Marriage Equality Legalization Would ...

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

#225 Mar 21, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Well, let's take inheritance for example. There is a case in front of SCOTUS that's being argued about estate taxes next week. Perhaps you've heard of the Windsor case. Let me give you some background.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer lived together as a couple for over 40 years. They built a life together and amassed a large fortune.

The couple were very competent administrators of their own affairs, but there is no way that any lawyer--not even one like you--could help Ms Windsor avoid estate taxes when Spyer died.

Evidently, courts consider this matter to be significant, even if you try to trivialize it. SCOTUS has decided that it is not trivial, which makes you legally incorrect. The dollars are actually not the most important piece of the puzzle [based on the amount of taxes due, it's easy to calculate that Windsor still inherited several million dollars], but the courts are willing to deal with it because it is concrete.

Which brings us right back to the other silliness you've been carrying on with for a couple of weeks: While marriage is much more than dollars and cents and rights and responsibilities, that's what the law deals with. There is nothing the law can do to assure that people respect or enjoy the emotional and cultural advantages of marriage.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#226 Mar 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
no, when you are on the scotus, you know polls are FLUFF...

Get out more, how you loaded the polls and how your agenda gets them everywhere is not a secret known only by me...

Anybody can see how yo guys are trying to give the illusion of a huge wave of support...

you guys are smoke and mirrors and you believe the magic...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#227 Mar 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
are you an accountant?
I work words like UNLIMITED or ALWAYS or NEVER like you work T- Charts.
Can we just agree that there are MANY other considerations that make transfers between spouses not UNLIMITED?
Do I have to rattle off more regarding debts etc?

I am not an accountant, my dad was, and made me promise not to be one since I had too much personality!
take that in fun)

but there is a comfort in numbers that is not available in law...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#228 Mar 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
right, do you know what "facetious" means?
most accountants I know know what that means...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#229 Mar 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing the law can do to assure that people respect or enjoy the emotional and cultural advantages of marriage.
then CU's would be appropriate...

since its about money which you say is all th elaw deals with, then they allow you to contract like we can but we call them CU's...

see how that works?
your sentence speaks to your sob story about it...

what you miss is that ALL other things, we as a society desire to give advantages to some that if we gave to all would cease to be an ADVANTAGE...
Your just a renter bitching you don't get a mortgage interest deduction...

maybe a renter's rebate would shut you up?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#230 Mar 22, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
no, when you are on the scotus, you know polls are FLUFF...
Get out more, how you loaded the polls and how your agenda gets them everywhere is not a secret known only by me...
Anybody can see how yo guys are trying to give the illusion of a huge wave of support...
you guys are smoke and mirrors and you believe the magic...
Then why did you quote someone claiming Justice Kennedy is influenced by public opinion on issues?

Again, it was YOUR quote I was responding too.

Would that be the same "smoke & mirrors" that won ALL FOUR of the last popular votes on the issue?

Please show us even ONE poll which shows a DECREASE in support for marriage equality over the past decade.

One poll will do......

From ANY organization, even an anti-gay one.....

We'll wait while you search.......
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#231 Mar 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you quote someone claiming Justice Kennedy is influenced by public opinion on issues?
Again, it was YOUR quote I was responding too.
.
In this case , why would a justice look at fluff polls with so many votes...
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Please show us even ONE poll which shows a DECREASE in support for marriage equality over the past decade.
One poll will do......
From ANY organization, even an anti-gay one.....
We'll wait while you search.......
this is your smoke and mirrors...look how many stories there are just today on these polls...LOADED polls...
while Co rejects gay marriage and supports CU's...

you are believing your side's own lies...
http://theweek.com/article/index/241504/new-p...

"A
new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that a solid 58 percent of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage, compared with 36 percent who believe it should be illegal. "

you are not garner any more support, you are merely asking craftier questions in POLLS...meanwhile, where the rubber meets the road, CO says Cu's and not marriage...

your agenda's widespread papering of this story is clearly a smoke and mirrors campaign..
and ya know what, John Q 6 pack may just be dumb enough to buy it...

for example, i even shared a poll with you from the UK showing a huge drop in support, but I dare you ti find that article today. It is buried behind these stories...
gays own the internet messaging that all...

but when we the people vote, we do so 82% of the time against gay marriage.(41 states barring you)

Also, political powerlessness? Guess not.
Discrimination?
guess not anymore, RIGhT?

