Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kabar
This is exactly why the federal government must define marriage. It was the impetus behind DOMA.

Yes, if the couple CHOOSES to move FROM a state that supports same-sex marriage to one that doesn't, they lose those federal benefits.

When you read the Constitution, it covers NONE of these issues and the Founding Fathers made the correct choice to leave this to the states. It is then up to the states to decide how these issues will be addressed within their borders. If DOMA is struck down, the states need to have the ability to negotiate disbursement of federal benefits as they apply to same-sex couples.

This issue is no different than the marijuana one. Just because one state defies the federal government and agrees to let people openly purchase and use marijuana does not require another state to honor the same issue, even though they oppoose the use of marijuana.

This whole issue is about choices. Same-sex couples choose to create their lives together, just as heterosexual couples do. If that same same-sex couple chooses to relocate to a state that does not support same-sex marriage or same-sex access to benefits, that's a consequence of the choice they made to move.

We often hear, on FR, that choices have consequences and these issues that you are so passionate about are the consequences of the choices these people have made. If you believe otherwise, then you believe that the government exists to solve every issue that exists. And, some issues just end up sucking for those that don't fit within the mainstream.

71 posted on 03/28/2013 10:38:28 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: DustyMoment
I think we are talking past one another. I have no problem with states defining marriage and using that definition to run state funded and operated programs. I do have a problem with states defining marriage to determine who gets federal benefits like SS, Medicare, and pension survivor benefits. It costs them nothing, but it does cost the taxpayers throughout the country more. And since these entitlement programs represent an unfunded liability of over $60 trillion and both are now running in the red it does not seem to be good public policy to expand eligibility for these programs and increase our debt even more.

If DOMA is struck down, the states need to have the ability to negotiate disbursement of federal benefits as they apply to same-sex couples.

Negotiate what and with whom? You are eligible or you are not and what incentive would the states have to limit such eligibility. It costs them nothing. It will just put more pressure on other states to treat their residents the same thus pushing more states into gay marriage.

I don't know if you understand how SS and Medicare work, but you don't have to go thru a state intermediary now to get benefits. You go to a federal office and apply. The states have no real role--until now with the redefinition of marriage.

This issue is no different than the marijuana one. Just because one state defies the federal government and agrees to let people openly purchase and use marijuana does not require another state to honor the same issue, even though they oppoose the use of marijuana.

It is like comparing apples to organges. There is no similarity between violating a federal law on drug use and the federal government not recognizing gay marriage for the purpose of allocating federal benefits and adherence to existing tax law, e.e., filing a joint federal income tax return.

This whole issue is about choices. Same-sex couples choose to create their lives together, just as heterosexual couples do. If that same same-sex couple chooses to relocate to a state that does not support same-sex marriage or same-sex access to benefits, that's a consequence of the choice they made to move.

It is also a consequence every taxpayer in America must bear if we add more people to the SS and Medicare rolls and allow additional people to collect federal pension survivor benefits. You seem to want to ignore the real costs of overruling DOMA.

We often hear, on FR, that choices have consequences and these issues that you are so passionate about are the consequences of the choices these people have made. If you believe otherwise, then you believe that the government exists to solve every issue that exists. And, some issues just end up sucking for those that don't fit within the mainstream.

You want government, in this case SCOTUS, to overrule state referenda on the issue and a law that was passed overwhelmingly in Congress.

You seemed to have evolved on the issue yourself. From your personal page:

"4. DOMA!! A marriage is between a man and a woman; NOT between John and Larry or Joan and Mary. I believe that Judeo-Christian values need to be re-introduced in our society and practiced in the schools! The Pledge of Allegiance and daily school prayers strengthened our society and did not harm anyone!"

72 posted on 03/28/2013 11:16:16 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson