Posted on 02/19/2018 3:48:01 PM PST by BackRoads775
COLUMBIA, SC —
The day after Valentine’s Day, six South Carolina legislators introduced a bill to the House that would amend the definition of what constitutes marriage in the Palmetto State.
The “Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act” was introduced Feb. 15 and would draw a line between what its sponsors deem is “marriage” and what is considered “parody marriage.”
According to the bill, “ ‘parody marriage’ means any form of marriage that does not involve one man and one woman. ‘Marriage’ means a union of one man and one woman.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
Won’t fly - the courts already ruled.
All you can do is get the state out of marriage altogether and only tax on the basis of child bearing.
The proposed bill has no teeth.
If passed, it will not change a thing as gays could still be and get married.
It’s Feel Good Legislation.
“only tax on the basis of child bearing.”
Great idea. We all know 2 faggots cant produce a child except molest them after adoption..
I’m all for it. To show the ass munchers we havent given up on the morals of the country.
YES!
Tax on the basis of childbearing?
What does that mean?
Tax on the basis of childbearing?
What does that mean?
Sorry for the double post...
Marriage should be a private contract that, like any contract, is binding in accordance with its terms upon its signers but which does not affect anyone who didn’t sign it.
Taxing childbearing should be avoided as it discourages childbearing and thus promotes abortion.
Agreed,,,,hence my question.
Please feel welcome to ping me to any response.
Marriage is not and cannot be private, because it has public consequences.
Tax on the basis of childbearing - exactly what it says. The basis for determining taxation (which includes benefits) should be on the number of children you’ve birthed, not on who you profess to LUV today.
That was the entire point of giving different tax statuses to married people. To encourage marriage and reproduction (which a government needs to survive).
Everybody files separately, one person gets to claim the dependent. If you have a stay at home parent, they get claimed as a dependent too.
It may not fly but I like the dig of “parody marriage”.
>
Marriage should be a private contract that, like any contract, is binding in accordance with its terms upon its signers but which does not affect anyone who didn’t sign it.
>
So, the vows are binding, as part of said contract (to death due us part)? How ‘bout infidelity?
Hell, I’d be happy if the MALE had *any* chance in divorce court (unlike today)...
‘public consequences’? Such as??
>
Tax on the basis of childbearing - exactly what it says. The basis for determining taxation (which includes benefits) should be on the number of children you’ve birthed, not on who you profess to LUV today.
That was the entire point of giving different tax statuses to married people. To encourage marriage and reproduction (which a government needs to survive).
>
Ah, AKA ‘social engineering’.
Sorry, but taxation is to pay for (lawful) services. Nothing else.
Until govt returns to the ‘paid for services rendered’ private model (IE: *welfare*, schools, hospitals, etc.), FAMILIES cost more to the body politic than the single/shacked-up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.