Suspect classification, GONE...

say is that different than racial civil rights?

why yes, yes, it is....
we both know you are going to hate the scotus decision in prop 8...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#232 Mar 22, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case , why would a justice look at fluff polls with so many votes...
<quoted text>
this is your smoke and mirrors...look how many stories there are just today on these polls...LOADED polls...
while Co rejects gay marriage and supports CU's...
you are believing your side's own lies...
http://theweek.com/article/index/241504/new-p...
"A
new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that a solid 58 percent of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage, compared with 36 percent who believe it should be illegal. "
you are not garner any more support, you are merely asking craftier questions in POLLS...meanwhile, where the rubber meets the road, CO says Cu's and not marriage...
your agenda's widespread papering of this story is clearly a smoke and mirrors campaign..
and ya know what, John Q 6 pack may just be dumb enough to buy it...
for example, i even shared a poll with you from the UK showing a huge drop in support, but I dare you ti find that article today. It is buried behind these stories...
gays own the internet messaging that all...
but when we the people vote, we do so 82% of the time against gay marriage.(41 states barring you)
Also, political powerlessness? Guess not.
Discrimination?
guess not anymore, RIGhT?
Suspect classification, GONE...
say is that different than racial civil rights?
why yes, yes, it is....
we both know you are going to hate the scotus decision in prop 8...
Because the 4 most recent votes (not the votes from 4-6-8 years ago) show the majority of voters in those states support marriage equality.

Because EVERY poll EVER done by ANY organization over the past 10 years shows a steady increase in support for marriage equality.

Yes, Colorado passed civil unions because the support isn't there yet (YET) for marriage equality; though like EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE UNION support for marriage equality has INCREASED in Colorado over the past 10 years.

No, we're not at a majority support for marriage equality in every state yet (YET); I never claimed we were. So we'll take civil unions UNTIL the state IS ready to pass marriage equality.

Women are still classified as a quasi-suspect class, yet NO ONE would argue they are "politically powerless" nor free from discrimination.

Whatever the SCOTUS decides in Prop 8 won't matter in the long run. If (IF) the anti-gays on the SCOTUS should uphold Prop 8 then we'll just overturn it at the ballot box in '16. I can live with that.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#233 Mar 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

1. Because EVERY poll EVER done by ANY organization over the past 10 years shows a steady increase in support for marriage equality.

2. Yes, Colorado passed civil unions because the support isn't there yet (YET) for marriage equality;

3. No, we're not at a majority support for marriage equality in every state yet (YET);
Can you seriously not see the inconsistency here?

I'll show you the "BS":

first is your use of the words "steady increasing" which you then base on polls which show a HUGE MAJORITY of support for "marriage equality". This does not "add up", especially considering your statements # 2 & 3. The reason is you have HUGE support in NE, and little elsewhere...including states like Vermont that were too small to resist the national campaign...we simply don;t care enough about it...

second is the term "marriage equality"" which the polls commonly conflate CU's and marriage in TRICKY, yes TRICKY ways...

third, you are just like the gun nuts or antiabortion nuts who pump up junk polls and science at times like this when the court is addressing your issues. The media is abuzz today with loaded stories of pure bull and you know it...

It is this tactic, used by all of you rabid agenda types, that has me most drawn to this issue,(although I do note that I have nonetheless been attacked as continually homophobe and bigot and all that jazz....)

which brings me to me and scalia....
your whole analysis there is simply puff off of a very reasonable and intellectual point...
the court is not the pulse of opinion, it merely interprets a document, the pulse of opinion is called a VOTE. A court's role is to step in ONLY when the legislative system would NEVER fix an egregious problem.
put another way, if you believe you can garner the votes, then you KNOW you are not politically powerless and that the real reason for those high court burdens are therefore not for people like you...
you twist our system for your agenda and that's what is offensive about you, not who you love or screw.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#234 Mar 22, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
we both know you are going to hate the scotus decision in prop 8...
So you're still sticking with your prediction the SCOTUS is going to uphold Prop 8?

Just want to get that on the record in as many places as possible so if Prop 8 ends up being overturned, you're not able to squirm your way out of that prediction.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#235 Mar 22, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
are you an accountant?
I work words like UNLIMITED or ALWAYS or NEVER like you work T- Charts.
Can we just agree that there are MANY other considerations that make transfers between spouses not UNLIMITED?
Do I have to rattle off more regarding debts etc?
Are you talking about fraudulent transfer?

If you're not trying to cheat someone else--including the IRS--then transfers between spouses are unlimited. It is a simple recognition that people who build their lives together also build their fortunes together.

