Marriage and equal rights for ALL people.

[Foxfyre]

No my sentiments are based purely on practical concerns and evidence that I have been observing for a lifetime.

There is no inequality of any kind in existing marriage laws. They apply 100% equally to every U.S. citizen regardless of any criteria you want to use. Every man, woman, and child is subject to the exact same law which has NOTHING to do whatsoever with sexual orientation.

It is no different than the carpool lane on the freeway. The fact that some choose not to carpool because it is inconvenient or a hassle or impractical or disagreeable or even impossible for them does not change the fact that the law applies to everybody equally without prejudice. Everybody has the right to take advantage of the carpool lane without prejudice.

You can legitimately debate whether the institution of traditional marriage is under assault and/or whether changing the definition would put it under worse assault. But nobody wants to do that. They want to make it a 'gay prejudice' issue and they won't look at it any other way. And I'm sorry. I'm not the least bit homophobic, I have no question that being gay is inate and not a choice, I don't see it as a sin or anything bad, but I'm not buying the line that gays are discriminated against via the marriage laws.

 

[Valerie]

No my sentiments are based purely on practical concerns and evidence that I have been observing for a lifetime.

There is no inequality of any kind in existing marriage laws. They apply 100% equally to every U.S. citizen regardless of any criteria you want to use. Every man, woman, and child is subject to the exact same law which has NOTHING to do whatsoever with sexual orientation.

It is no different than the carpool lane on the freeway. The fact that some choose not to carpool because it is inconvenient or a hassle or impractical or disagreeable or even impossible for them does not change the fact that the law applies to everybody equally without prejudice. Everybody has the right to take advantage of the carpool lane without prejudice.

You can legitimately debate whether the institution of traditional marriage is under assault and/or whether changing the definition would put it under worse assault. But nobody wants to do that. They want to make it a 'gay prejudice' issue and they won't look at it any other way. And I'm sorry. I'm not the least bit homophobic, I have no question that being gay is inate and not a choice, I don't see it as a sin or anything bad, but I'm not buying the line that gays are discriminated against via the marriage laws.

Just like the carpool lane? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.




People are who they are and we all have a basic right to be treated equally under the law.


I know you're not homophobic, but your opinion is based on an unfounded fear IMO.


Heterosexuals have been doing a fine job of wrecking their own marriages for ages now!

 

[Valerie]

Foxy says:


There is no inequality of any kind in existing marriage laws. They apply 100% equally to every U.S. citizen regardless of any criteria you want to use.



As I said, people are who they are, and if they are homosexual there is indeed inequality for them.

Giving them equality takes nothing from you and your marriage!

 

[Foxfyre]

And liberal America has done their damndest to dismantle traditional marriage as necessary and relevant too. I'm not going to get into all the way on this thread, but it always fascinates me that the very people who have disparaged marriage and made it irrelevent and unimportant are now many of the same ones demanding that the definition be changed.

If you can't understand the analogy comparing the equality built into the marriage laws with the equality built into the carpool lane laws, I can't do much about that. I think most people do understand the analogy.

Given that the marriage laws have absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with whether people love each other, like each other, or what their sexual orientation might be, you'll have a very difficult time showing me how the marriage laws discriminate against anybody. The marriage laws absolutely 100% treat everybody equally.

 

[Valerie]

And liberal America has done their damndest to dismantle traditional marriage as necessary and relevant too. I'm not going to get into all the way on this thread, but it always fascinates me that the very people who have disparaged marriage and made it irrelevent and unimportant are now many of the same ones demanding that the definition be changed.

If you can't understand the analogy comparing the equality built into the marriage laws with the equality built into the carpool lane laws, I can't do much about that. I think most people do understand the analogy.

Given that the marriage laws have absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with whether people love each other, like each other, or what their sexual orientation might be, you'll have a very difficult time showing me how the marriage laws discriminate against anybody. The marriage laws absolutely 100% treat everybody equally.

