Marriage Equality Legalization Would Add To Illinois' Economy

There are 290 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Mar 6, 2013, titled Marriage Equality Legalization Would Add To Illinois' Economy. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

The legalization of same-sex marriage would add millions to the Illinois economy as at least half of the state's LGBT population would marry.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#205 Mar 15, 2013
Thats Right wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the LAW marriage is between a man and a woman, which is a contract.
Not in my state. That's why my husband and I married.
I'm still waiting for the respondent to remind us what the U.S. Constitution says about contracts
Contract law has been established primarily through common practice over millennia. If the constitution says anything about contracts, it is simply the establishment of the court system to enforce them.
Thats Right

Alexandria, VA

#206 Mar 15, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>Not in my state. That's why my husband and I married.

[QUOTE] I'm still waiting for the respondent to remind us what the U.S. Constitution says about contracts"

Contract law has been established primarily through common practice over millennia. If the constitution says anything about contracts, it is simply the establishment of the court system to enforce them.
You're not really married. Just something to appease you by your state. If you were in fact legally married, it would be recognized anywhere and everywhere you go, but it's not. If it was legal, you would receive spousal benefits, but you don't. So claim all you want about being legally married, but in fact it's just a farce.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#207 Mar 15, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a really good chance that we'll have five Obama appointees on SCOTUS before the next election! We know there will be three, unless the Republicans figure out how to filibuster for three years....
That's one of the main reasons I worked to hard to ensure Obama's reelection.

I think the most we'll get is 4. Ginsberg will almost certainly step down before 2016, and it's statistically likely either Kennedy or Scalia will as well. Of course there is also Breyer who's getting up there, but I've heard no specualtion about him stepping down at all.

If Scalia steps down I would bet the Senate GOPasaurs WILL attempt to filibuster until they have a Republican president, no matter how many years that would be. They will go absolutely apeshit at the thought of him being replaced on the court by a liberal.

Either way, all the more reason to ensure Hillary or some other Dem takes over in 2016-2024.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#208 Mar 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's one of the main reasons I worked to hard to ensure Obama's reelection.
I think the most we'll get is 4. Ginsberg will almost certainly step down before 2016, and it's statistically likely either Kennedy or Scalia will as well. Of course there is also Breyer who's getting up there, but I've heard no specualtion about him stepping down at all.
If Scalia steps down I would bet the Senate GOPasaurs WILL attempt to filibuster until they have a Republican president, no matter how many years that would be. They will go absolutely apeshit at the thought of him being replaced on the court by a liberal.
Either way, all the more reason to ensure Hillary or some other Dem takes over in 2016-2024.
I did a quick calculation of the ages of all the justices who served SCOTUS during the twentieth century:

The average age of those who died in office was 70.
The average age of those who retired was 74.

The averages for ALL supreme court justices differed by less than a year. So that average seems to be reasonably stable.

Four of the currently-serving justices are already beyond the average retirement age. Another is within striking distance of the average age of death-in-office.

Since 1900, about 1-in-three justices has died in office, one every six years on average.

I think three more Obama appointees are as likely as two. I can't even imagine the howling if he gets to appoint more than three. I am not even sure I'd enjoy the spectacle of all that pain.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#209 Mar 15, 2013
Also, I suspect Breyer will step down to avoid letting a Republican name his replacement. Especially if Kennedy and Scalia both hold onto their posts.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#210 Mar 15, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Also, I suspect Breyer will step down to avoid letting a Republican name his replacement. Especially if Kennedy and Scalia both hold onto their posts.
I considered that as well.

Depending on when Ginsberg steps down, we could see Breyer going in '15.

I agree there will likely be a "suprise" vacancy over the next 4 years; the most likely candidates would be Breyer, Kennedy, or Scalia.

I had heard speculation that Kennedy may step down after this term; considering his most recent comments over the courts having to decide all these issues which should be decided by the democratic process (marriage, immigration, healthcare, etc), maybe that's not such a wild idea after all?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#211 Mar 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You had better stick to law. You give horrible tax advice.
UNLIMITED transfers between spouses??
do i need to really call you out?

which will also expose your faux elitist tactic to CYA...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#212 Mar 21, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the Law, marriage is a contract.
I'm still waiting for the respondent to remind us what the U.S. Constitution says about contracts.
so gays should just contract with each other and we have no issue right?
time to talk out of the other side of your mouth...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#213 Mar 21, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone merely witnesses for the State that the forms were observed. The State has an interest, but is not a "party" to the contract.
not true, given they have certain REQUIREMENTS that must be met for the contract to be valid...

or just admit marriage is MORE than just a contract...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#214 Mar 21, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

I agree there will likely be a "suprise" vacancy over the next 4 years; the most likely candidates would be Breyer, Kennedy, or Scalia.
?
Its no surprise that your agenda is posturing itself to encourage some to off one of these supremes...

I mean, that's what your "all opposition is bigotry" is headed towards...
that makes all actions JUSTIFIABLE...
that's why you guys and your wacky beliefs are kinda dangerous...

BTW, here's what most rational people think is comming:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/justice-ke...

"“I don’t think Kennedy is going to come out in a kind of Loving v. Virginia [decision] saying there’s a right to gay marriage,” said Northern Illinois University Law Professor Artemus Ward, referring to the landmark case striking down state bans on interracial marriage.“That would be a huge, bold decision that no one expects.”

"“There’s nothing in those decisions that compels Kennedy to take" the step of striking down gay marriage bans, John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and chairman for the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage, said.
In past decisions, Kennedy has also placed importance on public opinion and international law, which sets him apart from his colleagues. Kennedy carefully cited public opinion polls and state laws in his opinion declaring the death penalty for juveniles unconstitutional, saying that most Americans and states disapproved of the practice. And Kennedy cited other countries' decisions to repeal sodomy laws in his Lawrence opinion.
Eastman finds this tendency of Kennedy's hopeful for his cause, as a majority of states have adopted gay marriage bans. And fewer than a dozen countries have recognized the right to gay marriage."

the court will show my same concern for its own role that you refuse to grasp...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#215 Mar 21, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Its no surprise that your agenda is posturing itself to encourage some to off one of these supremes...
I mean, that's what your "all opposition is bigotry" is headed towards...
that makes all actions JUSTIFIABLE...
that's why you guys and your wacky beliefs are kinda dangerous...
BTW, here's what most rational people think is comming:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/justice-ke...
"“I don’t think Kennedy is going to come out in a kind of Loving v. Virginia [decision] saying there’s a right to gay marriage,” said Northern Illinois University Law Professor Artemus Ward, referring to the landmark case striking down state bans on interracial marriage.“That would be a huge, bold decision that no one expects.”
"“There’s nothing in those decisions that compels Kennedy to take" the step of striking down gay marriage bans, John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and chairman for the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage, said.
In past decisions, Kennedy has also placed importance on public opinion and international law, which sets him apart from his colleagues. Kennedy carefully cited public opinion polls and state laws in his opinion declaring the death penalty for juveniles unconstitutional, saying that most Americans and states disapproved of the practice. And Kennedy cited other countries' decisions to repeal sodomy laws in his Lawrence opinion.
Eastman finds this tendency of Kennedy's hopeful for his cause, as a majority of states have adopted gay marriage bans. And fewer than a dozen countries have recognized the right to gay marriage."
the court will show my same concern for its own role that you refuse to grasp...
Wow, you really do read what you want into people's posts!

All I said was there is likely to be an unexpected vacancy on the SCOTUS over the next 4 years. In other words, some one besides Ginsberg stepping down which is widely expected. I think if either Kennedy, Scalia, or Breyer decided to retire, that would qualify as an "unexpected" vacancy.

And I agree that Kennedy & the SCOTUS us unlikely to issue any sweeping ruling on a right to marry for same-sex couples. This will most likely be left to the states to work it out- for now.

Btw, if Kennedy takes public opinion into consideration as your quote claimed, then all the recent polling & last 4 votes on the issue would actually make it MORE likely he'd overturn the remaining state bans. But again, I don't think that's going to happen just yet.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#216 Mar 21, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
UNLIMITED transfers between spouses??
Yes.
do i need to really call you out?
Only if you wish to embarrass yourself some more.
which will also expose your faux elitist tactic to CYA...
?????

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#217 Mar 21, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
UNLIMITED transfers between spouses??
do i need to really call you out?
which will also expose your faux elitist tactic to CYA...
Now allow me to call YOU out. You advised that same-sex couples who wanted to file jointly should just form a corporation.(You didn't specify, by I assume you must have meant C-Corp.)

