Thread: Marriage is a R-I-T-E Not a R-I-G-H-T

Marriage is a R-I-T-E Not a R-I-G-H-T


Everyone is talking about gay rights and the right to same-sex marriage. They all believe that somewhere in the US Constitution that it says they have the right to marry whomever they please, but they’re wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution that says marriage is a right.

The truth is, the whole concept of marriage comes from the Bible. The first marriage was Adam and Eve. It was also God’s first covenant made with man. Genesis 2:24 reads:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Herman Cain, former GOP presidential candidate, was recently talking about marriage on radio show and played a clip from Al Sharpton about same-sex marriage, gay rights and civil rights. After hearing Sharpton’s comments, Cain said something that I felt was worth sharing. He said that marriage is a r-i-t-e and not a r-i-g-h-t. To redefine marriage is nothing more than redefining other sins such as adultery and fornication. Cain said:

“Not making gay marriage legal across the country is not deciding people’s prerogatives. You see, the laws already protect everybody. Secondly, any two people can agree contractually to anything. You can agree to sharing property. You can agree to transferring property.”

“All it takes is a legal agreement,” he continued. “In some states they call it a civil union, but remember, a civil union isn’t defined as the same thing in every state. And what Al Sharpton has done with his perspective on this — he has changed the goalposts. He has shifted the subject to talking about rights — r-i-g-h-t-s. Marriage is a r-i-t-e.”

Marriage is a biblical rite, not a constitutional right. To redefine marriage is to redefine God’s Word and biblical principles. No man, no government, nothing here on earth has the right to alter God’s Word and His statutes. But sadly, millions of people today believe they have that right to alter God’s Word. To legalize same-sex marriage, in reality, is no different biblically than legalizing lying, stealing, murder, lust, covetousness, greed, malice, hate and worshiping other gods. When people claim that they have the right to gay marriage, they’re claiming they have the right to sin. In fact, they are correct; they have the right to sin, but with that right is the right to spend eternity in Hell.

I was told a long time ago by a very wise minister that the only right we have is the right to go to Hell. As descendants of Adam, we are all sinners and no sinner can escape the eternal judgment of Hell without repenting of their sins and accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Once a person surrenders their life over to Christ, they no longer want to sin or live a sinful lifestyle.

At one time, our government protected the biblical rite of marriage with the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, Obama is asking the Supreme Court to declare DOMA as being unconstitutional, opening the door for acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriage, and the fruition of Romans 1:18-31 which is taking place in America. Once that happens and we approve of those unnatural lusts, God’s wrath and judgment are at hand and the end of our nation is near.


video at link below

http://lastresistance.com/1813/marriage-is-a-r-i-t-e-not-a-r-i-g-h-t/

To legalize same-sex marriage, in reality, is no different biblically than legalizing lying, stealing, murder, lust, covetousness, greed, malice, hate and worshiping other gods. When people claim that they have the right to gay marriage, they’re claiming they have the right to sin. In fact, they are correct; they have the right to sin, but with that right is the right to spend eternity in Hell.

Sounds about right to me!!!!

The Supreme Court just Court struck down the Defense of the Marriage Act!! But they refused to act on Prop 8 in California






Preparing for Marriage Equality: Inheritance, Social Security and Taxes after DOMA

by Mike Anderson on June 19, 2013
UPDATE: June 26, 2013 – DOMA has been struck down, 5-4.
From the opinion, “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty”
We will be updating this post with more detailed reflections on the financial implications of the decision after the Prop 8 decision has been released.
——————————————————————
If the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned, LGBT couples may finally have equal financial standing.
With that in mind, NerdWallet asked financial advisors: What could the Supreme Court’s ruling mean for the marital finances of LGBT couples? FAs helped us answer the four questions we pose below.
1) Would couples reclaim financial assets lost under DOMA?

If the Act is overturned, a number of questions still need to be answered, namely: Will same-sex couples have the right to re-claim financial assets robbed of them under DOMA?
In the case of the inheritance tax, the following are financial costs to the surviving member of a same-sex couple:

• 
  
  • 
    
    • An estate tax, which applies to estates larger than $5.25 million. Under current law, surviving spouses in federally recognized marriages are forgiven any tax.
    • An inheritance, in states that don’t recognize same-sex unions and marriages. In those states, an inheritance may end up with the biological family, not the surviving spouse. If DOMA is overturned, the following question will be on the table: Does the spouse have the right to sue?
    
    
  
  

A word from the experts, on the inheritance tax today, under DOMA:
“Today, if LGBT married couples own property together, the surviving spouse could be left with a large inheritance tax or be subject to lawsuits from family members challenging will or trust provisions intended to leave assets to the survivor. […] Some of these legal arrangements will need to be unwound [if DOMA is repealed] to take advantage of the default protections you receive through marriage. If irrevocable gifts have been made, however, couples may not be able to do this and will probably end up paying more in estate taxes than they would have otherwise.”

–David Flowers, a financial advisor based in Berkeley, CA

If DOMA is repealed, gay couples may be able to regain assets robbed of them under current law:
“For instance, a gay couple was married in 2010, and in 2012 moved to a state where gay marriage is illegal. [...] One of the spouses died at the beginning of 2013 without a will, and the biological family of the deceased spouse inherited all of the assets. If DOMA is struck down, will the surviving spouse be able to sue, as a surviving spouse, to recover the inheritance? If estate tax was paid because the estate was larger than $5 million, can the surviving spouse recover the estate tax?”

– James Dowd, a financial advisor based in San Francisco

2) Would spouses be eligible for social insurance in case of their partner’s death?

Federally recognized couples are afforded some security if one half dies or falls ill. If DOMA is repealed, surviving spouses of an LGBT marriage will also be able to claim benefits for:

• 
  
  • 
    
    • Social Security. If the deceased earned more than the surviving spouse, the survivor stands to see an increase in Social Security benefits. He or she can either claim their own Social Security benefits, based on their own employment history, or claim 50% of the deceased’s full Social Security benefits.
    • Medicare. If one half of the couple dies, the surviving half stands to see the full amount that the deceased claimed under Medicare. The surviving spouse need be 65 or older and the marriage must have lasted longer than 9 months.
    
    
  
  

A word from the experts, on the rules and regulations of Social Security benefits:
“In the typical married couple setting if spouse A receives more social security benefits than spouse B and spouse A dies before B, spouse B gets an increase in social security benefits to match what spouse A was receiving. […] This could also come into account if a couple has been married for many years and spouse A has an earnings history and spouse B does not for whatever reason. When spouse A starts claiming social security, spouse B is able to receive marital benefits, up to 50% of what spouse A is receiving. In both of these situations were heterosexual married couples can take advantage of these benefits, LGBT couples cannot.”

– Karl Schwartz, a consultant at Hewins Financial Advisors

3) Would filing tax returns be less complicated?

Under the current system, it’s immensely complicated simply to file a tax return. Even if their marriage is recognized by the state, LGBT couples must file their federal return as if they were individuals. DOMA’s repeal would then allow them to share:

• 
  
  • 
    
    • A single tax return, rather than two. Typically, your state return is based on its federal counterpart. But, under DOMA, there’s a mismatch between filing statuses: in some states, you’re a married couple, but, federally, you’re single. As a result, under current law, LGBT couples often have to consult with a tax expert.
    • Itemized deductions. Now, in some cases, only one half of the couple can claim itemized deductions and dependents. A single return will allow them both to do so.
    
    
  
  

A word from the experts, on the messy system in place for LGBT couples today:
Same-sex couples have to prepare a federal return “as if” they were married. “This is extra work that is costly and time consuming.” But it’s necessary if a couple is recognized by the state but not the federal government.

–Shawn Koch, a financial advisor based in Portland, OR

4) Would all couples see a lower tax bill with federal recognition?

