The Marriage Rights Thread

[DigitalChaos]

Boom

Uganda

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...Name=worldNews

They aren't touching marriage, but this is progress.

[Sarah K]

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/breaki...e-states-by-de

In a surprise move, the nine justices of the Supreme Court have declined to hear any of the cases pending before them challenging state bans on marriage for same-sex couples. This allows the circuit court decisions striking down the bans to stand, meaning same-sex couples in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana will soon be able to legally marry. In addition, it leaves in place the circuit court rulings from the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits, meaning couples in West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming will soon be able to marry as well

[Swykk]

Hooray for Indiana! Something good finally happened here despite our Teatarded governor's efforts.

[Sarah K]

My most favorite part about this is that it is almost ALL red states. Glorious.

As I understand it, every state that doesn't have equality has Supreme Court cases pending at the time. So, if the circuit courts continue to rule the bans unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court continues to refuse cases, it shouldn't be long before ALL states are included, right? |

It's possible that I'm missing something, though.

[nvr_mind]

I'm from Virginia and my facebook feed was full of dumb asses being so angry about this quoting the bible and shit. Fuck I can't stand people like that. Honestly, why do they care so much. I mean, no one calls them out for picking and choosing their rules and practicing a bastardized version of Christianity and only follow the rules that are convenient for them.

[Sarah K]

I mean, no one calls them out for picking and choosing their rules and practicing a bastardized version of Christianity and only follow the rules that are convenient for them.

I do. Like, all the time.

[kel]

idaho and nevada bans struck the fuck down! YES!

#idahome

[green]

So those of you who believe gay marriage should be legal, do you also believe same sex couples deserve the tax incentives received through normal marriage? Or, is it that you just want that word 'marriage' included in their/your union? I use normal in the traditional sense, not as a derogatory meme.

[Sarah K]

So those of you who believe gay marriage should be legal, do you also believe same sex couples deserve the tax incentives received through normal marriage? Or, is it that you just want that word 'marriage' included in their/your union? I use normal in the traditional sense, not as a derogatory meme.

Yes... They should get all of the same benefits.

[green]

Yes... They should get all of the same benefits.

Did you know the main reason our (US) government incentivizes marriage, is to add economic value through reproduction?

[Sarah K]

That's grasping at straws. In that case, it would be necessary to question every couple before they got married if they had a desire for children. It would also mean that people who aren't able to reproduce due to illness, age, or just unfortunate luck, shouldn't not be able to be married, either.

Perhaps it started out that way once upon a time. But the purpose of marriage is most definitely not breeding.

[allegro]

So those of you who believe gay marriage should be legal, do you also believe same sex couples deserve the tax incentives received through normal marriage? Or, is it that you just want that word 'marriage' included in their/your union? I use normal in the traditional sense, not as a derogatory meme.

They already receive inheritance tax incentives via the Windsor Opinion. I believe the financial benefits to be the primary reason, personally. I don't much care about all the romantic shit. The state isn't in the business of caring about romance. To the state, marriage is a legally-binding contract with the state having jurisdiction over that contract. The only way the state cares about children is when the contract is broken and the assets are divided and the state steps in regarding the care and control of the children.

The IRS provides additional writeoffs for "dependents" but that is separate from the marriage contract. A single person can file with a dependent.

Here is the IRS's definition of a "Qualifying Child:"

Uniform Definition
A “qualifying child” may enable a taxpayer to claim several tax benefits, such as head of household filing status, the exemption for a dependent, the child tax credit, the child and dependent care credit and the earned income tax credit. Prior to 2005, each of these items defined a qualifying child differently, leaving many taxpayers confused.
The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 set a uniform definition of a qualifying child, beginning for Tax Year 2005. This standard definition applies to all five of the tax benefits noted above, with each benefit having some additional rules.
In general, to be a taxpayer’s qualifying child, a person must satisfy four tests:
Relationship — the taxpayer’s child or stepchild (whether by blood or adoption), foster child, sibling or stepsibling, or a descendant of one of these.

[green]

That's grasping at straws.

No, it's literally what marriage is for. Love has nothing to do with it, otherwise the gov. would hand out benefits to everyone who decides to live together.

In that case, it would be necessary to question every couple before they got married if they had a desire for children.

Reproduction is the norm; it's a given.

