Why not extend the same taxation benefits to single people then? I think it will be found, when enough time for data collection has passed, that gay marriagewill effectively grant more rights than heterosexual marriage, where matters of taxation and inheritance are concerned. I expect the fallout of that discovery is that those special rights will disappear for everyone.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Start with a country and give one example how gay marriage with exactly the same rights as any marriage would have any special rights. If you are talking about tweaks to laws involving ALL married people, that would be fair assuming there was a rationale. This special rights thing is almost always used as a red herring. Here's your chance to prove there is a crumb of substance to your assertion.

Gays are covered under hate speech. Straights are not.

Why not extend the same taxation benefits to single people then? I think it will be found, when enough time for data collection has passed, that gay marriagewill effectively grant more rights than heterosexual marriage, where matters of taxation and inheritance are concerned. I expect the fallout of that discovery is that those special rights will disappear for everyone.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Start with a country and give one example how gay marriage with exactly the same rights as any marriage would have any special rights. If you are talking about tweaks to laws involving ALL married people, that would be fair assuming there was a rationale. This special rights thing is almost always used as a red herring. Here's your chance to prove there is a crumb of substance to your assertion.

I am talking about rights extended to all married persons. I think they will be withdrawn with respect to taxation in time.

Yes always possible, but you just asserted gay married people will have special TAXATION rights. How so? Specific examples please. Or perhaps you'd like to retract. It also sounds like you are setting up a scenario to BLAME gay people for any taxation changes.

Why not extend the same taxation benefits to single people then? I think it will be found, when enough time for data collection has passed, that gay marriagewill effectively grant more rights than heterosexual marriage, where matters of taxation and inheritance are concerned. I expect the fallout of that discovery is that those special rights will disappear for everyone.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Start with a country and give one example how gay marriage with exactly the same rights as any marriage would have any special rights. If you are talking about tweaks to laws involving ALL married people, that would be fair assuming there was a rationale. This special rights thing is almost always used as a red herring. Here's your chance to prove there is a crumb of substance to your assertion.

Gays are covered under hate speech. Straights are not.

A separate issue and not related to taxation of marriage. Also not really true.

Why not extend the same taxation benefits to single people then? I think it will be found, when enough time for data collection has passed, that gay marriagewill effectively grant more rights than heterosexual marriage, where matters of taxation and inheritance are concerned. I expect the fallout of that discovery is that those special rights will disappear for everyone.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Start with a country and give one example how gay marriage with exactly the same rights as any marriage would have any special rights. If you are talking about tweaks to laws involving ALL married people, that would be fair assuming there was a rationale. This special rights thing is almost always used as a red herring. Here's your chance to prove there is a crumb of substance to your assertion.

I am talking about rights extended to all married persons. I think they will be withdrawn with respect to taxation in time.

Yes always possible, but you just asserted gay married people will have special TAXATION rights. How so? Specific examples please. Or perhaps you'd like to retract. It also sounds like you are setting up a scenario to BLAME gay people for any taxation changes.

I didn't say they would have special rights. I said they would benefit more from having the same rights that are extended to non gay married people. I believe when enough data is collected that will be evident, but one could posit it even now. I think in time that will result in a removal of that special taxation category for all married persons.

You have failed to suggest even one specific example of how that would be so. Again, it sounds like you are trying to blame gay people for something that has not happened without a shred of evidence. Taxation changes can always happen at any time for a multitude of reasons.

You said this:

that gay marriage will effectively grant more rights than heterosexual marriage

I've asked for specifics. You don't have them. You are under no obligation to provide any evidence to support your outrageous allegation, but it is what it is.

In any case, this is just a diversion. Equal civil rights for detested minorities is always a worthy goal. Period.

You have failed to suggest even one specific example of how that would be so. Again, it sounds like you are trying to blame gay people for something that has not happened without a shred of evidence. Taxation changes can always happen at any time for a multitude of reasons.

