|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 8, 2009 23:06:28 GMT -5
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009247539_apusgaymarriage.htmlNow here's an interesting twist. Massachusetts is challenging the Federal Defense Of Marriage Act under the grounds of states' rights. They say the Federal Government has no right to define marriage in Massachusetts or to deny federal benefits like income tax deductions and medicaid rights to people who are married under Massachusetts law. So how are the Conservatives and Liberals going to line up for this one? Are the Conservatives going to defend Big Government and the Feds dictating to the states? Are the Liberals going to say that the states' rights should trump Federal law?
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jul 8, 2009 23:11:05 GMT -5
Duh...states' rights went out the window a long time ago when every state in the union firmly attached their lips to the federal money tit.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jul 9, 2009 7:55:45 GMT -5
Bob only knows how to speak in tones of bitter frustration, but the idea behind his post is valid. A conservative position would hold that many of the hot-button social issues of our time are states' rights issues. But states' rights are dead. Lincoln gaye them two black eyes and told them to get the F back in the kitchen and start working on his dinner, and, since then, the states have accepted their status as controlled possessions of Washington D.C., and they cry themselves to sleep at night telling themselves, "...but he always brings me flowers and diamonds and couture, and if I left this big fancy house I'd end up on the street!" "I expect that supper will be ready on time."
|
|
|
Post by VolleyTX on Jul 9, 2009 9:57:42 GMT -5
This should be an interesting case.... and about time. The federal government doesn't make any restrictions on marriage when it comes to Federal Tax Law. The rules are uniform. If they start making restrictions for gay marriages, things are going to get very confusing and complex and discriminitory.
Just to give you all of you a little idea of the rediculousness of the current tax code, I will give you my situation. My partner is on my employee health care coverage as my domestic partner. Sounds great right! Did you know that under federal tax laws, every dime my company pays for my partner's health benefits premiums (about $4,000 per year) is included in my W2 as taxable income to me. This would not be the case if we were married (and straight). This would not be the case if he was my child. I'm not even sure this would be the case if he was considered a dependent (like an elderly parent). I pay approximately $1000 more in taxes than my straight, married co-workers.
More taxes WITHOUT representation. I'm thinking about having my own Boston tea party.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 9, 2009 14:24:02 GMT -5
Conservatives generally align with State's rights advocates. Given the current political atmosphere I would guess that the ranks of those who believe in strong State's rights are growing. Again, it is the sheer size of the federal government, the onerous cost of new proposed programs, and the "ram it down their throat approach" that has citizens concerned, as pointed out by the recent Rasmussen poll: www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_pollWe also have some renewed talk about some states seceding from the Union. Out here in Kalifornia, we also have renewed talk of splitting up the state into two, three, or four states due to the huge budget hole. In the past the split-up was based more upon political or socioeconomic lines.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 9, 2009 15:14:49 GMT -5
We also have some renewed talk about some states seceding from the Union. Out here in Kalifornia, we also have renewed talk of splitting up the state into two, three, or four states due to the huge budget hole. In the past the split-up was based more upon political or socioeconomic lines. There is always talk of that in Washington. Some people on the east side of the state think they would be better off as a separate state. But there is no Constitutional mechanism for a state to secede. And the only time it was tried, the seceding states lost a war over it. I think the last time a state was separated into two states was during that same war, when West Virginia seceded from Virginia over the issue of seceding from the union. I think the only other time this has happened was when Maine was formed from part of Massachusetts.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jul 9, 2009 15:42:20 GMT -5
Duh...states' rights went out the window a long time ago when every state in the union firmly attached their lips to the federal money tit. The most wisdom I've heard from SOB so far. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 9, 2009 15:43:11 GMT -5
Clearly, very low probability of a state ever succesfully seceeding. Even if the Constitution were amended in some way to allow secession, getting the citizens of a state to back secession would be difficult. The amount of talk about secession does serve, however, as a barometer on the dissatisfaction people have with encroaching federalism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2009 16:50:09 GMT -5
Actually, I believe there IS a provision for Texas to split into multiple states. It dates back to pre-Civil War days as a method of keeping slave/non-slave states balanced, but it is still there.
The interesting question here with 'state rights'--states are supposed to honor the laws of the other states, so if Massachusetts has a law saying gay marriage is legal but another state has a law that forbids it--which state has precedence?
I suspect that that would make the issue something requiring resolution at the federal level and I don't think the current Supreme Court would make a sweeping ruling--Roberts has the court ruling on very narrow grounds wherever possible.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 9, 2009 17:01:52 GMT -5
The interesting question here with 'state rights'--states are supposed to honor the laws of the other states, so if Massachusetts has a law saying gay marriage is legal but another state has a law that forbids it--which state has precedence? According to the Federal DOMA, states do not have to accept same-sex marriages as valid. That's the very law being challenged here.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jul 10, 2009 20:20:27 GMT -5
Actually, I believe there IS a provision for Texas to split into multiple states. It dates back to pre-Civil War days as a method of keeping slave/non-slave states balanced, but it is still there. Actually, it was part of the treaty when Texas joined the US in 1845. It was granted the option to split into five states. You are correct that it had to do with the balance between free and slave states and it was possible between 1845 and 1861 that it might have occurred. In fact, it sort of did as "Texas" in 1845 included parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma and Kansas (with some maps claiming even more). The compromise that brought California into the Union paid Texas $10 million to give up their rights to those areas. Of course, when Texas succeeded from the Union in 1861 the treaty rights were abrogated and the process of rejoining the union in 1865 occurred after slavery was abolished (which the split was based on) and was not based on the 1845 treaty. Pretty much every legal scholar agrees that Texas has not had the "right" since the Civil War. Article IV of the US Constitution specifically reserves "splitting" states to the US Congress (with agreement from the state involved also required). Despite what Rick Perry, the idiotic governor of Texas, says, Texas does not have, and never has had, the right to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jul 10, 2009 20:26:33 GMT -5
Duh...states' rights went out the window a long time ago when every state in the union firmly attached their lips to the federal money tit. Actually, "states rights" is used by conservatives for restrictions on abortion and was/is a code word for racial bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 10, 2009 20:37:40 GMT -5
Actually, I believe there IS a provision for Texas to split into multiple states. It dates back to pre-Civil War days as a method of keeping slave/non-slave states balanced, but it is still there. Despite what Rick Perry, the idiotic governor of Texas, says, Texas does not have, and never has had, the right to succeed. For some reason Texas has been pretty successful the past few years, even despite their "idiotic governor."
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jul 10, 2009 21:11:13 GMT -5
Despite what Rick Perry, the idiotic governor of Texas, says, Texas does not have, and never has had, the right to succeed. For some reason Texas has been pretty successful the past few years, even despite their "idiotic governor." The Texas governorship is what is known as a "weak governor" position. In that department heads are given autonomy and major positions are elected instead of being governor appointments. Most political scientists consider the Texas Lt. Governor to have more power than the Governor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2009 22:22:59 GMT -5
Well outstanding! Ya learn something new every day.
Thanks for the details on the Texas treaty--that makes perfect sense.
|
|