It would also mean that people who aren't able to reproduce due to illness, age, or just unfortunate luck, shouldn't not be able to be married, either.

If you enter into marriage knowing you can't reproduce, then you shouldn't receive a tax credit. Same with homosexuals. Personally, I think a same sex couple who adopts a child should receive benefits, since they are contributing to the economic growth. But I'm not in charge, and common sense seems mythical in this day and age.

Perhaps it started out that way once upon a time. But the purpose of marriage is most definitely not breeding.

You're absolutely wrong.

[Sarah K]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag...ted_States#Law

So your belief is that women who are past menopause should no longer be able to marry?

Also, MORE people should be making the choice to not reproduce. Check out the nightmare that is our foster care system. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. The ability to self evaluate and recognize this should be praised, not put down.

[allegro]

You're absolutely wrong.

No, she's absolutely not wrong. I was a Domestic Relations litigation paralegal for 13 years, and I guarantee you that the Court system does not give one flying fuck about anything except the contract of marriage. The State makes you get a license, first, to make sure that both parties reside within the state (giving the state jurisdiction over the contract), and then the marriage is a formal contract to be nullified only by the state. 80-yr-olds get married with a legal marriage license. All the time. Marriage has always been nothing more than a financial contract. Period. Originally, for most of history, it was a way to insure that females were financially provided for by males, because females couldn't enter into contracts, even AFTER they were married, and females were unable to earn their own living. This is why females take their HUSBAND's name; they were nothing more than chattel property. It denotes ownership.

Haven't you ever read any Jane Austen for Christ sake?

p.s. -- There is no big tax credit for marriage. You're not really up on this IRS stuff, are you? (I've known high-earning couples who got DIVORCED to save money on income taxes.)

The biggest IRS benefit to being married is Estate Taxes, which you can also avoid with a good trust fund, or moving to a state that doesn't have inheritance taxes.

[green]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag...ted_States#Law

So your belief is that women who are past menopause should no longer be able to marry?

They shouldn't get benefits, they can marry as many times and whatever sex they want. My exact words: If you enter into marriage knowing you can't reproduce, then you shouldn't receive a tax credit.

Also, MORE people should be making the choice to not reproduce. Check out the nightmare that is our foster care system. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. The ability to self evaluate and recognize this should be praised, not put down.

Even more reason and incentive to provides subsidies to those who adopt.

No, she's absolutely not wrong. I was a Domestic Relations litigation paralegal for 13 years, and I guarantee you that the Court system does not give one flying fuck about anything except the contract of marriage. The State makes you get a license, first, to make sure that both parties reside within the state (giving the state jurisdiction over the contract), and then the marriage is a formal contract. Nothing more. 80-yr-olds get married with a legal marriage license. All the time. Marriage has always been nothing more than a financial contract. Period. Originally, for most of history, it was a way to insure that females were financially provided for by males, because females couldn't enter into contracts, even AFTER they were married. This is why females take their HUSBAND's name; they were nothing more than chattel property. It denotes ownership.

And this applies to homosexuals, how? Do you think people who decide to live together 'forever' deserve government subsidies, more importantly do you understand where those credits come from?

[Sarah K]

What is your reason for wanting to deny folks tax credits? I don't really understand that bit. I mean, I know(hope) you're just playing devil's advocate. But the people who fight against equal rights are usually the same "Smaller government", "Stay away from my rights", "More tax breaks" crowd.

[green]

What is your reason for wanting to deny folks tax credits? I don't really understand that bit. I mean, I know(hope) you're just playing devil's advocate. But the people who fight against equal rights are usually the same "Smaller government", "Stay away from my rights", "More tax breaks" crowd.

I don't believe in handing over my money to the gov. so they can hand it out to people living together for no other reason, than love.

[allegro]

And this applies to homosexuals, how? Do you think people who decide to live together 'forever' deserve government subsidies, more importantly do you understand where those credits come from?