You said this:

that gay marriage will effectively grant more rights than heterosexual marriage

I've asked for specifics. You don't have them. You are under no obligation to provide any evidence to support your outrageous allegation, but it is what it is.

In any case, this is just a diversion. Equal civil rights for detested minorities is always a worthy goal. Period.

It seems the only way you can have any discourse is if you drape yourself in victimhood. No one is talking about curtailing anyone's civil rights or detesting a minority. Those are figments of your own imagination. "Effectively" means this: "actually but not officially or explicitly".

Why has this thread turned into yet another weary argument about sexual deviants - a very small minority of the general population.

It is totally off-topic - the heading to this thread is about whether Obama will be impeached. He wouldn't be impeached over anything to do with 'gays'. It is of no importance in the general scheme of things.

He may very well be impeached on his mis-management of the economy (US), which is also affecting the economies of the rest of the world.

If you are against gay people having equal marriage rights you are by definition opposing gay civil rights. How would you feel if I worked to take away YOUR heterosexual marriage rights (civil rights, NOT talking about religion in any way)? Suggesting a red herring, oh no taxes are going to change, to oppose equal civil rights is a classic diversion tactic and is fooling nobody.

If you really want to convince me that you aren't for discrimination against gay people, just say so. Just say you are for equal rights under the law for gay people in EVERY regard and yes that includes marriage.

Why has this thread turned into yet another weary argument about sexual deviants - a very small minority of the general population.

It is totally off-topic - the heading to this thread is about whether Obama will be impeached. He wouldn't be impeached over anything to do with 'gays'. It is of no importance in the general scheme of things.

He may very well be impeached on his mis-management of the economy (US), which is also affecting the economies of the rest of the world.

Gay civil rights is a MASSIVELY important social issue. It is the civil rights movement of the moment in the USA. It is under argument in the supreme court this year and the decisions made will be among the MOST IMPORTANT of all of the current justices in their long careers. President Obama has proven to be a great civil rights leader on this issue. Gays are small. True. Would you say it was a nothing issue if JEWS were not allowed to marry each other or if JEWS were not allowed to marry non-Jews under civil laws? I doubt it! That would be a massive CIVIL RIGHTS issue, even with the small numbers of Jews. Calling gays sexual deviants is just another kind of nasty speech. Tells us about you.

Why has this thread turned into yet another weary argument about sexual deviants - a very small minority of the general population.

It is totally off-topic - the heading to this thread is about whether Obama will be impeached. He wouldn't be impeached over anything to do with 'gays'. It is of no importance in the general scheme of things.

He may very well be impeached on his mis-management of the economy (US), which is also affecting the economies of the rest of the world.

Indeed, there are a thousand and one reasons to be shot of Bathhouse Barry, before even considering his stance on gay marriage.

Indeed, there are a thousand and one reasons to be shot of Bathhouse Barry, before even considering his stance on gay marriage.

You guys are incredible. Bathhouse Barry. That didn't happen.

Why has this thread turned into yet another weary argument about sexual deviants - a very small minority of the general population.

It is totally off-topic - the heading to this thread is about whether Obama will be impeached. He wouldn't be impeached over anything to do with 'gays'. It is of no importance in the general scheme of things.

He may very well be impeached on his mis-management of the economy (US), which is also affecting the economies of the rest of the world.

Gay civil rights is a MASSIVELY important social issue. It is the civil rights movement of the moment in the USA. It is under argument in the supreme court this year and the decisions made will be among the MOST IMPORTANT of all of the current justices in their long careers. President Obama has proven to be a great civil rights leader on this issue. Gays are small. True. Would you say it was a nothing issue if JEWS were not allowed to marry each other or if JEWS were not allowed to marry non-Jews under civil laws? I doubt it! That would be a massive CIVIL RIGHTS issue, even with the small numbers of Jews. Calling gays sexual deviants is just another kind of nasty speech. Tells us about you.