The spouses would STILL have to file separate tax returns PLUS a corporate tax return.

There may be many good reasons a couple would form a corporation. But the ability to file jointly is definitely not one.

Stick to law. You know nothing about taxes.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#218 Mar 21, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Btw, if Kennedy takes public opinion into consideration as your quote claimed, then all the recent polling & last 4 votes on the issue would actually make it MORE likely he'd overturn the remaining state bans. But again, I don't think that's going to happen just yet.
nah...polls are worth nothing...
41 states have laws barring marriage between gays, and only 12 countries of the world accept them...as to public opinion, you guys are sunk...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#219 Mar 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Only if you wish to embarrass yourself some more.
<quoted text>
?????
But there are certain cases when property transfers between spouses may not qualify for the non-recognition of gain or loss for tax purposes. One of these cases is when your spouse or former spouse is a non-resident alien.

UNLIMITED is what makes you wrong....
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#220 Mar 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Now allow me to call YOU out. You advised that same-sex couples who wanted to file jointly should just form a corporation.(You didn't specify, by I assume you must have meant C-Corp.)
The spouses would STILL have to file separate tax returns PLUS a corporate tax return.
There may be many good reasons a couple would form a corporation. But the ability to file jointly is definitely not one.
Stick to law. You know nothing about taxes.
Actually, here, you are right, I know little about taxes...
and yes, i was being somewhat facetious to say they could file TOGETHER, and they sure can, as a PARTNERSHIP, but pass through is true, but they would get their JOINT filing...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#221 Mar 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

There may be many good reasons a couple would form a corporation. But the ability to file jointly is definitely not one.
Stick to law. You know nothing about taxes.
but you do admit that much of what gays complain about (inheritance, medical issues, etc)can be remedied with some cheap forms or an attorney, right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#222 Mar 21, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
nah...polls are worth nothing...
41 states have laws barring marriage between gays, and only 12 countries of the world accept them...as to public opinion, you guys are sunk...
Polls may mean nothing to you, but you're not on the SCOTUS are you?

I would actually hope the justices DON'T base their decisions off polls, but again I was responding to the quote YOU posted about Kennedy being influenced by public opinion.

You are the only person I know who believes the world stopped spinning after the 2008 Prop 8 vote and that public opinion hasn't changed since then in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#223 Mar 21, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
But there are certain cases when property transfers between spouses may not qualify for the non-recognition of gain or loss for tax purposes. One of these cases is when your spouse or former spouse is a non-resident alien.
UNLIMITED is what makes you wrong....
Your nit-picking exceptions notwithstanding, my husband and I would have unlimited transfers of wealth were it not for DOMA.

As you know, transferring wealth to a non-resident alien spouse is tantamount to transferring wealth out of the country. You can't even expatriate the money yourself without triggering the tax.

Really, you make yourself a foolish smart ass by carrying on like that.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#224 Mar 21, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, here, you are right, I know little about taxes...
and yes, i was being somewhat facetious to say they could file TOGETHER, and they sure can, as a PARTNERSHIP, but pass through is true, but they would get their JOINT filing...
No, they would each get a K1 and file their own returns. I can't believe they don't require an introduction to tax law for you "lawyers." What do you do when someone wants to form a business and asks what form they should use? Do you know the difference between partnership, limited liability partnership, master limited partnership, c-corporation, s-corporation, and proprietorship? That's pretty basic stuff. Every lawyer I've ever seen knows how to set them up and can advise on the respective advantages.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 7 min Frankie Rizzo 5,590
News Obama to 5-Year-Old Gay Marriage Advocate: 'Cou... 9 min Fa-Foxy 1
News Indiana's Anti-gay Gov. Mike Pence Passes on 20... 11 min Sick of Bigots an... 4
Why Do NE Jade Eat Feces? 11 min Harold 1
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 26 min UncommonSense2015 183
News Boy Scouts' leader speaks out on gay adults ban 31 min WeTheSheeple 41
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 31 min Terra Firma 21,579
News Church reels after Ireland's huge 'Yes' to gay ... 2 hr Fa-Foxy 12
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 hr WasteWater 33,097
More from around the web