Skip to comments.DOMA & Financial Inequality - Suze Orman, Financial Expert, on the Cost of Banning Gay Marriage
Posted on 02/23/2013 8:11:42 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Suze Orman appears on CNN to discuss the unfair FINANCIAL burden that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) has on gay married couples.
What most people don't realize is that despite 9 states and the District of Columbia legalizing same-sex marriage..... the Federal Government has not legalized same-sex marriage. In fact, they have a federal law specifically dedicated NOT to recognize same-sex couples at the federal level (DOMA).
Suze explains the challenges that married same-sex couples experience due to their marriages not being recognized. These include:
1) Adding a same-sex spouse to a health insurance policy. -- income taxes will need to be paid on that imputed benefit. (at an average cost of $5,000 - $9,000 / year in taxes)
2) Estate Taxes - same-sex married couples will lose over 50% of their estate to estate taxes. Compare this to a straight married couple who would not owe 1 penny in estate tax if a spouse were to die.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
A fervent lesbo whining about the financial burden of homosexual arrangements not having some sort of, whatever.............
uhhhhhhh Suze Orman is a known carpet muncher. I’m sure her financial views weren’t influenced by her personal choices in life partners.
Many have been conditioned to think the state defines marriage, so to them marriage is just a legal contract that can be applied, broken, and resumed between any parties that judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public think should have it. That’s it, that’s all it will ever be to the state.
Pope Leo XIII warned about this 130 years ago.
Oh, from this wench who gives financial advice .... but keeps all or most of her money in CD’s....
Gay propaganda. Lovely.
GFY Suze Sodomite!
Why post this pro Sodomite agenda BS?
You must an avid Suze watcher...
Why would anyone want to “recognize” particularly evil acts (Vice) in a Just society. Not only that-—trying to give special rights to such a SEXIST ideology which does vile dehumanizing things to people should be outlawed. It is also sexist to promote hatred for half of the human race.
Just Law has to promote Justice and the General Welfare which supports the system which best protects the Natural Rights of babies-—to be raised by their biological parents. That is the Natural Law which is basis of our Supreme Law of the Land-—which can not be undermined by sexist, Vice-promoting laws.
Poking things in body cavities is not something to base an institution on...it is sick and warped used of the body. Justice demands laws which promote Virtue. Denying nature is insanity and people should be put away for it.
Yes let’s ask a lesbian about this. Of course you know what the answer is.
Call it a civil union and let them get the benefits. I reall do not care if gay couples get benfits.
As a matter of fact, if Republicans said gay couples can receive benefits, it takes the narrative away from the libs. Who cares as long as marriage in the eyes of god is between a man and a woman?
Republicans should also say they support choice. And with that say that they are pro choice and they support life. Let the Rats take the position of supporting death.
We are losing a cultural war because we let the left define an issue using labels. By agreeing with them and using our own labels, we take away the lefts advantage.
it doesn’t take the arrative away because repubs never go as far as the democrats go. it’s never enough, you can’t out-lib a lib.
read up on the dialectic, read up on the delphi technique, they just keep pushing left and dragging us along via incrementalism thru compromise and appeasement.
if we all recognized what they were doing and didn’t go along we’d have different outcomes because what we’d do is start pushing things back right, and force them to come back our way. but too many of our side are rinos and too many actually like the direction the libs are leading things, so it won’t happen.
What a horrible future awaits a republic once dedicated to the maxim that no law can be legitimate without the consent of the people.
As for the 14th Amendment and equal protection, it was in an earlier, less Utopian time when we passed another amendment, to guarantee female suffrage. I wonder how long, absent the 19th, a Scotus could have resisted granting women's suffrage on 14th Amendment grounds.
Well, she is a dyke after all.
Flat tax would fix all of this. Why should some people pay more taxes than others. This is tyranny at its best. Tax people evenly. It is such a simple solution.
I think there are nine states that recognize ‘gay marriage’. Three states have now approved gay marriage through the popular voting process, Maine, Maryland and Washington. A few others used pols like you say, the rest have used the courts.
The “penalties” are mostly tax breaks the federal government gives to encourage stable biological units where kids are born and raised.
Having kids but not being married puts an unfair financial burden on the poor women having the kids. It’s just not fair!!!!!
Are her numbers wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.