1 posted on
07/13/2003 1:27:16 PM PDT by
nwrep
To: *Blackshirts; *Clash of Civilizatio; california; *Homosexual Agenda; *Privacy_list
PING
2 posted on
07/13/2003 1:29:32 PM PDT by
nwrep
To: All
3 posted on
07/13/2003 1:31:32 PM PDT by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: nwrep
Good Lord, where's the *BARF ALERT* for those pictures?
Have you no decency!? lol
4 posted on
07/13/2003 1:35:40 PM PDT by
ItsOurTimeNow
("For great justice...")
To: nwrep; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Why shouldn't singles/unmarried/unpartnered get the same tax break?
5 posted on
07/13/2003 1:37:24 PM PDT by
xzins
To: nwrep
They're the same sex?
Is that Pat?
8 posted on
07/13/2003 1:43:13 PM PDT by
Mo1
(Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
To: nwrep
How about a new show for Spike TV: STRAIGHT LIKES FOR THE UGLY DYKES
To: nwrep
Hint: they aren't 'married'. I don't care what anyone says. They're co-habitating homosexuals. I don't like their lifestyle. I don't approve of it. My religion speaks strongly against it. Most peoples' religions speak strongly against it. We don't want to subsidize them.
Get it, California? Plain enough for you?
Damned if I'll ever, ever live in that State again.
To: nwrep
Presumably they will get the tax benefits of married couples but will not have to suffer any of the well-known marriage penalties, such as having to file joint returns.
Bush has spoken about doing away with the marriage penalties, but that won't reall happen for practical purposes as long as he leaves the Alternative Minimum Tax in place.
13 posted on
07/13/2003 1:48:05 PM PDT by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: nwrep
Creating special reduced tax status for perverts, while the state is looking at a 30 some billion dollar deficit and raising taxes on everything else in sight. Way to go California.
15 posted on
07/13/2003 1:57:15 PM PDT by
CGTRWK
To: nwrep
Does this mean that I can now get the same benefits with my live-in girlfriend even though we are not married?
Now why do I thing I will never get away with that?
20 posted on
07/13/2003 3:08:45 PM PDT by
navyblue
To: RJCogburn; breakem
It's he-ere.
22 posted on
07/13/2003 3:15:31 PM PDT by
gcruse
(There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)
To: nwrep
End run around the 'bigoted' California voters who passed Prop 22. Our government knows what's best for us.
To: nwrep
I'm all in favor of this. I'm not married, so if I get a disease where I know the end is coming, I'll 'register' with my heir as domestic partners. Anything to screw the state out of taking another chunk out of me in taxes. The next thing to push for is allowing the registration of multiple domestic partners so that I can spread the inheritance out tax-free among several people. Cool.
To: nwrep
Does that mean that hetero shackin-up couples get the tax break too?
47 posted on
07/14/2003 2:28:09 PM PDT by
Xenalyte
(I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
To: nwrep
Strange the media seems to be glorifying a tax break for same-sex couples. Wait until the same-sex partners get hit with the marriage penalty tax (which is not gender specific) which married people have been paying for years.
No one is getting a tax break here - they are getting a tax hike under the guise of the appearance of an expansion of media recognized personal freedom.
Congress will not repeal the marriage penalty tax so long as there are people like this willing to expand the tax pool.
59 posted on
07/15/2003 5:31:27 AM PDT by
tomball
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson