IMPORTANT! URGENT! MARRIAGE AMENDMENT!

[Hara_Juku Tgirl]

Found this at myspace bulletin board from myspace user ~*~Maureen~*~ and thought Id share them here:

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...85F7A946990546

To support this cause, please click the links below:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/def...y&auid=1234313

Please email your senators and tell them no to discrimination in the constitution!! Feel free to pass this on to people you know.

Thanks!

~Kisses.

HTG

[McRen]

I think a lot of the arguement against gay marriage (i'll use that term for lack of a better one) is not just that the bible says man and woman, but that the tax benefits to a marriage are designed to help people have children. If a marriage cant have children, it shouldnt get the tax breaks.

Personally I think any 2 people should be able to form a marriage/union, but perhaps nobody should get tax breaks unless they have children (which could include adopting, so tgirls and gay people can all get the same benefits as everyone)

[Hara_Juku Tgirl]

I think a lot of the arguement against gay marriage (i'll use that term for lack of a better one) is not just that the bible says man and woman, but that the tax benefits to a marriage are designed to help people have children. If a marriage cant have children, it shouldnt get the tax breaks.

Personally I think any 2 people should be able to form a marriage/union, but perhaps nobody should get tax breaks unless they have children (which could include adopting, so tgirls and gay people can all get the same benefits as everyone)

True. Althought I am a Catholic I dont agree with the church definition of marriage..i.e between a man and a woman. Which they seem to use as a crutch to denying basic human rights for people in our community. I think its too textbookish (Outdated), lame and unconstitutional.

Like you said yourself which I so agree..gay people and or a TS (m to f transexual)/Man or TS (f to m transexual)/woman can easily adopt to define the spot (Kids) missing in the equation (Marriage)like most hetero couples.

I always believe everyone should be given the same equal rights and chances to finding true happiness of being with someone they love and share things with as much as a "Normal" hetero couple would. I mean why not?

~Kisses.

HTG

[McRen]

Yes, I dont agree with the churchs definition of many things.

Thats why I proposed the whole 'couples with children receive benefits' instead of just male/female marriage. That way, nobody is discriminated against, and anyone can chose their life mate and prounly tell the world 'this is my legal partner' if they so chose.

Although, I'd assume its harder for gays and especially transgendered people to adopt (anyone know much about that topic?)

If gay marriage was legal, I think a lot of friends would arrange fake marriages to save money. Kinda like marrying someone so they can live in the country type thing.

Either way, its clear discrimination, but there was a vote, and the Red states won. I live in Canada, and i'm assuming it is legal here. We're kinda cool when it comes to personal freedoms.

[tsluver247]

HomoMeter

A year after the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, Ed Helms investigates to find out if the critics' worst fears have come true. Has gay marriage ruined Massachusetts?

[Felicia Katt]

Its not just a question of a tax break to help raise kids. Married couples currently enjoy no fewer than 1049(!!!!) Federal benefits that are denied to same sex partners.
http://gaylife.about.com/gi/dynamic/...%2Fog97016.pdf

Most of these have nothing to do with child rearing. Its simple and irrational discrimination. Under our system, a committed gay couple who live together for years have fewer rights than Kenny Chesney and Renee Zellweger whose marriage had the life span of a fruit fly.

FK

[Ecstatic]

Harajuku, I'm way ahead of you on this one: I'm from Massachusetts! (Though the fight continues here to prevent the law being changed by an election poll question in two years; however, that seems increasingly unlikely.)

McRen, I gather you've never heard of the "marriage penalty"? A married couple earning roughly equivalent incomes pays more in federal taxes than two people filing separately would:

Sound hard to believe? Think again. Uncle Sam's so-called "marriage penalty" impacts over 40% of married couples, boosting annual taxes for these couples. The penalty can be steep, especially for two-income couples where both incomes are fairly equal. When both incomes are combined, many couples are pushed into the next tax bracket, triggering higher taxes on April 15th.

If one spouse makes substantially more than the other, there may be no penalty attached. In fact, modest changes in a married couple's tax rate could earn those couples with only one "breadwinner" a marriage bonus in the form of reduced taxes. However, more and more households are two-income families, meaning the marriage penalty may be taking a larger bite out of disposable income.

Here's how the marriage penalty works:

Individual
AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) $50,000
Minus exemptions and standard deductions $6,950
Taxable income $43,050
Federal tax $8,766
($17,532 for two individuals)

Married Couple
AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) $100,000
Minus exemptions and standard deductions -$12,500
Taxable income $87,500
Federal tax $19,002
($17,532 for two individuals)
Marriage penalty $1,470

Felicia, here in Mass the worst part is that same sex married couples have to file as married for state income tax, but single for federal tax--and their taxes can get incredibly convoluted as a result.