Not necessarily.
Gay couples currently file as two Individuals because their marriage is not recognized by the federal government. And federal income tax brackets are in fact easier on high-income individuals than they are on most high-income married couples. So, if DOMA is overturned:

• 
  
  • 
    
    • Same-sex couples earning more than $146,400 may see their tax bill go up. On this point, the devil is in the details, so we provide further analysis below.
    
    
  
  

Case study: Which gay couples will see a higher tax bill with DOMA’s repeal?
Under the current system, a gay couple is classified as two Individuals. And sometimes they’re better off that way, as our table demonstrates, in red.
Why? Because, after DOMA, a couple may bump up to a higher tax bracket. For example, under current law, a gay couple isn’t taxed at 28% until, collectively, they earn $175,700 in taxable income. As a married couple, they’ll hit that higher rate much sooner, at $146,400. So, even if they do earn that same amount of $175,700, they stand to pay a whole $879 more because of the change.

Marginal tax rates for a gay couple of equal earners

	Under DOMA	Tax liability the same (=) or greater (<) after DOMA?	After DOMA
Marginal rate	Income	= or <	Income
10.0%	$0	=	$0
15.0%	$17,850	=	$17,850
25.0%	$72,500	=	$72,500
28.0%	$175,700	<	$146,400
33.0%	$366,500	<	$223,050
35.0%	$796,700	<	$398,350
39.6%	$800,000	<	$450,000
Notes: (1) We assume both halves of this couple work and earn the same amount in wages. (2) Due to DOMA, this gay couple must file as two Individuals. After DOMA, they would file as a Married Couple (MFJ)

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/finan...sonal-finance/

Supreme Court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional


By Sam Baker - 06/26/13 10:02 AM ET


The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the heart of a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court overturned a section of the Defense of Marriage Act that bars same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits, even if they live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages.

The challenge to DOMA was filed by Edith Windsor, a New York widow who inherited her late wife's home but was forced to pay dramatically higher property taxes than she would have if she had married a man, even though the state recognized her marriage. Kennedy wrote that the law desprived liberties to couples in same-sex marriages that are protected by the Fifth Amendment.
"DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty," Kennedy wrote. "It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.

The court's liberal wing joined Kennedy in the majority decision, while the court's conservative justices dissented in three separate opinions.
In his blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court had "no power" to reach its decision and was suffering from "an exalted conception" of its role in the nation.
"We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation," Scalia wrote. "The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."
Separately, the court did not reach a ruling in another landmark case on same-sex marriage.
Citing procedural issues with the case, the justices declined to rule on whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional. Technical and procedural issues had marred the case from the beginning. The justices questioned during oral arguments whether the group defending Proposition 8 had the legal standing to do so.
This story was updated at 10:33 a.m.


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/307865-supreme-cour-rules-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional#ixzz2XKijv7BM

Supreme Court clears path for same-sex marriage in California


By Sam Baker - 06/26/13 10:28 AM ET


The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry in California, but avoided directly answering constitutional questions about state marriage laws.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said procedural issues prevented it from reaching a ruling on the merits of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.

The justices said supporters of Proposition 8 did not have the legal standing to defend it in the courts. They declined to rule on the law’s merits and vacated a federal appeals court’s decision. That process appears to leave in place a lower court’s order preventing state officials from enforcing Proposition 8, which would mean same-sex couples can marry in the state.
But by hewing only to procedure, the Supreme Court avoided several modest options that would have found fault with the substance of Proposition 8. It certainly did not come close to a broad ruling declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as the attorneys challenging Proposition 8 had wanted.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy led the dissent.
This story was updated at 11:10 a.m.


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/307...#ixzz2XKwWv46q

Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in several jurisdictions within the United States. As of June 2013, thirteen states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington —as well as the District of Columbia and five Native American tribesHYPERLINK \l "cite_note-1"[1]—have legalized same-sex marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States