Well, if you can't understand that they don't, then I can't do much about that except try to explain, which is what I'm attempting to do.



In one breath you get sentimental about the tradition and the foundations of society as if the law is an example being set for the children and then in the next breath you say that marriage laws don't even depend on love anyway.



OK now we're getting somewhere...

Given that the marriage laws have absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with whether people love each other, like each other, or what their sexual orientation might be......then WHY should the state discriminate against gay couples? Based on what?

 

[Valerie]

And liberal America has done their damndest to dismantle traditional marriage as necessary and relevant too. I'm not going to get into all the way on this thread, but it always fascinates me that the very people who have disparaged marriage and made it irrelevent and unimportant are now many of the same ones demanding that the definition be changed.

If you can't understand the analogy comparing the equality built into the marriage laws with the equality built into the carpool lane laws, I can't do much about that. I think most people do understand the analogy.

Given that the marriage laws have absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with whether people love each other, like each other, or what their sexual orientation might be, you'll have a very difficult time showing me how the marriage laws discriminate against anybody. The marriage laws absolutely 100% treat everybody equally.

Can you explain what you mean by that first part of what you said. (bold)


Seeking marriage equality for gays has somehow disparaged marriage and dismantled marriages???

 

[Foxfyre]

Forgive me Valerie, but that's already been said and done. And I don't want to derail this thread by getting into the assault on marriage and the traditional family.

And I've explained the best I know how to do why I hold the convictions I do on this matter. I don't think I'll explain them any better by continuing to answer the same questions over and over again. That gets really boring for me and I imagine everybody else too.

You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it is before the defintion is changed.

I have stated my reasons for not wanting to change the definition and why I think it is a bad move for everybody, straight and gay, to do so.

And that's the best I can do.

 

[Ravi]

And liberal America has done their damndest to dismantle traditional marriage as necessary and relevant too. I'm not going to get into all the way on this thread, but it always fascinates me that the very people who have disparaged marriage and made it irrelevent and unimportant are now many of the same ones demanding that the definition be changed.

If you can't understand the analogy comparing the equality built into the marriage laws with the equality built into the carpool lane laws, I can't do much about that. I think most people do understand the analogy.

Given that the marriage laws have absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with whether people love each other, like each other, or what their sexual orientation might be, you'll have a very difficult time showing me how the marriage laws discriminate against anybody. The marriage laws absolutely 100% treat everybody equally.

Well, if you can't understand that they don't, then I can't do much about that except try to explain, which is what I'm attempting to do.



In one breath you get sentimental about the tradition and the foundations of society as if the law is an example being set for the children and then in the next breath you say that marriage laws don't even depend on love anyway.



OK now we're getting somewhere...

Given that the marriage laws have absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with whether people love each other, like each other, or what their sexual orientation might be......then WHY should the state discriminate against gay couples? Based on what?

It's just possible, Val, that if gays are allowed to marry your husband will want to marry your next door male neighbor.

But you ask a good question. Traditionally, marriage wasn't about love...it was a business transaction and a way to keep women in their place. No love required. Perhaps "liberals" have dismantled traditional marriage after all since now marriage is more about love than anything else. (Well, at least at the beginning. )

 

[Valerie]

Forgive me Valerie, but that's already been said and done. And I don't want to derail this thread by getting into the assault on marriage and the traditional family.

And I've explained the best I know how to do why I hold the convictions I do on this matter. I don't think I'll explain them any better by continuing to answer the same questions over and over again. That gets really boring for me and I imagine everybody else too.

You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it is before the defintion is changed.

I have stated my reasons for not wanting to change the definition and why I think it is a bad move for everybody, straight and gay, to do so.

And that's the best I can do.

I forgive you for not having an answer since there really is no good answer as to why the state should discriminate.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Newby, Ravi, and Valerie.

What do the 3 of you think about my statements that individuals, whether married or single, should be responsible for the same level of taxes if they are at the same income level?

