at 10:58:11
“Well, thinking from the point of view of the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment states that all citizens are equal and deserve the same law provisions. If polygamy is prohibited nationwide, it doesn't contradict the 14th amendment. Also, if we compare the issue with the 1rst Amendment, it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, which means that religion can't impose any law on the basis of its beliefs or dogmas. I think it has to be a combination of the two. In the present case, the law suit is directed to a ban in a single state that disregard a federal provision.”
“Where is any comparison made? He creates a hypothetical situation regarding marriage. He clearly asks why it is wrong for the state to withhold benefits based on sex but not relatedness. Why is it not possible for a family member to marry to avoid tax penalties or transfer assets?
Marriage should not come with benefits or penalties regarding tax and finances. There is nothing homophobic about that.”
FedFan12 on Feb 26, 2014 at 14:18:55
“BwanaM: with all due respect, unless you saw a different tweet from Baldwin, it seems u may have misunderstood. his original tweet "What's wrong, now, with a father marrying his son for love & to avoid tax penalties?" DOES point to incest, whether he meant to or not, b/c he's putting blood-related folk in a marriage as opposed to NON blood-related folk...and same-blood-marriage IS also defined as incest. peace ;)”
“The government should not be basing policy on your feelings. If there is evidence (science; you would not like it), then arguments can be made. Evidence does not show benefits of marriage though. It shows the opposite. Singles are more productive and provide more for the community. Married people focus on the family. Singles focus on the community at large.
How do marrieds respond? They claim that singles should subsidize the selfish married lifestyle.”
“The issue is the benefits provided to those with married status. It is not about sex or love or anything like that. Married status comes with benefits (many of which are financial) that others cannot get.
You are supporting discrimination by supporting recognition of same sex marriages and not incestuous unions. There is no valid reason that marrieds should get benefits that others cannot have. It is not necessary for the union to offer a tax exemption on transfers between spouses at death. The marriage has ended before that point. It does not make society better. It make marrieds more wealthy. They are being subsidized by non-marrieds.”
Ricardo Smalling on Feb 25, 2014 at 14:16:42
“I made no pronouncement on incestuous marriages. I simply pointed out the flaw in the argument that gay marriage would lead to fathers marrying sons, since str8 marriages never led to fathers marrying daughters.
Whether specific benefits should flow from government based on being married is an entirely different argument from the point that I was making.”
“The criteria for the discrimination is the problem. there is no social benefit of preventing certain people from entering into a private contract. There is no social benefit from making married status a preferred status on the state and federal level. There is a lot of social benefit when it comes to standardization of medical care.
the burden in this case is on the people not in a contract. Unmarried are provided with fewer federal benefits. they are treated as second class citizens. The government is favoring unions over singles.
No one is saying that people in a contract should have the ability to determine the various agreements contained within. The problem is that the costs of the contract all falling upon non-members. Benefits are for the parties of the contract; the costs are externalized.
People are fighting against it. They are ignored. Why? Because people are selfish. It is not in people's self-interest to vote for equality when they get financial benefits from discrimination. the entire argument has been based on the false premise that all unions with two persons deserve the same benefits as "traditional marriage." People are presuming that unmarried inequality is acceptable because it is established.”
hanohanonacowboy on Jan 28, 2014 at 09:55:40
“"there is no social benefit of preventing certain people from entering into a private contract"
-- Marriage is only a "contract" in a generalized sense, and it is far from private. In point of fact, it is registered in the County Clerk's office and in many ways involves more requirements on the state than it requires of the individuals. If you want to enter into a truly "private contract" with one or more people, no one's stopping you.
"There is no social benefit from making married status a preferred status on the state and federal level."
-- That's a matter of opinion; you just gave yours. Mine is that married people have agreed to be legally obliged--to varying degrees--to be responsible for each other in good times and bad, to look after each other in times of need so the rest of us don't have to. My married friends, family and employees--of EITHER sex--are, in general, less likely to call me needing a shoulder to cry on or a day off or bail money. That benefits me, their families and society as a whole and I for one am pleased as Punch to kick in a few extra tax dollars to encourage such arrangements. By the way, I feel the same about subsidizing home ownership in my community, medical research and the care of orphans with tax exemptions that I have to pay for.”
“The difference, child, is that the case of marriage would be that I would not being involved in your contract, but I would be paying for your business transaction. Singles do not get any benefits of marriage, but they are paying for them. The majority of them have nothing to do with the marriage either.
