Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is correct, California can not encumber the federal government. This is why a California RDP does not offer people the same legal status and protections which marriage offers. Even IN California.
And no, only a spouse can inherit as a spouse. A spouse may treat an inherited IRA as their own, even rolling it into their own if they wish. No other inheritor may do so; it remains an inherited IRA and RMDs begin immediately.
You name your own beneficiary in your IRA, but in CA a registered domestic partner would inherit if their partner died intestate. You might want to review IRS doc Publication 555 that states so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
None of these are stories about the LGBT coalition attempting to change the age of a "child". The last one is actually a critique of the polygamist cult lead by Warren Jeffs. It does not name the cult or Jeffs, but does name their ranch in Texas and their prophet Willie Jessops. I'm not certain by what stretch of the imagination you believe this has anything to do with the LGBT coalition.
The Criminalization was all about the Q community as in LBGTQ. The rethink the age of consent article specifically mentioned Peter Tatchell, a gay activist, who wanted the age lowered to 14 in the UK. The article also talked about the European countries that had moved the ages down. The point of the article is that there is agitation in this country to lower the age of consent.
Your original question wasn't who was promoting it, but where were there calls for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
Oh. So laws can change as society changes?
Did anyone say laws didn't change?
Again, that was not your assertion. Your assertion was our laws were not biblically based and I demonstrated that was false.
Be sure you ask the question you want an answer to and don't get mad when the question asked is answered.
I'm trying to figure out why you would even want to business to somebody who clearly want nothing to do with you. Let people or store owners have a choice and make sure customers knows of their opinions before they waste their time entering their store/business. If I walked by a bakery and it was posted on the door " we do not bake cakes for gay weddings" I would just keep on going. I wouldn't give a dime to people like that. In a way it's a good thing because it gives everybody a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
I think I would feel that way too. But some feel differently.
And I would be one of those. I would be a person who would file suit against the florist. Why? Because I fight against things that are wrong. In 2011, I was a nominal plaintiff in an FFRF lawsuit against our very own Gov. of Texas because I thought it was wrong for him to hold a huge prayer rally in his official capacity as governor. Even though we lost the case (which we expected) we showed the governor and the state that we felt what we was doing was a misuse of his power as a politician and government leader. Standing up for injustice, even if only a little, is what makes the world a better place.
And I would be one of those. I would be a person who would file suit against the florist. Why? Because I fight against things that are wrong. In 2011, I was a nominal plaintiff in an FFRF lawsuit against our very own Gov. of Texas because I thought it was wrong for him to hold a huge prayer rally in his official capacity as governor. Even though we lost the case (which we expected) we showed the governor and the state that we felt what we was doing was a misuse of his power as a politician and government leader. Standing up for injustice, even if only a little, is what makes the world a better place.
It's funny, when Kennedy was elected President it was important to the American people that his religion not interfere with holding the office.
It's funny, when Kennedy was elected President it was important to the American people that his religion not interfere with holding the office.
You have that wrong. Some people were worried he would be beholden to the Pope, but it was a rather minor fear when all was said and done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks
And I would be one of those. I would be a person who would file suit against the florist. Why? Because I fight against things that are wrong. In 2011, I was a nominal plaintiff in an FFRF lawsuit against our very own Gov. of Texas because I thought it was wrong for him to hold a huge prayer rally in his official capacity as governor. Even though we lost the case (which we expected) we showed the governor and the state that we felt what we was doing was a misuse of his power as a politician and government leader. Standing up for injustice, even if only a little, is what makes the world a better place.
Did you file a similar suit against Obama for the National Prayer Breakfast?
Your perverse understanding of the First Amendment in truly unfathomable.
You name your own beneficiary in your IRA, but in CA a registered domestic partner would inherit if their partner died intestate. You might want to review IRS doc Publication 555 that states so.
Anyone can inherit your IRA. IRAs are not part of your estate, unless the estate is the named beneficiary. Dying intestate has nothing at all to do with what I am saying. Only a spouse may treat your IRA as their own. Publication 555 discusses community property and thus is not relevant. Publication 590 discusses IRAs. From Pub 590:
The rules for determining required minimum distributions for beneficiaries depend on the following.