Everybody reading my statement knew what I was talking about, and it didn't involve fraud or transferring assets overseas. You're little game of "GOTCHA" makes YOU look dumb, not me.
I am not an accountant, my dad was, and made me promise not to be one since I had too much personality!
take that in fun)
but there is a comfort in numbers that is not available in law...
Not really. The art of accountancy is the interpretation and application of tax law. I'm sure you have heard of studies where problems were posed to different IRS agents and each provided different, incompatible advice.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#236 Mar 22, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you seriously not see the inconsistency here?
I'll show you the "BS":
first is your use of the words "steady increasing" which you then base on polls which show a HUGE MAJORITY of support for "marriage equality". This does not "add up", especially considering your statements # 2 & 3. The reason is you have HUGE support in NE, and little elsewhere...including states like Vermont that were too small to resist the national campaign...we simply don;t care enough about it...
second is the term "marriage equality"" which the polls commonly conflate CU's and marriage in TRICKY, yes TRICKY ways...
third, you are just like the gun nuts or antiabortion nuts who pump up junk polls and science at times like this when the court is addressing your issues. The media is abuzz today with loaded stories of pure bull and you know it...
It is this tactic, used by all of you rabid agenda types, that has me most drawn to this issue,(although I do note that I have nonetheless been attacked as continually homophobe and bigot and all that jazz....)
which brings me to me and scalia....
your whole analysis there is simply puff off of a very reasonable and intellectual point...
the court is not the pulse of opinion, it merely interprets a document, the pulse of opinion is called a VOTE. A court's role is to step in ONLY when the legislative system would NEVER fix an egregious problem.
put another way, if you believe you can garner the votes, then you KNOW you are not politically powerless and that the real reason for those high court burdens are therefore not for people like you...
you twist our system for your agenda and that's what is offensive about you, not who you love or screw.
So again, pick your favorite poll, your favorite polling organization, and your favorite terminology, and SHOW US ONE POLL which shows a decrease in support for same-sex couples being able to marry over the past 10 years.

MANY polls specifically as if same-sex couples should be able to marry. Just how would that be confused with civil unions?

Women CAN and HAVE garnered the votes to obtain equal rights including the right to vote, and yet they are STILL classified as a quasi-suspect group.

Btw, the COURT decides when to step in, not you. Based on your logic, the SCOTUS shouldn't have taken up inter-racial marriage, or segregation, or abortion, or sodomy, because the legislatures could have handled those issues.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#237 Mar 22, 2013
Just ONE poll, that's all I'm asking for.....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#238 Mar 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the 4 most recent votes (not the votes from 4-6-8 years ago) show the majority of voters in those states support marriage equality.
Because EVERY poll EVER done by ANY organization over the past 10 years shows a steady increase in support for marriage equality.
It hasn't been all-that-steady, any more than the rise in the stock market since Obama took office has been steady. But both have been dramatic and undeniable.
Yes, Colorado passed civil unions because the support isn't there yet (YET) for marriage equality; though like EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE UNION support for marriage equality has INCREASED in Colorado over the past 10 years.
Actually, Colorado passed civil unions because they have a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. We need a trip to the polls before we can reverse that.
No, we're not at a majority support for marriage equality in every state yet (YET); I never claimed we were. So we'll take civil unions UNTIL the state IS ready to pass marriage equality.
Let's hope that doesn't take as long as it took Alabama to reverse its miscegenation laws or Mississippi its slavery laws. But if it does, that will be taken care of at the federal level.
Women are still classified as a quasi-suspect class, yet NO ONE would argue they are "politically powerless" nor free from discrimination.
Nor could one reasonably argue that any other protected class is powerless. Are blacks--who are represented by the President, a member of the Supreme Court, and the national legislature powerless? Are Christians powerless? They're protected.
Whatever the SCOTUS decides in Prop 8 won't matter in the long run. If (IF) the anti-gays on the SCOTUS should uphold Prop 8 then we'll just overturn it at the ballot box in '16. I can live with that.
It's much more important to overturn DOMA than Prop 8.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#239 Mar 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're still sticking with your prediction the SCOTUS is going to uphold Prop 8?
Just want to get that on the record in as many places as possible so if Prop 8 ends up being overturned, you're not able to squirm your way out of that prediction.
I don't squirm, i take my medicine...I did (a very little bit) over obamacare...although I was spot on with the commerce clause...the tax...did't see them declaring that...I thought they would send it back with an order to turn it into one...

I think a rational decision is to let states sort it out as they clearly are, some yes, some Cu, some no...
its democracy in action...

Care to be on record yourself,duder?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#240 Mar 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about fraudulent transfer?
If you're not trying to cheat someone else--including the IRS--then transfers between spouses are unlimited. It is a simple recognition that people who build their lives together also build their fortunes together.
Everybody reading my statement knew what I was talking about, and it didn't involve fraud or transferring assets overseas. You're little game of "GOTCHA" makes YOU look dumb, not me.
<quoted text>
Not really. The art of accountancy is the interpretation and application of tax law. I'm sure you have heard of studies where problems were posed to different IRS agents and each provided different, incompatible advice.
UNLIMITED....it draws me like a moth to a flame...
as a lawyer the answer is often "it depends"...
what are the liabilities on the property and how are those liabilities held?
sometimes that equals income...