If your a married woman making 50,000/year do you feel you should be responsible for the same amount of taxes as a single woman making 50,000/year? Why do you feel the way you do?

(Sorry but you guys seem really into the thread and I wanted to try to bring it back on topic)

 

[Valerie]

Pilgrim says:

Why should Gay married couples or Straight Married couples receive preferential treatment from our government through the tax system?
Is this not discriminatory against non-married americans?
Why should non-married americans have to have a larger tax burden than married americans under our tax laws?






Those who are concerned about the supposed leftist liberal gay agenda to "destroy traditional marriage" might note that Pilgrim is not liberal or leftist at all!!!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Pilgrim says:

Why should Gay married couples or Straight Married couples receive preferential treatment from our government through the tax system?
Is this not discriminatory against non-married americans?
Why should non-married americans have to have a larger tax burden than married americans under our tax laws?






Those who are concerned about the supposed leftist liberal gay agenda to "destroy traditional marriage" might note that Pilgrim is not liberal or leftist at all!!!

And I'm not out to destroy marriage just looking for what, in my opinion, would be fairness in a tax code that I feel is structured unfairly at the moment.


Do you feel a married woman making 50,000/year should be responsible for the same amount of taxes as a single woman making 50,000/year? Why do you feel the way you do?

 

[Ravi]

Newby, Ravi, and Valerie.

What do the 3 of you think about my statements that individuals, whether married or single, should be responsible for the same level of taxes if they are at the same income level?

If your a married woman making 50,000/year do you feel you should be responsible for the same amount of taxes as a single woman making 50,000/year? Why do you feel the way you do?

(Sorry but you guys seem really into the thread and I wanted to try to bring it back on topic)

Next time say what you mean in your op.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Newby, Ravi, and Valerie.

What do the 3 of you think about my statements that individuals, whether married or single, should be responsible for the same level of taxes if they are at the same income level?

If your a married woman making 50,000/year do you feel you should be responsible for the same amount of taxes as a single woman making 50,000/year? Why do you feel the way you do?

(Sorry but you guys seem really into the thread and I wanted to try to bring it back on topic)

Next time say what you mean in your op.

Try reading the part in bold in the OP. Its bold for a reason

Cmon ravi I know your not afraid to give your opinion on the bolded part of the OP, right?

 

[EternalVictory]

I'm not to savvy when it comes to taxes but I'm aware enough to know that something has to change. It's like the more money we give, the more each new politician tells us they need.

I'm so embarrassed by the representation that has been given to this country and the misappropriation of the hard earned money of our people that I have to let you know that I strongly agree with your statement by JFK.

We would be a much more effective nation if we focused on the facts and stop fighting for who is better, Republican or Democrat.

 

[Valerie]

Newby, Ravi, and Valerie.

What do the 3 of you think about my statements that individuals, whether married or single, should be responsible for the same level of taxes if they are at the same income level?

If you're a married woman making 50,000/year do you feel you should be responsible for the same amount of taxes as a single woman making 50,000/year? Why do you feel the way you do?

(Sorry but you guys seem really into the thread and I wanted to try to bring it back on topic)

Sorry, Pilgrim...I didn't see your post 'til after I logged off.


Federal tax laws are very different than marriage statutes, first of all...


Tax laws are very complex and married couples have the option to file separately.

In another article, we discussed the "marriage penalty" and how it might impact you as a taxpayer. The obvious next question is: "Should my spouse and I file using the married-separate filing status to avoid the marriage penalty?"

As is often the case with tax questions, there is no clear-cut answer. It depends on your individual tax situation.

In general, your decision will depend on which filing status results in the lowest tax. But, while that might seem obvious, there is one very important consideration you should take into account: If you and your spouse file a joint return, you are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of tax and any interest or penalty due.

This means that, if your spouse decides to take the cash out of the bank and run away to Costa Rica, you could be stuck with the total tax liability. Therefore, regardless of which method results in less tax, you might choose to file a separate return if you want to ensure you're only responsible for paying your own tax.

