Marriage and equal rights for ALL people.

[Foxfyre]

You create a slippery slope with exceptions.

I don't think so. Not as long as they are 100% non discriminatory and all citizens can take advantage of them. Slippery slopes develop and become a problem when you start saying that this group gets this but not that one, etc. etc. etc.

As long as Congress can't use the tax code to 'buy or manipulate votes' from special interests or targeted constituencies or certain states but not all, etc., it can safely use the tax code to promote desired behaviors without corrupting either congress or recipients.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let me preface this by stating my opinion on marriage. I feel gays, if they want to, should be allowed to get married. I also feel that non-gay people, if they want to, should be allowed to get married.

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.

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.


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.

1. A moral society puts the interests of children first and foremost in all matters of policy.

2. Children, whether gay or straight, benefit emotionally and mentally from having positive role models from a grown up, loving mom AND dad in the home.

Disclaimer: I am not saying at all that single parents or gay parents cannot be excellent parents. I know many who are. I am only saying that a stable, loving, traditional two-parent family is the very best situation for the rearing of children.​

3. Children are far less likely to live in poverty in a two parent family.

4. Neighborhoods in which the traditional family is the norm are much more likely to be stable with churches, parks, better schools, less blight, less crime, more prosperous and provide a stronger tax base than often otherwise exists, and this also adds to a safer and more supportive environment for the kids.

So for these reasons, and in the spirit of the Founders intent to promote--that's promote niot provide--the general welfare, I support a tax policy that encourages and supports the traditional family rather than policy that weakens it by making it seem less relevant and necessary. And that is why I oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage.

And as for those who choose not to or can't enter into traditional marriage, I also support an option to form themselves into legally recognized family groups offering basic protections and benefits such as rights of visitation, inheritance, shared insurance, etc. etc. etc. I don't see this as a 'separate but equal' kind of thing but rather an either/or kind of thing as all citizens would have full right to do one or the other if they wanted to.

Lets forget about the gay marriage thing for a minute and just concentrate on the tax part.

What if we left the child tax credits intact but taxed married individuals the same as single individuals. Do you feel this would still acheive the good ideals you just described in your post? Would you find that acceptable?

I dont wanna sound like, well you know what i dont wanna sound like, but isn't it discriminatory against single individuals the way the tax code is set up now and doesn't that go against equality for all under the eyes of the law?

sorry lots of questions.

The tax code already discriminates against lots of people. People who rent, people who don't own their own businesses. People who don't invest in real estate.
So this is a break for people with the idea that the nuclear family is the basic building block of society. Every couple (OK, most couples) starts off childless.
There is equality here. Get married and you enjoy the same tax break as every other married person.

 

[strollingbones]

no its not fair....the tax system...

 

[Big Black Dog]

I'm married and my wife says that I have more than enough rights and not to ask for any more. Guess that pretty much settles that argument.

 

[saveliberty]

You create a slippery slope with exceptions.

I don't think so. Not as long as they are 100% non discriminatory and all citizens can take advantage of them. Slippery slopes develop and become a problem when you start saying that this group gets this but not that one, etc. etc. etc.

As long as Congress can't use the tax code to 'buy or manipulate votes' from special interests or targeted constituencies or certain states but not all, etc., it can safely use the tax code to promote desired behaviors without corrupting either congress or recipients.

Your system creates special classes of people. Where does that line stop? It is the slippery slope.

 

[Rezonator]

As I am Catholic, my view of marriage is that it is a sacrament and nothing to do with the state or federal government or anyone else.

You're dead-on right that marriage is the province of religion, not government, and was long before there ever was a United States, much less a U.S. state or federal government. What the hell is any government doing as a third-party in a marriage, or dictating the terms of marriage, or issuing "licenses" <SPIT!> for marriage?

It's a completely unjustified secular arrogation, and every marriage law on the books at every level is a violation of the Establishment clause and should be struck down. Yes, that includes the tax codes related to marriage&#8212;although those should just be incinerated with the rest of the income tax (but that's for another thread).

 

[The Rabbi]

As I am Catholic, my view of marriage is that it is a sacrament and nothing to do with the state or federal government or anyone else.

You're dead-on right that marriage is the province of religion, not government, and was long before there ever was a United States, much less a U.S. state or federal government. What the hell is any government doing as a third-party in a marriage, or dictating the terms of marriage, or issuing "licenses" <SPIT!> for marriage?

It's a completely unjustified secular arrogation, and every marriage law on the books at every level is a violation of the Establishment clause and should be struck down. Yes, that includes the tax codes related to marriage—although those should just be incinerated with the rest of the income tax (but that's for another thread).

So we should also do away with secular involvement in divorce, custody and adoption, right?

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Being completely right and sane doesn't insulate you from irrational rejection and ridicule.

Great thinkers usually get hung by mobs who cant understand magnets.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Being completely right and sane doesn't insulate you from irrational rejection and ridicule.

Great thinkers usually get hung by mobs who cant understand magnets.

If you see that as completely right and sane you need medical help.