There are various people who cannot get married due to being differently advantaged, related, or in a relationship that involved multiple parties. They are not just able to get married. And, by the bye, that was the argument used by people against same-sex marriages: marriage was equal because they could enter into a union.”
hanohanonacowboy on Jan 27, 2014 at 18:40:04
“Of course I pay if you enter into an employment contract. Who do you think foots the bill for the sheriffs and courts that are required to ensure that the contract actually means something?
People who get a marriage license--just like those who get a medical license or a driver's license or a hunting license--derive certain benefits, but also incur certain legal burdens that other people do not have. If you want to get the benefits, then you have to agree to the burdens. And it benefits the rest of us to have these agreements regulated or encouraged, by means of the various laws that apply to them.
Yes, there is discrimination in issuing these licenses, as there should be. Babies can't get a hunting license and blind people can't get a driver's license. The test in our society is whether there is a rational basis for the discrimination. Courts have found over and over that the gender of the person involved is not a rational basis for discriminating for any of these licenses, including a marriage license.
Most states have determined that someone who's already married, or someone incapable of entering into a contract legally, may not marry. Yes, those people are being discriminated against, just as someone who flunked out of medical school is being discriminated against when it comes to issuing a medical license.
If you think one of the criteria is unfair, then go do the hard work your gay neighbors did and fight against it.”
Marriage benefits and rights discriminate against non-married persons. Single persons cannot use testimonial privilege when a family member or get an unliimted exemption for asset transfers.
Marriage should be about issues directly related to the agreement of the parties. Discrimination against singles has to stop. Unmarried persons, even those in relationships who choose not to marry or are unable to do so (polyamorists, those who are too related to marry, etc), should not be treated as second class citizens because some people want tax and other public benefits.”
hanohanonacowboy on Jan 27, 2014 at 10:02:21
“Do you think other people who refuse to sign contracts are also being "discriminated against"? If I sign a contract to repair someone's roof for $1000, do you think you're the victim of discrimination by not being paid, even if you never set foot on his roof?
Single people are not the victims of unfair discrimination. They all have the option to marry. If they do marry, then they may receive a number of legal benefits. But they also assume hundreds of legal burdens, liabilities, and responsibilities that single people are entirely free from.”
Jul 17, 2013 at 13:26:28
“That is actually the opposite of the case for the majority of people.
Even in states with "stand you ground" laws (a minority of states), the use of weapons does not mean that one is exempted from prosecution and jail time. Not everyone is seeking to right social wrongs or act like policeman.
And, had Zimmerman been determined to the aggressor, then he would not be protected anywise. Provocation of an altercation prohibits one from successfully using a self-defense as a legal defense. It is all in the law and it has been written about many times during and after this case was decided.”
“Median income for all graduates, including associate and advanced degrees, is $46000.
Half of all people with degrees make less (median associate degree is $39000 per year). Half of all people with degrees make more (median bachelor's degree is $56000 per year).
The confusing part is why a median is compared to a mean. The median debt is much lower than the mean. It is about half of it. Why not use mean salary as well? Numbers should be similar if they are going to be compared.”
“Why not get in touch with the university administrators that have overseen the enormous increase in the cost of an education?
How is this a problem of interest rates when the cost of college has increase over 1100% since 1980?
This website is a joke. It tries to politicize an issue to avoid focus on the actual problem.”
dkuck15138 on Jul 10, 2013 at 21:10:55
“So true... I believe the government student loans just push these tuition increases higher. Why not? What is making them control the cost or reduce it? It's free money to pay their enormous salaries. Personally, I find it despicable and un-American. It time we put a stop to this nonsense. No way should a good education cost what these schools are charging.”
CrnkyOldMan on Jul 10, 2013 at 21:10:01
“speaking of jokes.....”
GraphicTV on Jul 10, 2013 at 21:08:52
“If the website is such a "joke", why the hell are you here?”
Pappa on Jul 10, 2013 at 21:08:43
“You must be a republican. Even though the interest rate doubled on student loans, you are trying to place the onus on others. Nice tr.”
“It has nothing to do with his patronizing of prostitutes (which should be legal). He ruined people's lives, destroyed their businesses, and put people in jail while completely ignoring the law.
That is not justifiable. It is the exact same as the last three president's admitting to use of illegal substances (or not denying it) while supporting enforcement that would have prevented them from attaining office had they been caught.”
He put people in jail for engaging in prostitution in the State of New York and used the law to harass tour operators who had a business that create packages for people to diddle prostitutes in other countries. He ruined peoples lives on a moral crusade while doing the exact f-wording thing that he was supposedly against (using prostitutes and traveling to use them.)