Note: There are "innocent spouse" rules in place that might help you in a situation like this, but you don't want to rely on them exclusively. Your best bet would still be filing a separate return. For more information on the "innocent spouse" rules, see IRS Publication 971.

In most cases, filing jointly offers the most tax savings, particularly where the spouses have different income levels. The "averaging" effect of combining the two incomes can bring some of it out of a higher tax bracket. For example, if one spouse has $75,000 of taxable income and the other has just $15,000, filing jointly can save about $1,500 in taxes versus filing separately.

But, remember that filing separately doesn't mean you go back to using the "single" rates that applied before you were married. Instead, each spouse must use the "married, filing separately" rates. These rates are based on brackets that are exactly half of the "married, filing jointly" brackets, but are still less-favorable than the "single" rates. This means that the "marriage penalty" can't necessarily be eliminated simply by filing separate returns.



The Upside and The Downside
Fool.com: Married, Filing Separate

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Newby, Ravi, and Valerie.

What do the 3 of you think about my statements that individuals, whether married or single, should be responsible for the same level of taxes if they are at the same income level?

If you're a married woman making 50,000/year do you feel you should be responsible for the same amount of taxes as a single woman making 50,000/year? Why do you feel the way you do?

(Sorry but you guys seem really into the thread and I wanted to try to bring it back on topic)

Sorry, Pilgrim...I didn't see your post 'til after I logged off.


Federal tax laws are very different than marriage statutes, first of all...


Tax laws are very complex and married couples have the option to file separately.

In another article, we discussed the "marriage penalty" and how it might impact you as a taxpayer. The obvious next question is: "Should my spouse and I file using the married-separate filing status to avoid the marriage penalty?"

As is often the case with tax questions, there is no clear-cut answer. It depends on your individual tax situation.

In general, your decision will depend on which filing status results in the lowest tax. But, while that might seem obvious, there is one very important consideration you should take into account: If you and your spouse file a joint return, you are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of tax and any interest or penalty due.

This means that, if your spouse decides to take the cash out of the bank and run away to Costa Rica, you could be stuck with the total tax liability. Therefore, regardless of which method results in less tax, you might choose to file a separate return if you want to ensure you're only responsible for paying your own tax.

Note: There are "innocent spouse" rules in place that might help you in a situation like this, but you don't want to rely on them exclusively. Your best bet would still be filing a separate return. For more information on the "innocent spouse" rules, see IRS Publication 971.

In most cases, filing jointly offers the most tax savings, particularly where the spouses have different income levels. The "averaging" effect of combining the two incomes can bring some of it out of a higher tax bracket. For example, if one spouse has $75,000 of taxable income and the other has just $15,000, filing jointly can save about $1,500 in taxes versus filing separately.

But, remember that filing separately doesn't mean you go back to using the "single" rates that applied before you were married. Instead, each spouse must use the "married, filing separately" rates. These rates are based on brackets that are exactly half of the "married, filing jointly" brackets, but are still less-favorable than the "single" rates. This means that the "marriage penalty" can't necessarily be eliminated simply by filing separate returns.



The Upside and The Downside
Fool.com: Married, Filing Separate

Yes Valerie I understand this. As it states in your quote "In most cases, filing jointly offers the most tax savings, particularly where the spouses have different income levels. The "averaging" effect of combining the two incomes can bring some of it out of a higher tax bracket. For example, if one spouse has $75,000 of taxable income and the other has just $15,000, filing jointly can save about $1,500 in taxes versus filing separately."

That is the benefit I'm talking about. yes married people can file seperately however single people have no way to enjoy the benefit of filing jointly. It creates an inequitable situation in our taxes.

Do you feel this is acceptable? Why or why not?

 

[Valerie]

My personal opinion is that single people do not have the same and equal rights as married people under the tax code therefore everyone should be taxed at an individual tax rate regardless of marriage status.