The beneficiary is the surviving spouse.
The beneficiary is an individual (other than the surviving spouse).
The beneficiary is not an individual (for example, the beneficiary is the owner's estate). (But see Trust as beneficiary, later, for a discussion about treating trust beneficiaries as designated beneficiaries.)
An RDP is in the second category, the same as any other individual. They may not treat the IRA as their own. This is quite a disadvantage since they must immediately begin taking RMDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
The Criminalization was all about the Q community as in LBGTQ. The rethink the age of consent article specifically mentioned Peter Tatchell, a gay activist, who wanted the age lowered to 14 in the UK. The article also talked about the European countries that had moved the ages down. The point of the article is that there is agitation in this country to lower the age of consent.
Your original question wasn't who was promoting it, but where were there calls for it.
I did not have an original question. You made the claim that the LGBT coalition is trying to change the legal age of a "child". I quoted your statement and wrote "please provide a source for your claim". You have not done so. I assume that is because you cannot.
What is the Q community?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
Did anyone say laws didn't change?
Again, that was not your assertion. Your assertion was our laws were not biblically based and I demonstrated that was false.
Be sure you ask the question you want an answer to and don't get mad when the question asked is answered.
You have not demonstrated anything. You have stated that our laws are Biblically based. Your statement of opinion is not equivalent to factual proof.
The fact that our laws change when the Bible does not lends no support to your claim. Your statement that the laws must change because "people are licentious" undermines your claim. If our laws were Biblically based, licentious people would be stoned to death, they wouldn't have laws changed to suit them.
I am not mad. This is a matter-of-fact discussion.
Last edited by Petunia 100; 04-05-2015 at 12:02 AM..
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,146,559 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by trishguard
It's funny, when Kennedy was elected President it was important to the American people that his religion not interfere with holding the office.
That is actually historic. Sure, the country was settled primarily by Protestants - like the Puritans. Roman Catholics of course immigrated later.
On the Virginia Frontier, which at one time included all the Brittish Colonials, saying "papist" was akin to yelling, "Fire!" You would recieve the same alarmed reaction
Its also political, the competeing French and Spanish Colonials were primarily Roman Catholic.
That's the way I see it as well. If some one does not want to serve me for whatever reason, why would I want to force them do it? Ill go give my money to some one that does. If you force people to serve you, they will do crappy work, and you will be unhappy.
Rosa Parks is that you? Man, some people are dumb.
No, unequal treatment would be to say you could not marry a black man, but you could marry a white man, if you are a man would be unequal treatment. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not on its face unequal. If you remove a state's ability to define marriage it is short leap to polygamy and other non-traditional marriages.
There are two problems with the "Human beings have decided" argument, 1) it is not true. Human beings in CA said marriage is between a man and a woman and a gay judge decided, no it isn't. One man's opinion overrode 8 million Californian's opinion. 2) If the right comes from human beings then human beings can revoke that right later. Either the right is a natural right or it isn't really a right at all.
Defining a marriage as only between a man and a woman is inherently unequal because it is based on religious doctrine not shared by all.
Allowing same sex marriage does not have any effect on laws concerning polygamy at all, and I would venture that polygamy could be considered an unequal relationship. Cultures that wish to have it treat women as subservient and there is often coercion involved.
The judge's opinion was upheld. The fact that he is gay is irrelevant. Marriage is a human institution. In a secular context it governs totally human institutions, including such things as inheritance and child custody. Marriage between a man and a woman is no more inherently "natural" than a marriage between two people of the same sex.
Quote:
If it is a sexual preference then they were not born with it. You can not choose your skin color.
How old were you when you made a conscious decision to be heterosexual and not homosexual?
Quote:
And are you given to hyperbole much? Choosing to not participate in a ceremony you object to is not "hate", it is an exercise of freedom.
Selling flowers for a wedding in no way obligates the seller of the flowers to participate in the ceremony.