I find people with a poor vocabulary tend to be offended more often. Deviant is synonymous with aberrant and atypical. It is by no means nasty speech or a slur.

If you are against gay people having equal marriage rights you are by definition opposing gay civil rights. How would you feel if I worked to take away YOUR heterosexual marriage rights (civil rights, NOT talking about religion in any way)? Suggesting a red herring, oh no taxes are going to change, to oppose equal civil rights is a classic diversion tactic and is fooling nobody.

If you really want to convince me that you aren't for discrimination against gay people, just say so. Just say you are for equal rights under the law for gay people in EVERY regard and yes that includes marriage.

Special rates for married people and tax exmptions for dependents were created because the government deemd it was a societal interest to have nuclear family formation. Whatever gay marriage is or isn't, it is not that. With marriage rates among heterosexuals plunging and divorce rates over 50% and most "wives" in the workforce I'd say the justification for the special rights granted married persons is coming to an end. It's not a gay thing per se, but that will certainly not help matters for married persons.

If tax policies change, tax policies change. Don't blame that on gay people. As far as families being formed, yes gay married people do form families and many of them have children as well, especially lesbians. You guys against gay marriage equality favor HURTING those children, not allowing them to be be in legally equal families.

Why has this thread turned into yet another weary argument about sexual deviants - a very small minority of the general population.

It is totally off-topic - the heading to this thread is about whether Obama will be impeached. He wouldn't be impeached over anything to do with 'gays'. It is of no importance in the general scheme of things.

He may very well be impeached on his mis-management of the economy (US), which is also affecting the economies of the rest of the world.

Gay civil rights is a MASSIVELY important social issue. It is the civil rights movement of the moment in the USA. It is under argument in the supreme court this year and the decisions made will be among the MOST IMPORTANT of all of the current justices in their long careers. President Obama has proven to be a great civil rights leader on this issue. Gays are small. True. Would you say it was a nothing issue if JEWS were not allowed to marry each other or if JEWS were not allowed to marry non-Jews under civil laws? I doubt it! That would be a massive CIVIL RIGHTS issue, even with the small numbers of Jews. Calling gays sexual deviants is just another kind of nasty speech. Tells us about you.

I find people with a poor vocabulary tend to be offended more often. Deviant is synonymous with aberrant and atypical. It is by no means nasty speech or a slur.

Deviant is used as a SLUR word against gay people. Please don't act like you don't know that.

Why has this thread turned into yet another weary argument about sexual deviants - a very small minority of the general population.

It is totally off-topic - the heading to this thread is about whether Obama will be impeached. He wouldn't be impeached over anything to do with 'gays'. It is of no importance in the general scheme of things.

He may very well be impeached on his mis-management of the economy (US), which is also affecting the economies of the rest of the world.

One reason gay marriages are in the forefront of political issues today is so the Democrats don't have to run on their management of the government for the past four plus years.

The elections of 2014 are already on everybody's mind and the need to run away from everything done by this administration is mounting.

Why do you think there is so much talk and publicity on Immigration, gun control, women's issues, gay marriage and other topics instead of the economy and the massive number of citizens either unemployed or under employed?

When is the last time you saw an article on the unemployment rate or the national debt in the main stream media?

There is still an occasional story about closing the White House to tours but nothing is being done to make it happen again. The tours are estimated (by the administration) to cost $74,000 per week to operate. Air Force one costs $181,000 per hour while in the air yet Obama still finds time and government funds to fly for golfing weekends in Florida and for Michelle and the girls to fly to Colorado and the Bahamas on vacations. Cutting 21 hours and 15 minutes of flight time annually for AF-1 would pay for one year of tours.

Oh yeah. When Obama, Michelle and the girls go their separate ways it isn't only one aircraft that goes. Their security details, entourages and vehicles all need to travel as well.

Massive, massive costs...yet where is the indignation?