 

[Smartt33]

The responses here have been very much where I would have gone.

Marriage is already defined, and soundly so. That means that marriage is not an option for gays unless they chose a partner of the opposite gender.

One reason taxes are lower for married couples is because there would be an added burden for a family if the taxes remained the same as for a single person. So, married couples pay a greater tax than a single person, but the combination is less as a couple. I don't think there is "preferencial treatment" I think there is fair adjustment.

So Say I'm living with my friend "Friend" and we share a home (no not married just as friends)

He makes $25,000/year
I make $55,000/year

Now you have a Wife and a Husband who live together in their home with no children.

He makes $25,000/year
She makes $55,000/year


How is it fair that they get taxed at a lower rate on their combined income of $80,000 than either "Friend" or I would get taxed as individuals making a combined $80,000? How is that inequitable treatment by the government, under the tax code, Fair when we make the combined same amount but because they are married they have a lower tax burden?

Also, how is it an "added" burden if they are required to pay the same tax rates on their incomes as unmmaried individuals...i believe the added burden gets placed on the single people under our current setup.
I want my equal rights to a lower tax rate that is equal to theirs .

Sorry, apples and oranges. Married couple and unmarried couple not equal.

Unmarried heterosexual couples who live together are in the same boat as you are. That is equal.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I am Catholic, my view of marriage is that it is a sacrament and nothing to do with the state or federal government or anyone else.

You're dead-on right that marriage is the province of religion, not government, and was long before there ever was a United States, much less a U.S. state or federal government. What the hell is any government doing as a third-party in a marriage, or dictating the terms of marriage, or issuing "licenses" <SPIT!> for marriage?

It's a completely unjustified secular arrogation, and every marriage law on the books at every level is a violation of the Establishment clause and should be struck down. Yes, that includes the tax codes related to marriage&#8212;although those should just be incinerated with the rest of the income tax (but that's for another thread).

So we should also do away with secular involvement in divorce, custody and adoption, right?

The civil laws regulating marriage are necessary for legal issues such as ownership and transfer of property and tracking of geneologies which can be important in tracking genetic footprints, etc. At one time it was necessary to establish blood lines to determine status of royalty.

But almost all marriage regulation now is again for protection and benefit of the children. You have to be a certain age to legally marry. You can't marry somebody who is too closely related. Many states require tests so that each party will be aware of certain comunicable diseases. The marriage provides mutual rights and protection for parents to make necessary choices and decisions for the children and as long as the marriage is intact, there are no issues of custody. Children being the closest relatives are the automatic inheritors of the estate if the parents die intestate. Etc.

There is nothing in ANY marriage laws/regulations related to religion nor is a religious ceremony of any kind necessary to be legally married. Nor should there be.

A religious ceremony adds another layer to the process, but the state should stay out of that.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're dead-on right that marriage is the province of religion, not government, and was long before there ever was a United States, much less a U.S. state or federal government. What the hell is any government doing as a third-party in a marriage, or dictating the terms of marriage, or issuing "licenses" <SPIT!> for marriage?

It's a completely unjustified secular arrogation, and every marriage law on the books at every level is a violation of the Establishment clause and should be struck down. Yes, that includes the tax codes related to marriage—although those should just be incinerated with the rest of the income tax (but that's for another thread).

So we should also do away with secular involvement in divorce, custody and adoption, right?

The civil laws regulating marriage are necessary for legal issues such as ownership and transfer of property and tracking of geneologies which can be important in tracking genetic footprints, etc. At one time it was necessary to establish blood lines to determine status of royalty.

But almost all marriage regulation now is again for protection and benefit of the children. You have to be a certain age to legally marry. You can't marry somebody who is too closely related. Many states require tests so that each party will be aware of certain comunicable diseases. The marriage provides mutual rights and protection for parents to make necessary choices and decisions for the children and as long as the marriage is intact, there are no issues of custody. Children being the closest relatives are the automatic inheritors of the estate if the parents die intestate. Etc.

There is nothing in ANY marriage laws/regulations related to religion nor is a religious ceremony of any kind necessary to be legally married. Nor should there be.

A religious ceremony adds another layer to the process, but the state should stay out of that.

Yes. And because of all of that you have to have a clear legal definition of "married." The issue is that once you say gay men and gay women can marry other gay men and other gay women then there is no real reason for any definition of marriage at all. Why not multiple spouses? Why not two straight men living together? Why not brother and sister (there is a case like that pending btw)? It makes a mockery of the whole idea of marriage. No society can exist like that.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Every day a new opportunity to support marriage equality in the US.

 

[Foxfyre]

So we should also do away with secular involvement in divorce, custody and adoption, right?

The civil laws regulating marriage are necessary for legal issues such as ownership and transfer of property and tracking of geneologies which can be important in tracking genetic footprints, etc. At one time it was necessary to establish blood lines to determine status of royalty.

