You do realize it's because this isn't news, right? He can't actually deny anyone a permit and would be sued. This is playing to his base.

Firstly the benefit of filing a joint tax return by married couples is actually just a recent trend in perspective. Up until 2001 filing a married joint tax return did in fact create a marriage penalty. It was that way to supposedly level the playing field of joint filers with single filers. So only until the last decade or so (coinciding with the increased attention to gay marriage) has being married actually worked in favor of maried tax payers. What is worse is that this marriage shelter works in favor of those who have higher incomes especially for those who have larger income gaps between spouses. For example: Spouse 1 makes 80,000 and Spouse 2 makes 20,000 = 100,000 total income. They both file as making 50,000 giving them a tax advantage. Just another unfair advantage given out by our progressive tax system.

The problem with gay marriage proponents using this to support their arguement is again, they want it for themselves and no one else. They would rather join the ranks of heterosexual COUPLES than remove the preference all together alowing ANYONE to be married and still pay the same taxes despite their chosen lifestyle. I have said it before, polygamists will be watching the direction we go on this issue and when gay couples are successful in "equalizing" the playing field between them and heterosexuals they will have precedent for arguing against polygamy laws. And who could deny them? Based on what? How they share their resources? Sounds like private business to me just like who you sleep with.

I for one feel that the marriage advantage should be either removed or allowed to be used by ANYONE regardless of their sexual orientation or lifestyle. I happen to be married BTW. But that wouldn't make for good politics as it always seems that rather than truly leveling the playing field they just want what they want, everyone else be damned. Not to mention the entire tax system as it is is broken and wrong. But thats for another thread.

As for the other so-called benfits of marriage, removing uncle sam from the eqaution all together is the solution to those issues. For those in love with gay marriage how do you suppose the opponents will treat it when the have the regulatory powers that have been put in place? These issues should never have been njected into politics as the have only become weapons to weild against an opponent to garner power. It is only great when your guy is in power.

1) What does the last ten years differentiate in the argument? That it doesn't really exist because it didn't, what, 11 years ago? If not, I'm not sure I know your point of bringing that up. Marriage penalty, referred to tax liability. However, like I said already, there are many other benefits of being married. For example, there have been laws for years that you could gift huge sums of money to a spouse without being taxed. One could win the lottery of 200k, gift it to a spouse, and not pay any tax on it. Or something like that. And yes, it does favor one making more than the other. Not a huge deal, as it doesn't really convey the expected argument of "it wouldn't actually help same sex marriage tax liability". Unless you didn't mean it in that way, in which case, I'm again confused as to what your point it. What I gather from the whole thing is that you're downplaying the advantages of marriage benefits. But you still can't deny that advantages exist and are common. Even if they are rare, is it a waste of time? Not really your call to make.

2) "They want it for themselves and noone else". What? Care to rephrase what you're saying? I assume you meant "homosexuals only CARE about their own rights, not everyone's". "They want it for themselves and noone else" is just a blatant spin. As for polygamists...I really don't care if they get the tax benefits. Again, marriage should not convey special rights to others, but it does, and they try to deny it to anyone else.

3) I'm glad you feel that way. However, couples do need tax benefits. Couples by nature have a predisposition to build a future for themselves. These people should be given breaks. Marriage is an economic boost in many ways. It is the entrance for many into home-buying, car-buying, family building. These investments build economies. Strengthening housing would strengthen the economy. Therefore, help couples to afford a house. It's simple.

4) Im not sure what you're saying here. Sorry.

Ok, I guess. It's not because someone is sued that it doesn't make the news. If something is scandalous, and trust me the other way around would have been more than scandalous, I believe it would have been viral.

Ok, let me rephrase this for you.

A governer denounced Chic-Fil-A's president's words, citing that he won't get a permit in some specific part of his jurisdiction. Governor's words are denounced by the ACLU. Liberals agree that denying permits would be unlawful, even Jon Stewart of the Daily Show (our God).
 Where exactly is your problem?

By "other way around" you're referring to Oreo, correct? How is it that one company is defended by Republicans in a statement, and Oreo is denounced, yet both time liberals are in the wrong. Tell me that. We really can never be right. You have no idea how frustrating it is that we're always in the wrong according to your party.

i cant marry a dude, either.

seems pretty equal rights to me.

i suppose you hold the very backward belief in denying people the right to marry their sisters, marry 10 different people, marry a 14 year old, etc. 

what a backward person, and un-christian person you are.

surely you cant be serious.

unless of course you consider being in bed with democrats and the obama administration as being fair, and non-biased, down the middle reporting.

I'm not against people marrying ten others, but scientifically, incest is harmful and generally involves abuse, similarly with a 14 year old, who scientifically, is not mature enough to make life-affecting decisions, and is also prone to abusive relationships and manipulation.

Let's clarify something here.

The "liberal bias" is republicans saying that liberal media is quick to defend liberals and quick to attack republicans.

The "republican bias" is Republican media like Fox BLATANTLY and SPECIFICALLY editting the words that come out of the president's mouth. Should we talk about the "you didn't build it" fiasco over at Fox? They LITERALLY editted what he said.

So on one hand we have the right 'complaining' that media is attacking them, and on the other we have obviously blind liberals defending slights that Republicans imagine the blind liberals have said.

Are we done playing the blame game now?

Also, are you for Romney? You do know he is a mormon, right. It's a religion that seeks to make 10-person marrying legally representable.