Is Marriage the Government's Business?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Word to the flat tax with NO deductions.

As you say, the govt has done so much social engineering based on the marriage contract that they think they own the institution. Eliminate all tax breaks, all regulations, and all deductions based on the number of children or for the raising or educating of said children. Then, they can keep records of who or how many enter into a contract to live together or a church joining based on the churches rules.

Most flat-tax proposals have a personal exemption (e.g., $20,000 per) that doesn't make any difference because it is per person (no barn animals). Say the tax rate is 15% and you have two people that each make $80,000. As single people their tax bills are $9,000 each (i.e., ($80K-$20K) x 15%). As a married couple, their combined bill is $18,000 (i.e., ($160K - 2x$20K) x 15%) which is the same dollar amount. Its only when you get into the bullshit increasing marginal rates that adding two incomes together becomes an issue and then you need a lower marginal rate (given to married and heads of households -- the latter of which makes no sense) to lower the total tax bill to a reasonable figure. Under current tax law, there is a actually a penalty to marriage when you have two income earners.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Under current tax law, there is a actually a penalty to marriage when you have two income earners.

I don't have time at the moment to confirm and provide examples, but I believe under some circumstances there's a marriage penalty and under others there's a marriage benefit. It depends on the salaries relative to each other. At least, it used to and I think still does. Certainly in the extreme case -- one partner has no taxable income at all -- there's a marriage benefit, and I think that still happens with some income for both parties as long as there's a significant enough difference.

Of course, rules concerning community income in some states make that moot in many cases.

[Laurentius]

Government shouldn't have a say, but the people have chosen to give government a say.

When we turn to government for practically all cases of marital dissolution, to feed our kids and to provide them with healthcare and education -- by virtue of giving government jurisdiction over the RESULTS of what goes on behind our closed doors, we give government a say in what actually goes on there.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You cannot have big daddy government take care of every minuscule detail of divorce and then claim that same government should have no say in the content of the marriage.

So while government absolutely should not have that power; people have given government that power.

You know, government only has power to issue or withhold a marriage LICENSE.

It has absolutely ZERO power over you and your beloved standing in the back yard with a religious official of your chosing and exchanging vows. It has absolutely ZERO power to determine the terms of that agreement.

And if the parties decide to end that agreement, if they end it mutually equitably or according to the terms of their religion and don't bring in government as a form of coercion, government has ZERO power over divorce as well.

But when people decide they will act poorly, and not be brought to heel by anything less than an armed agent of the state; then dissolutions end up in state hands. And when the dissolution ends up there -- so does the license.

Our founding fathers understood that freedom could only exist in a people that would act in a moral fashion in the absence of government power.

When people run off and leave their kids without providing for their support, the power of the state needs to be invoked. When people run off marrying one person fraudulently while still married to another, the power of the state needs to be invoked.

So much of the inordinate power that we see exercised by the state in these matters is our own damned fault. It is a result of people turning to the state to enforce justice.

This has happened so much that now, even in routine marriages, people feel compelled to have the state "recognize" their marriage with a license -- even though no license is needed. It has happened so much that even in undisputed divorce cases where both parties agree to all terms; that agreement is brought to a judge for his stamp of approval.

Government shouldn't have the power to determine what goes on behind closed doors. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't expect government to deal with the results while having no say as to the ingredients.

[John Bull]

Well said Laurentius. Well said, indeed!

[TexTushHog]

The way that I read the editorial they are taking the radical position that the law should not recognize the institution of marriage for any purpose. I base this reading on two passages. First, "People should be free to call their relationship what they will . . . ." and "Government ideally would simply recognize contracts between persons and not license marriage."

That implies to me that marriage, including any benefits that go along with it, are now not a matter of statutory law, but a matter of contract. Suppose you belong to a denomination that has marriage. You get married. But you don't make a formal contract. On your honeymoon, one spouse is killed. The other spouse could not make funeral arrangements. Would not stand to inherit.

If a child is born of a marriage, the husband is not presumed to be the parent of the child. Social Security benefits would not automatically go to surviving spouses., etc.

This same wording would also allow a 80 year old man to marry a two year old boy. After all, it's only a matter of contract. Or a thirty year old guy to marry a 11 year old girl.

This would require an wholesale rewriting of any number of our laws, both State and Federal.

I think a more reasonable position would be to say that 1) any two person union by persons of a suitable age will be recognized by all government entities; and 2) plural marriages by two or more persons of suitable ages will be recognized by all government entities. That is more specific and avoids many undesirable consequences.

[pyramider]

Why shouldn't there be gay marriage? If they want to be as unhappy as the rest of us, so be it.

[NJBoy]

I am going to respectfully disagree with many opinions here.

First, it does effect marriage as a whole. If marriage is not between a man and a woman, if two men can marry, then why not three, four, or ten? At that point, marriage will loose all meaning. I bet you will start seeing polygamy cases being brought up even before all the states adopt gay marriage.

Second it hurts organizations that do good work but do not support homosexuality, namely catholic adoption agencies. No matter how you feel about the Catholic church, they have placed more children in more homes then any other agency in the world. Look for lawsuits from same sex couples that will be shutting down these organizations.