But almost all marriage regulation now is again for protection and benefit of the children. You have to be a certain age to legally marry. You can't marry somebody who is too closely related. Many states require tests so that each party will be aware of certain comunicable diseases. The marriage provides mutual rights and protection for parents to make necessary choices and decisions for the children and as long as the marriage is intact, there are no issues of custody. Children being the closest relatives are the automatic inheritors of the estate if the parents die intestate. Etc.

There is nothing in ANY marriage laws/regulations related to religion nor is a religious ceremony of any kind necessary to be legally married. Nor should there be.

A religious ceremony adds another layer to the process, but the state should stay out of that.

Yes. And because of all of that you have to have a clear legal definition of "married." The issue is that once you say gay men and gay women can marry other gay men and other gay women then there is no real reason for any definition of marriage at all. Why not multiple spouses? Why not two straight men living together? Why not brother and sister (there is a case like that pending btw)? It makes a mockery of the whole idea of marriage. No society can exist like that.

Theoretically it should be no problem for two gay guys or two gay gals who love each other to get married. Anybody can understand why they would want to.

BUT. . . .there is zero reason to enforce most of the existing marriage laws when gay people get married because no offspring will result from that union. And as long as the marriage laws are in force primarily to protect the children, and as long as I believe kids need a loving Mom and a Dad to be fully emotionally supported and feel fully secure, I will support keeping the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

I don't think your slippery slope argument is without merit. But that is not my reason for defending traditional marriage.

As I said, I also support legal civil unions to provide necessary benefits/protections for others who can't or don't want to marry and the slope can get as slippery as it needs to there as presumably children will not be an expected product of such unions.

 

[jillian]

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.

i don't think there are only tax 'benefits' of marriage, like the child tax credit which not all married people get. there's also a 'marriage penalty'. yes?

 

[Sky Dancer]

There is an assumption that gay couples don't have children and therefore don't need the benefits.

That'a an inaccurate statement. Gay couples can and o have no children. It is not true that no child will ever be created in a gay or lesbian marriage. Also, will we penalize heterosexual marriages when the couple can't or won't have children?

I tihink gay and lesiban couples ought to be able to collect each other's social security benefits just like any other married couple.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

i don't think there are only tax 'benefits' of marriage, like the child tax credit which not all married people get. there's also a 'marriage penalty'. yes?

No. At least not until next year when Obama raises taxes on everyone.

Since then several pieces of legislation have been passed to further do away with the penalties. For example, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 introduced section 1(f)(8) to the Internal Revenue Code, which mitigates the marriage penalty effect in the lower tax brackets.[4] Section 1(f)(8) adjusts the ceiling of the 15-percent tax bracket for joint return filers relative to the ceiling of the 15-percent tax bracket for unmarried spouses.[4] The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the benefit to joint return filers by eliminating the marriage penalty for 2003 and 2004 and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 extended the benefit to 2005-2007.[4] Therefore, the marriage penalty in the lower tax brackets will be eliminated through 2010.[4] Unless reauthorized by Congress, however, the marriage penalty will return in 2011.[4] However, through passing those pieces of legislation, the tax system is now such that couples with disparate incomes will pay less tax than they would have paid as two single taxpayers.[4]

From Wiki.
Really, for someone who claims to be a lawyer you are woefully ill informed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

i don't think there are only tax 'benefits' of marriage, like the child tax credit which not all married people get. there's also a 'marriage penalty'. yes?

Bush's tax cuts did away with the Marriage Penalty now its a marriage benefit, well until 2011 if they let the tax cuts expire.

I find this to be discriminatory against single individuals.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

i don't think there are only tax 'benefits' of marriage, like the child tax credit which not all married people get. there's also a 'marriage penalty'. yes?

Bush's tax cuts did away with the Marriage Penalty now its a marriage benefit, well until 2011 if they let the tax cuts expire.

I find this to be discriminatory against single individuals.

People who make more money pay at a higher rate. I find that discriminatory against smart industrious people.

 

[uscitizen]

The responses here have been very much where I would have gone.

Marriage is already defined, and soundly so. That means that marriage is not an option for gays unless they chose a partner of the opposite gender.

One reason taxes are lower for married couples is because there would be an added burden for a family if the taxes remained the same as for a single person. So, married couples pay a greater tax than a single person, but the combination is less as a couple. I don't think there is "preferencial treatment" I think there is fair adjustment.

So Say I'm living with my friend "Friend" and we share a home (no not married just as friends)

He makes $25,000/year
I make $55,000/year

Now you have a Wife and a Husband who live together in their home with no children.

He makes $25,000/year
She makes $55,000/year


How is it fair that they get taxed at a lower rate on their combined income of $80,000 than either "Friend" or I would get taxed as individuals making a combined $80,000? How is that inequitable treatment by the government, under the tax code, Fair when we make the combined same amount but because they are married they have a lower tax burden?

Also, how is it an "added" burden if they are required to pay the same tax rates on their incomes as unmmaried individuals...i believe the added burden gets placed on the single people under our current setup.
I want my equal rights to a lower tax rate that is equal to theirs .

Common law marriage?

Umm why can't same sexes living together become common law marriage after a period of time? Not all opposite sex people living together have sex.