Come on dude, I all caps UNLIMITED from the get go...I also admitted being FACETIOUS...
you just couldn't hold the faux elitism in could you?
so I'll ask again...UNLIMITED?????
and you will respond "yes, in MOST circumstances..."
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#241 Mar 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

Nor could one reasonably argue that any other protected class is powerless. Are blacks--who are represented by the President, a member of the Supreme Court, and the national legislature powerless? Are Christians powerless? They're protected.
.
its coming up to the court, the question is...for how long will they be?

I smell this court ending that too...

Robert's entitlement question is right on point here...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#242 Mar 22, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
then CU's would be appropriate...
since its about money which you say is all th elaw deals with, then they allow you to contract like we can but we call them CU's...
see how that works?
There are two problems with that:

First, the civil unions do not carry the cultural significance. Even your own state of Vermont found that civil union partners were not treated equally with married couples: People just don't understand (or refuse to respect) the newfangled institution. Will some refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, too? Of course. But I can tell you that, even in states where same-sex marriage is not yet recognized, most people are happy to respect my marriage to my husband. Saying that we are married has helped change the tone of interactions remarkably.

Second, civil unions requires changing laws in each of fifty states, the District of Columbia, various territories and protectorates, and the federal government. As we have seen, enacting these new-fangled things is not the slam dunk opponents of actual equality pretend. Look how the same organizations that oppose same-sex marriage opposed civil unions in Illinois and Colorado.

The federal congress is a long way from recognizing a new institution created for the benefit of same-sex couples. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, working for marriage equality is the only sensible solution.
your sentence speaks to your sob story about it...
what you miss is that ALL other things, we as a society desire to give advantages to some that if we gave to all would cease to be an ADVANTAGE...
The problem comes in when the state plays favorites and withholds advantages from similarly situated individuals or families. But I'm sure you had a survey course that covered that somewhere along the line.
Your just a renter bitching you don't get a mortgage interest deduction...
maybe a renter's rebate would shut you up?
I don't get a mortgage interest deduction because my home is paid for. I also don't get to deduct state income taxes because I live in New Hampshire. Maybe I won't need to fill out Schedule A at all, soon. YAAAAHOOOOOOOO!
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#243 Mar 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There are two problems with that:
First, the civil unions do not carry the cultural significance.
right, a cultural significance that was built without gays...
you are merely piggybacking...
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

Second, civil unions requires changing laws in each of fifty states,
yup, gay marriage too...
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

The federal congress is a long way from recognizing a new institution created for the benefit of same-sex couples.
read the SCOTUS DOMA decision first...
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

The problem comes in when the state plays favorites and withholds advantages from similarly situated individuals or families.
2 points.

1. gays are not similarly situated in that they have no accidental children...
2. we play favorites all the time....you know the IRS code!
minority owned businesses...college attendees versus dropouts, income limits....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#244 Mar 22, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't squirm, i take my medicine...I did (a very little bit) over obamacare...although I was spot on with the commerce clause...the tax...did't see them declaring that...I thought they would send it back with an order to turn it into one...
I think a rational decision is to let states sort it out as they clearly are, some yes, some Cu, some no...
its democracy in action...
Care to be on record yourself,duder?
I've been on record with my opinion ever since these case started.

DOMA will be overturned on some form of enhanced rational basis, possibly with a 6-3 vote.

Prop8 will likely be overturned, though I don't discount the possibilty of a deal being cut which would uphold Prop 8 in exchange for a larger majority vote to overturn DOMA.

After 4 years of dragging this out (intentionally by both sides), the Prop 8 case is almost irrelevant now. At best it will be overturned but limited strictly to California. At worst it's upheld and then overturned by another voter initiative. Either way same-sex couples will be able to marry in California in the near future, and the battle continues state-by-state for a few more years.

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Jonah1 18,124
News Hasidic Man Mayer Herskovic found guilty in bru... 1 hr david traversa 1
freak on 2 hr Busby 4
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 2 hr VOTE TRUMP 68,985
Straight Cafe for Hetero members & their family... 3 hr Left of centre 1
Hetero cafe do-opens! ..for straight members, f... 3 hr Left of centre 2
News Daniel Radcliffe calls Hollywood racism 'undeni... 3 hr TrapMusic 7
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 hr Left of centre 40,165
More from around the web