His downfall was not about his private life. It was about his public hypocrisy. He ruined the lives of others in some bulldink moral campaign to appease stupid voters. that is never acceptable.”
“Ecuador is a hell-hole where rights are routinely ignored and the government is openly corrupt.
The only reason Ecuador would allow in Assange or Snowden is to stick it to the US. Freedom of the press is non-existent in Ecuador. Anyone critical of the state is deemed an "enemy" and the news outlet that they work for is shut down.”
AudReality on Jun 23, 2013 at 16:39:33
“Have you been to Ecuador? It is certainly NOT a hell-hole!
Luscious scenery, interesting cuisine, friendly people and wildlife galore. When I was there, it was astounding to watch development under way. (Controversial, because it's linked with increasing taxes.) Everywhere we went, we noticed the locals were busy working to improve roads and infrastructure. Was also pleased to see the graffiti wasn't like most American graffiti (youngsters marking their territory like dogs). Ecuadorian wall art had purpose: to honor great leaders, social movements... and Revolution.”
dopamineboy on Jun 23, 2013 at 16:30:37
“Human Rights Watch -The Communications Law that the Ecuadorian National Assembly approved on June 14, 2013, seriously undermines free speech. The law includes overly broad language that will limit the free expression of journalists and media outlets.”
artboyzreborn on Jun 23, 2013 at 16:27:32
“But the beaches are nice.”
ZombieSM on Jun 23, 2013 at 16:27:20
“"Ecuador is a hell-hole where rights are routinely ignored and the government is openly corrupt."
4th,5th,6th amendment rights going away quickly and a Congress that gets rich off of writing legislation to benefit themselves, their families, and their country club 1% playpals.”
bigguy1231 on Jun 23, 2013 at 16:22:49
Billy Goat Gruff on Jun 23, 2013 at 16:21:32
“Where are you getting this. They are rated as one of the best places in the world to retire to.”
“It does not even matter who aired the suicide. The family would sue anyone. They hope to get a settlement (and their lawyer probably has told them this as well). Ask for huge number, agree to smaller confidential settlement and use that money on whatever you want.
This is how the real world works.”
jmk6653 on Jun 14, 2013 at 20:45:58
“Wow maybe they weren't hatched and actually have blood in their veins unlike your comment”
Lunara on Jun 13, 2013 at 23:03:58
“. . your world perhaps, in mine there are still people of character, and who greive honestly over things like this. . . and by suing FOX, maybe next time they will use the standard delay that nearly every responsible network has come to adopt. . .”
“It is comparable to something like Whole Foods or Wegmans. While anyone can shop there, and people do, the stores are not looking for low income shoppers. They are locating themselves in areas with higher than average incomes because those markets bring them more revenue.”
“Memberships result in more sales. People feel the need to spend. They also have more if they can afford to buy a membership.
How many SKUs does Costco have per store? Let's just something simple like sandwich bags? 4? 5? How many does walmart have? 40? 50?
Costco sees higher revenue per employee. People are buying more (partly because they are forced to buy more if they shop and also because Costco offers more expensive goods).
The discount of bulk is more affordable to those with money. A person on a fixed income cannot drop $30 for something even if will last them a long time. They do not have the money to spend.
Its members are wealthy people. Every piece of data says that. The Romneys are not shopping at Walmart, but they are shopping at Costco. Growth is strong in affluent consumers. That is who the store caters too. That is who is keeping its sales strong and kept them strong during the recession.”
“Masquerading as a discount store. It has a low price model, but it aims for wealth people.
How many Costco locations are in areas with high levels of poverty? How many are in areas where the median income is below that of the US as a whole?
Sorry, kid, but you do not get it. You do not understand how Costco works to get rich people to overbuy while maintaining a minimal workforce thanks to its warehouse nature.”
“It is all bulldink as the claims that growth and debt are not related are based upon the past (the west sees no foreign competition world).
The reality is that the future is not the past. A debt-laden nation that only maintains relevance through sending its stupidest to murder people in other countries, like the US, is not competitive in the world of the future where there are billions of more people who will be consuming resources that the US cannot produce.”
artleads on May 31, 2013 at 10:42:11
“Except there doesn't seem to be much of a future for anybody, largely based on the behaviors you .cite.
You may not like it, but it is the truth. Costco is more successful because it is not at all like Walmart. It sees lower margins (very low for a department type store), but has more sales because of its model. It works well, but it has nothing to do with salaries.”