My issue comes with the "Equal Rights" part of the whole marriage and taxes equation.

Why should Gay married couples or Straight Married couples receive preferencial treatment from our government through the tax system?
Is this not discriminatory against non-married americans?
Why should non-married americans have to have a larger tax burden than married americans under our tax laws?


There are some questions to get a discussion going.

Debate, Discuss, and disagree if you don't like the opinion. Try to tell me why you think i'm right or wrong in my opinion.


EDIT: I am not suggesting eliminating Child Tax Credits only taxing all individuals in the same manner for fairness and equality.

But, remember that filing separately doesn't mean you go back to using the "single" rates that applied before you were married. Instead, each spouse must use the "married, filing separately" rates. These rates are based on brackets that are exactly half of the "married, filing jointly" brackets, but are still less-favorable than the "single" rates. This means that the "marriage penalty" can't necessarily be eliminated simply by filing separate returns.




It's difficult to know if the tax law is fair but I think it's a good question.

 

[Valerie]

Newby, Ravi, and Valerie.

What do the 3 of you think about my statements that individuals, whether married or single, should be responsible for the same level of taxes if they are at the same income level?

If you're a married woman making 50,000/year do you feel you should be responsible for the same amount of taxes as a single woman making 50,000/year? Why do you feel the way you do?

(Sorry but you guys seem really into the thread and I wanted to try to bring it back on topic)

Sorry, Pilgrim...I didn't see your post 'til after I logged off.


Federal tax laws are very different than marriage statutes, first of all...


Tax laws are very complex and married couples have the option to file separately.

In another article, we discussed the "marriage penalty" and how it might impact you as a taxpayer. The obvious next question is: "Should my spouse and I file using the married-separate filing status to avoid the marriage penalty?"

As is often the case with tax questions, there is no clear-cut answer. It depends on your individual tax situation.

In general, your decision will depend on which filing status results in the lowest tax. But, while that might seem obvious, there is one very important consideration you should take into account: If you and your spouse file a joint return, you are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of tax and any interest or penalty due.

This means that, if your spouse decides to take the cash out of the bank and run away to Costa Rica, you could be stuck with the total tax liability. Therefore, regardless of which method results in less tax, you might choose to file a separate return if you want to ensure you're only responsible for paying your own tax.

Note: There are "innocent spouse" rules in place that might help you in a situation like this, but you don't want to rely on them exclusively. Your best bet would still be filing a separate return. For more information on the "innocent spouse" rules, see IRS Publication 971.

In most cases, filing jointly offers the most tax savings, particularly where the spouses have different income levels. The "averaging" effect of combining the two incomes can bring some of it out of a higher tax bracket. For example, if one spouse has $75,000 of taxable income and the other has just $15,000, filing jointly can save about $1,500 in taxes versus filing separately.

But, remember that filing separately doesn't mean you go back to using the "single" rates that applied before you were married. Instead, each spouse must use the "married, filing separately" rates. These rates are based on brackets that are exactly half of the "married, filing jointly" brackets, but are still less-favorable than the "single" rates. This means that the "marriage penalty" can't necessarily be eliminated simply by filing separate returns.



The Upside and The Downside
Fool.com: Married, Filing Separate

Yes Jillian I understand this. As it states in your quote "In most cases, filing jointly offers the most tax savings, particularly where the spouses have different income levels. The "averaging" effect of combining the two incomes can bring some of it out of a higher tax bracket. For example, if one spouse has $75,000 of taxable income and the other has just $15,000, filing jointly can save about $1,500 in taxes versus filing separately."

That is the benefit I'm talking about. yes married people can file seperately however single people have no way to enjoy the benefit of filing jointly. It creates an inequitable situation in our taxes.

Do you feel this is acceptable? Why or why not?

I'm Valerie.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I understand that. There are many things to consider.


EDIT: HAHAHA I'm sorry. I was reading one of her posts just before I came back and saw yours.