I do not understand what marriage offers a gay couple that civil union does not offer.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by NJBoy

I do not understand what marriage offers a gay couple that civil union does not offer.

Let's rephrase that statement a couple of different ways and see if the same logic applies to other situations:

"I do not understand what the seats at the front of the bus offer a black person that seats at the back of the bus do not."

"I do not understand what houses in restricted parts of the city offer Jews that houses in non-restricted parts do not."

"I do not understand what having a career offers to women that being a homemaker would not."

The answer to all these questions is "respect, equality, and basic human decency".

As a human being, and as the EXTREMELY proud father of a gay woman, I'm forever pained that some people just can't see that.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by windowshopper

i have a problem with the school system and the state enforcing gay rules and regulations on my kids. what 2 adults do in the private time is there business but dont dare tell my kids they need to read book about 2 daddys and baby or 2 mommies and a baby. .....

Run for School Board or support a candidate that shares your views

We have about 50 days before we (some of us) go vote. Some of the Senate Primaries are getting the national headlines, but I'll contend that most of the important governing and decision making is still done at the local level & an ordinary citizen, even one without a lot of money, with some effort, can have a substantial impact.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by NJBoy

I do not understand what marriage offers a gay couple that civil union does not offer.

Why not go the other way and outlaw opposite sex marriage? "I don't see what civil unions offer heterosexual couples that marriage does not offer."

[woodyboyd]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

plural marriages by two or more persons of suitable ages will be recognized by all government entities. That is more specific and avoids many undesirable consequences.

You opened up a big can of worms with that one TTH. To me, that is the perfect counterbalance to the gay marriage issue.

This is really an economic not moral argument. Gays want the same tax rates and health benefits that married straights have. Instead of the stupid I love my dog and want to marry it argument, you raise a point that would have the liberals running for cover, how about we allow polygamy?

If polygamy were allowed, the U.S. would probably have a Mormon majority in all of fifty years, and the Democrats would be forever in the minority.

That is a much better though far less political correct argument.

For what it's worth, I think married people shouldn't get tax or health benefits but those who raise children should. From a demographic point of view, I want as many young people as possible to support me as I get older.

The call to enforce the borders has fallen on deaf ears because in reality the government knows that if not for those 11 to 13 million illegal immigrants, the U.S. economy would be in real trouble.

Fortunately, the U.S. is in better shape than Europe. With the paltry rate Italians are having children, the Italian race that is based in Italy is likely to cease to exist if the current birth rate continues.

So IMO if gays want to marry and then adopt children from abroad and raise them, they should get the health and tax benefits that married couples raising children should.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by windowshopper

Folks are suing God....

Rule # 1 of Tort litigation....ALWAYS sue the "deep pocket"!!!

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I believe that the 10th amendment applies, if the majority of people in CA don't want it, who the hell is the judge to reverse the will of the people. The fed should have nothing at all to do with it, it's a states rights issue. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I find it amusing that a lot of the gay couples who ran off and got hitched soon after found themselves in divorce court.

I'm sorry but to argue that the FEDERAL constitution requires a question of individual (or couples) liberties to be left up to the states is fallacious at best...ludicrous at worst.

The "full faith & credit clause" (Article 4, Section 1) of the FEDERAL constitution addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. It has already been found to preclude individual states from passing laws against interracial marriage or refusing to acknowledge interracial marriages recognized in other states. To date, there has been no SC case to test whether it applies to gay marriages. In 2007, a federal appeals court did rule that FF&C required OK to recognize same-sex adoptions finalized in other states.

Individual rights are afforded American citizens by the FEDERAL constitution & the original amendments thereto. Additional amendments to the FEDERAL Constitution after the Civil War have precluded individual states from attempting to circumvent those protections.

Believe whatever you wish but so long as marriage affords rights, benefits & protections to some American couples that other American couples can't partake of then the FF&C clause - along with the due process amendments - SHOULD trump the tenth amendment. Clearly, not the case in the RW. But, if we're speaking hypothetically then why not speak correctly???

What kind of fucked up country insists that folks surrender liberties if they wish to move from one part of the country to another?

Oh yeah...that's right...this one!!

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by woodyboyd

This is really an economic not moral argument.

IMO, it's neither - it's an equal protection argument. See previous post.

If the government decides that there is an inherent societal value (economic, moral, whatever) to having committed couples w/in the society...to the point that citizens who declare themselves so-joined get to do things the rest of us can't do...then so be it. There are plenty of other legal arguments for excluding "marriages" with minors, animals, etc. from said protection.

[atlcomedy]

I think we all agree a lot of this is about economics not morality or religion if you strip away the word "marriage" & replace it with something like "domestic partner benefits"

Let me pose a little twist on this. Say I worked for a Fortune 500 Company that has the "gold plated" health insurance policy. I got a drinking buddy (totally platonic) that just got diagnosed with a terminal cancer that will cost $250-500k per year. I don't have another spouse or partner on my health care plan. Should I be able to add my buddy to my health plan? Of course if that was my wife or kid they'd totally be covered. Do I have to fuck my buddy in the ass a couple of times to consumate my union (for the health benefits).

I think if there is any group that gets screwed in the whole deal it is single people.

[Guest110911]

ppl just dont want to see a lower divorce rate for same sex couples