Quote:
No, laws do not trump religion and certainly not every time. Why do you think this discussion is being held? It is because there are religious practices that trump the law. The limits of what those rights are is what is being worked out now.
What religious practices trump the law?
Quote:
Of course we do. Over the course of the nation's history we've had laws against divorce, adultery, theft, assault, lying, murder, parental control over children, swearing and many more that are directly biblical.
So what? One can believe that some activities are wrong without ever having had a Bible in his hand.
Quote:
Since we are not under The Law, but Grace, I'd pick a new passage to present your views on homosexuality from a biblical perspective. I've beat up the left pretty good on that point, so we should be consistent.
You are describing a religious concept. It's fine if you want to believe it, but it is not the basis for the legal system in this country.
Quote:
No, she is not being asked, she is being compelled under threat by the state.
She was asked by being offered a plea bargain. She turned it down.
Quote:
She may be in error, but then again she may not be. There are a great many exceptions to laws based on religious objections. Perhaps you should pull down the laws books and brush up on Gillette v U.S.
Gillette extended the rules for conscientious objection to those whose beliefs were not based on a particular religion. It denied the argument that one could object to one war but not all wars. I do not think it shows what you seem to think it does.
Quote:
Not yet. While it may be a stretch for some, if the argument for homosexuality to be a protected class is that it is innate, something you are born with, what happens when research discovers that so is pedophilia or ephebophilia?
Nothing. Both involve relationships in which true consent of both parties is not possible.
Quote:
Of course changing one requirement has implications for changing others. How many people here have discussed Loving v. Virginia as a controlling authority as to why gay marriage should be legal. How many have equated gay rights with rights for blacks?
Changing one law does not automatically mean others have to be changed or will be changed.
Quote:
If a person has been selling deli food to a person for years and then declines to cater a party at their house because they discover he was a registered sex offender? Felons are not currently a protected class, but if you are paying attention you know that there is a movement afoot to make them a protected class.
I have seen some suggestions that felons who have not re-offended for many years should have the opportunity to have their records sealed. That does not mean making all felons members of a protected class.
This comes a long way from a discussion about discrimination in a simple business transaction, but I'll bite.
People should consider the effect on their ability to vote before committing a felony.
The EEOC position is ludicrous.
Quote:
Bestiality may not be relevant, but polygamy and incest probably are since those are short steps in changing the definition of marriage. If the overarching reason is that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they love, why do you get to define who that person is for others?
In this country, polygamy is practiced by groups in which women are coerced into marriage. There are inherent inequalities which make true consent virtually impossible. There may be incestuous relationships which are truly consensual, but most are not. Allowing same sex marriage does not automatically make either polygamy or incest a valid reason for the state to legitimize either through marriage. The high potential for abuse in polygamy or incest would mean the state could invoke an interest in preventing them.
Quote:
I don't think pedophilia is the appropriate comparison, but ephebophilia might be. There is a push in many states to lower the age of consent and Los Angeles has had cases where a 22 year man was allowed to marry his 14 year old victim, because both families consented to it, even though the minor was already pregnant and there is no exception in CA law where a 14 year old may consent to sex with anyone.
I do not think you do not understand what ephebophilia is.
Perhaps you could link to the case you are describing.
By your own link, the number is 34% favoring stricter limits, not 59%.
Quote:
There are two questions in this thread and they've been hopelessly conflated. One is what this florist actually did and two, what people think about a business being able to decline being part of a wedding ceremony, even if it only means arranging flowers at the venue or decorating a cake with two grooms.
If I fault the owner of the flower shop for anything it is not listening to what the customer wanted. I think she could have provided what was being asked without violating her conscious since it was really no more than she had done in the past for them.
The florist declined to sell to a member of a class which is protected in Washington state. She broke the law.
No one is saying the florist had to attend and participate in the wedding ceremony. All she had to do was sell flowers.
Quote:
It is not true that all businesses have to follow the same laws. There are a number of exceptions and plenty of case law for religious exemptions.
Some examples, please.
Quote:
Pretty sure the KKK or any group could argue based on "creed" for protection.