Buried on page 3 of the travel section in the New York Times or mentioned in a 20 second burst on MSNBC.

What a farce this administration is becoming.

What a farce this administration is becoming.

Losing repeatedly can be emotionally painful.

What a farce this administration is becoming.

Losing repeatedly can be emotionally painful.

Agreed - Obama can't even score any baskets (against girls!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9965886/Barack-Obama-has-an-off-day-on-basketball-court.html

Barack Obama managed to shoot just two hoops out of 22 as he tried to show off his basketball skills at the White House Easter festivities.

Would you say it was a nothing issue if JEWS were not allowed to marry each other or if JEWS were not allowed to marry non-Jews under civil laws?

If the Jews were a man and a woman it would be an issue, but marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Would you say it was a nothing issue if JEWS were not allowed to marry each other or if JEWS were not allowed to marry non-Jews under civil laws?

If the Jews were a man and a woman it would be an issue, but marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Not anymore. Get with the modern times, dude. Twelve countries now legal including the two bordering countries of the USA: Mexico and Canada. Nine U.S. states soon as we expect full marriage rights (DOMA will be killed) and many more states to follow. This isn't about religion. It's about fairness under civil legal systems. Nobody is making YOU gay marry. Why so niggardly about this? I don't get it. It's depressing so many people are so dedicated to stopping others having happiness and equal legal rights when it doesn't effect them one little bit.

I get this: you want marriage to be only a man and a woman for whatever reason that I can NEVER understand (it seems MEAN and anal retentive to me). But your views are obsolete now (American young people: EIGHTY PERCENT support gay marriage equality) and don't reflect the changing realities. Your statement that marriage is man and woman is now veritably FALSE.

Have you ever personally met a married gay couple? Do you think they would bite you? Really, what is the problem?

What a farce this administration is becoming.

Losing repeatedly can be emotionally painful.

Agreed - Obama can't even score any baskets (against girls!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9965886/Barack-Obama-has-an-off-day-on-basketball-court.html

Barack Obama managed to shoot just two hoops out of 22 as he tried to show off his basketball skills at the White House Easter festivities.

I particularly liked this part of your link.

"He then handed the ball to a boy and asked for help. "He couldn't make one. I had to help him out," said Kahron Campbell, 10."

He handed this off to a child just like he is handing off the national debt to them

Having a cold day at basketball is not an impeachable offense. Even for President Blackenstein.

Would you say it was a nothing issue if JEWS were not allowed to marry each other or if JEWS were not allowed to marry non-Jews under civil laws?

If the Jews were a man and a woman it would be an issue, but marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Not anymore. Get with the modern times, dude. Twelve countries now legal including the two bordering countries of the USA: Mexico and Canada. Nine U.S. states soon as we expect full marriage rights (DOMA will be killed) and many more states to follow. This isn't about religion. It's about fairness under civil legal systems. Nobody is making YOU gay marry. Why so niggardly about this? I don't get it. It's depressing so many people are so dedicated to stopping others having happiness and equal legal rights when it doesn't effect them one little bit.

I get this: you want marriage to be only a man and a woman for whatever reason that I can NEVER understand (it seems MEAN and anal retentive to me). But your views are obsolete now (American young people: EIGHTY PERCENT support gay marriage equality) and don't reflect the changing realities. Your statement that marriage is man and woman is now veritably FALSE.

Have you ever personally met a married gay couple? Do you think they would bite you? Really, what is the problem?

I'm not against anyone's happiness I assure you. I've got absolutely nothing against gays and have known quite a few of both genders. I've known them in committed relationships and not.

My observations are that maybe 1 in 25 gay people is in a monogamous LTR. Lower ratio for women, higher for men. The vast majority spend their time seeking immediate sexual gratification with as idealic a physical partner as they can manage. Older gays spend their lives in lonliness, quite often because they're no longer young enough and fit enough for anyone to care about. Really sad in my view but not germane.

