TexasCHLforum.com

Fully support. Full faith and credit, as much as anyone should have to ask permission to have the state recognize whatever type of relationship they want.

If two guys want to be "married" then i'm fine with that. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

The analogy is deeply flawed - a marriage license is nothing like a CHL.

A marriage license is not a license to BE married, but to GET married by means of a traditional wedding. In Texas, the license is only good for 30 days, but provided the ceremony is during those 30 days, you remain married until the marriage is dissolved by death or divorce. So the marriage license is not needed to BE married, only to GET married. And then, it is only necessary to GET married in the traditional sense. Texas recognizes common law marriage, which requires no license at all, so, if you chose that route, you would not even have to have a license to GET married. Thus, the analogy does not hold up at all.

However, if you want to persist in the analogy, I should point out that it works against the point I think you are trying to make. A marriage license is not more widely accepted than a CHL - its validity is much more restricted. Remember that it is a license to GET married, not be married. As such, it is only recognized in the COUNTY in which it is issued. Is that the point that you want to make - that our CHL should only be good in the county in which it is issued?

nitrogen wrote:Fully support. Full faith and credit, as much as anyone should have to ask permission to have the state recognize whatever type of relationship they want.

If two guys want to be "married" then i'm fine with that. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Agreed. I see no need for the government to regulate relations between consenting adults nor any right to do so. If the government has the power to regulate relations between certain groups of people the precedent exists for them to regulate whatever group anyone belongs to.

The government should be hands off as long as they're adults. If my neighbors have a gay marriage or they're polygamists makes no difference to me.

However, the government shouldn't discriminate either. Income tax should be based on the person's income, not the number of houses or spouses or children they have.

tacticool wrote:However, the government shouldn't discriminate either. Income tax should be based on the person's income, not the number of houses or spouses or children they have.

There should not be an income tax all together, and for much of US history there wasn't.

nitrogen wrote:Fully support. Full faith and credit, as much as anyone should have to ask permission to have the state recognize whatever type of relationship they want.

If two guys want to be "married" then i'm fine with that. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Is this an issue?
I have been in the military the vast majority of my adult life, married/divorced twice, lived all over the States and never had the state where my marriage took place taken into question.

Purplehood wrote:Is this an issue?
I have been in the military the vast majority of my adult life, married/divorced twice, lived all over the States and never had the state where my marriage took place taken into question.

In reality, this entire thread was a veiled attempt by the original poster to attempt to point out hypocrisy in people wishing CHL licences to be reciprocal across all states, but at the same time, not wanting marriages performed in certain other states to be viewed as valid in Texas.

The comparison was misguided and has failed, as people have pointed out that they are completely different, and not comparable at all.
This thread's purpose is over.

Thats the problem with forums. It is difficult to convey the context/attitude behind the post at times unless you somehow specify them.

It's ok with me as long as they use a standard #2 pencil. But only those old fashioned ones that require manual resharpening - if they want to use one of those fancy mechanical (SA) pencils they should be required to undergo an extra 10 hour class regarding the carrying and use of semiautomatic pencils, plus a proficiency test lest we have folks who are not qualified running amok and not fully shading in the circle, or marking below the line. Just MHO, of course IANAL.

Paying the state for the right to participate in a religious ceremony, so that we have the right to pay higher taxes, get less for social security. Makes as much sense as making us pay for a licence to bear (carry) arms.
and for some reason we deny this right to pay extra taxes and get less social security to sex couples.

Yeah, Obama is reinstalling the marriage penalty. I guess he is trying to discourage mariage to many people getting married I guess ..

Liberty wrote:Paying the state for the right to participate in a religious ceremony, so that we have the right to pay higher taxes, get less for social security. Makes as much sense as making us pay for a licence to bear (carry) arms.
and for some reason we deny this right to pay extra taxes and get less social security to sex couples.

Yeah, Obama is reinstalling the marriage penalty. I guess he is trying to discourage mariage to many people getting married I guess ..

I keep hearing about a "marriage penalty" but from my viewpoint it looks like there's a "single penalty" in the income tax. It sounds like we could make everyone happier by getting rid of the four categories* and have everyone pay the same based only on their income, not the number of houses or spouses or children they have.

* Married filing jointly
* Married filing separately
* Single
* Head of household

2 people making the same amount of money almost always pay more, this was somewhat fixed but the fix will be undone when the so called bush taxcuts expire.

Liberty wrote:2 people making the same amount of money almost always pay more, this was somewhat fixed but the fix will be undone when the so called bush taxcuts expire.

How much income tax they pay should be based on their income, not whether they're married, dating, platonic roommates, siblings, living alone, gay, straight, celibate, black, white, brown, etc.