"However, membership in the Ku Klux Klan is not a religion or creed and is instead considered an ideology."
Quote:
No wanting to provide flowers for an event that goes against your conscious is not hated and doesn't even rise to intolerance in my mind.
Why is the gay couple wanting her to violate her conscious not intolerant of her beliefs?
In fact, can you be accused of bigotry because of your intolerance and hated of Christians?
You are making an unfounded assumption that people who disagree with the florist hate Christians. For all we know, the two men who want to marry are Christians.
Objecting to discrimination in a business transaction, discrimination that is against the law, in no way means they are intolerant of her beliefs. She is welcome to believe two men marrying is against her religion.
Quote:
Or just change the definition of what a "child" is. We have many conflicting laws on that currently.
Not every state has the same laws. They are not required to do so.
Some of the laws probably do need to be changed to reflect the reality of sexual behavior, especially with regards to older teenagers who are close in age but one (or both) parties are below the legal age of consent. The state should have no compelling interest in criminalizing sexual behaviors that are so common as to be virtually universal.
I once gave a talk to kids who were incarcerated in a juvenile detention facility. None of them had the foggiest notion about the concept of statutory rape. All of them believed that if both parties consented everything was hunky-dory.
None of this in any way connects to same sex marriage between two consenting adults.
Your continuing mention of pedophilia to imply that homosexuals are pedophiles is noted and rejected.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,146,559 times
Reputation: 3814
Is there any good reason the term used for a 'same sex marriage' cannot be changed, but maintain all the rights of the traditional marriage?
The etymology of the word marriage - the root of the word means 'young woman', its not an androgynous root;and the point of the terminology/institution is procreation and determining lineage thereafter.
Is that important? Well, with the advent of the science of DNA, and the discovery of King Richard III's remains (coincidently covered over at some point in history by a parking lot), the validity of the House of Tudor's long held claim to the throne is now in question in England - are they the true 'Royals' afterall?
Although this is semantics for some, it is an important and true definition for others.
I dont see how it is possible that a Same-sex Union/Partnership (whatever the LGBT community determines they want to call it) cannot include comparative rights and protections.
If a florist or baker or whatever will sell products right up until it involves a 'marriage' that brings their belief's into question, it would seem they would not have the same issue with another term that does not bring their belief's into question, and uses terminology that gives a truer definition of the nature of the relationship.
I dont know this for a fact would be helpful, however, it would at least bring into question, in the mind of the vendor, whether this is indeed something that brings their beliefs into question - since it is not the same institution that they hold dear to them and their beliefs, imo.
Is there any good reason the term used for a 'same sex marriage' cannot be changed, but maintain all the rights of the traditional marriage?
The etymology of the word marriage - the root of the word means 'young woman', its not an androgynous root;and the point of the terminology/institution is procreation and determining lineage thereafter.
Is that important? Well, with the advent of the science of DNA, and the discovery of King Richard III's remains (coincidently covered over at some point in history by a parking lot), the validity of the House of Tudor's long held claim to the throne is now in question in England - are they the true 'Royals' afterall?
Although this is semantics for some, it is an important and true definition for others.
I dont see how it is possible that a Same-sex Union/Partnership (whatever the LGBT community determines they want to call it) cannot include comparative rights and protections.
If a florist or baker or whatever will sell products right up until it involves a 'marriage' that brings their belief's into question, it would seem they would not have the same issue with another term that does not bring their belief's into question, and uses terminology that gives a truer definition of the nature of the relationship.
I dont know this for a fact would be helpful, however, it would at least bring into question, in the mind of the vendor, whether this is indeed something that brings their beliefs into question - since it is not the same institution that they hold dear to them and their beliefs, imo.
To call it a "same sex union" makes it different than a "marriage". They want to be equal.
Words do change over time. Look at the word "Christmas". It was Christ's Mass. Now it also includes a secular holiday with Santa. It is more than a holy day. Marriage can be the same way.
Maybe, like in some European countries, we should have a civil union for all and add a second, church "marriage" for those that want one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