I do expect laws preventing gay marriage will disappear because there isn't anything specifically in the US Constitution barring it. I very much doubt its authors forsaw a day when clarification on the issue of marriage would be required. I don't think the "equal protection" amendment will be invoked as IMO it is not relevant

I have some sympathy for the lady who got stuck with the larger tax bill upon the death of her partner and I think it was a good case to bring before the Supreme Court. It will be an interesting opinion to here and i've no prejudices or opinions on the outcome.

Fourth month of second term, plenty of time for the smoke to clear and the real pain of Obama policies to surface. I'm still in at 75% chance he goes down and is exposed as the failure of a leader he is.

I have some sympathy for the lady who got stuck with the larger tax bill upon the death of her partner and I think it was a good case to bring before the Supreme Court. It will be an interesting opinion to here and i've no prejudices or opinions on the outcome.

U.S. state gay marriages do not participate in the over ONE THOUSAND rights afforded by the feds to opposite sex marriages. The case is about striking down DOMA. When DOMA is struck down those married in the gay legal U.S. states will have the same federal rights as all other married American citizens. When DOMA is struck down the USA will join the international club of countries offering FULL RIGHTS gay marriages, but in the beginning only in a limited number of states. It's a start.

I have some sympathy for the lady who got stuck with the larger tax bill upon the death of her partner and I think it was a good case to bring before the Supreme Court. It will be an interesting opinion to here and i've no prejudices or opinions on the outcome.

U.S. state gay marriages do not participate in the over ONE THOUSAND rights afforded by the feds to opposite sex marriages. The case is about striking down DOMA. When DOMA is struck down those married in the gay legal U.S. states will have the same federal rights as all other married American citizens. When DOMA is struck down the USA will join the international club of countries offering FULL RIGHTS gay marriages, but in the beginning only in a limited number of states. It's a start.

I know of two gay people that were previously in normal marriages and they conceived children. I assume gay marriage would confer community property rights and that is very unfair to the family of anyone who dies intestate, which many people do because there are familial protocols often for wealth distribution. That will certainly be turned upside down. I see countless unfairnesses that will arise.

If tax policies change, tax policies change. Don't blame that on gay people. As far as families being formed, yes gay married people do form families and many of them have children as well, especially lesbians. You guys against gay marriage equality favor HURTING those children, not allowing them to be be in legally equal families.

No one is in favor of hurting children, on the contrary. In community property states however, spousal rights are superior. What if a child could not inherit his biological father's wealth because his "statuatory" parental unit got it instead?

What difference does it make?

He isn't fooling anyone other than the Obamabots still mired in some extreme left-wing fantasy world...

Would you say it was a nothing issue if JEWS were not allowed to marry each other or if JEWS were not allowed to marry non-Jews under civil laws?

If the Jews were a man and a woman it would be an issue, but marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Have you ever personally met a married gay couple? Do you think they would bite you? Really, what is the problem?

My observations are that maybe 1 in 25 gay people is in a monogamous LTR. Lower ratio for women, higher for men. The vast majority spend their time seeking immediate sexual gratification with as idealic a physical partner as they can manage.

.

Exactly my experience. I have nothing against gays having long term partners with rights, benefits, pensions, tax breaks and such while screwing around on the side as much as they like, but it should not be called marriage. Yes, I know that straights are not always monogamous either, but at least most of them think that they should be.

Civil partnerships were brought in to give same-sex couples the rights that they said they badly needed. These rights are virtually identical to those of married couples. Being equal does not mean being the same.

"I have some sympathy for the lady who got stuck with the larger tax bill upon the death of her partner and I think it was a good case to bring before the Supreme Court. It will be an interesting opinion to here and i've no prejudices or opinions on the outcome."

Me too. I am not for gay marriage, but support civil partnerships with most of the same rights as marriage between a man and a woman. I am not sure how the Supreme Court can rule on this and satisfy both positions.