It applies to anybody. The state doesn't give a rat's ass if you're straight or gay. The only reason organizations are fighting this is about MONEY. Don't let the religious shit fool you; nobody wants to fork over the additional insurance, pension benefits, etc. Some gay dude getting married doesn't affect the state's marriage contract any more than 1/2 the het marriages ending in divorces and broken families costing the state and overtaxing the court systems and costing taxpayers millions of dollars in the family court system with Guardian ad Litems and custody battles and shrinks and mandatory parenting certificates through the county and the state having the track down deadbeat dads who won't pay child support and taxpayers supplementing the deadbeat dads, and repeated court dates post-decree bloating the system, etc. It ain't like the straight couples with kids are flying the flag of righteous Jesus childrearing. Basically, they mostly suck at it and I've been there to bear witness to their disgusting child-rearing behavior. If the straights can't even begin to get it right, then who fucking cares if gays want a shot at it, too. It ain't affecting you or anybody else, they may actually end up being better at it. Bottom line, I don't fucking care. Ain't my problem. It's nice that they get rights, but I don't get why people are so fucking upset about this. There are far bigger issues out there.

People who live together doesn't belong in this thread: that's drift. We stick to the topic on this board, them's the rules, since 2002.

[allegro]

What is your reason for wanting to deny folks tax credits? I don't really understand that bit. I mean, I know(hope) you're just playing devil's advocate. But the people who fight against equal rights are usually the same "Smaller government", "Stay away from my rights", "More tax breaks" crowd.

Drift drift drift. Let's stay on the topic of the thread. When in doubt, read the topic header.

[green]

It ain't like the straight couples with kids are flying the flag of righteous Jesus childrearing. Basically, they mostly suck at it and I've been there to bear witness to their disgusting child-rearing behavior. If the straights can't even begin to get it right, then who fucking cares if gays want a shot at it, too. It ain't affecting you or anybody else, they may actually end up being better at it. Bottom line, I don't fucking care. Ain't my problem. People who live together forever don't get shit, btw. Don't want to argue that in this thread, that's drift. We stick to the topic on this board, them's the rules, since 2002.

Not sure why you keep bringing religion into this or feel you need to bash straight couples, but okay. As to your comment: It ain't affecting you or anybody else, well you're wrong. Where do you think those subsidies come from?

People who live together forever don't get shit, btw

They do if they're married, slick. Which the whole point of my gay marriage op. This isn't personal, stop trying to make it so. lol

edit:

Drift drift drift. Let's stay on the topic of the thread. When in doubt, read the topic header.

I did read the topic headed, have you read the very first post?

[allegro]

Not sure why you keep bringing religion into this or feel you need to bash straight couples, but okay. As to your comment: It ain't affecting you or anybody else, well you're wrong. Where do you think those subsidies come from?

First, I'M FEMALE AND I'M MARRIED. TO A DUDE. So I'm not bashing straight couples. Second, I already stated that I was a divorce paralegal so I've seen the scummy side of this that I'm guessing you haven't. Also, again, I can most assuredly tell you that married couples do not receive "subsidies." I already provided you with one link and an example, I can provide dozens more.

I'm not making it personal, slick.

[allegro]

I did read the topic headed, have you read the very first post?

I didn't quote you, I quoted Sarah.

Tax credits having to do with gay marriage is okay. But, there is no such thing. Go show me where there is a gay marriage tax credit. Go ahead. I'll wait here.

Also, THE FIRST POST WAS FROM FUCKING 2012. LOTS HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN. AND HE WAS QUOTING A FUCKING KOCH BROTHER.

I suggest you re-read this post including the link.

[Sarah K]

I find this a really bizarre stance. I'll just say that there are TONS of things that I don't enjoy my tax dollars going towards. But working together is a part of being a civilized society.

Also, I'm really unsure about this "subsidy" you're talking about. Can you link me to something? Do people get a check cut to them when they're married now? If so, I might consider it!

[green]

I didn't quote you, I quoted Sarah.

Tax credits having to do with gay marriage is okay. But, there is no such thing. Go show me where there is a gay marriage tax credit. Go ahead. I'll wait here.

Gay marriage is the same as normal marriage now, so it's the same tax credit. Do you need a link for that?

Also, THE FIRST POST WAS FROM FUCKING 2012. LOTS HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN. AND HE WAS QUOTING A FUCKING KOCH BROTHER.

Then what does topic header have to do with anything?

LOTS HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN

Oh I see now, so when the subject matter is something you agree with, it's okay to have that discussion. But if you're even accidentally uncomfortable, it's drift drift drift. Got it.

[green]

I find this a really bizarre stance. I'll just say that there are TONS of things that I don't enjoy my tax dollars going towards. But working together is a part of being a civilized society.

Also, I'm really unsure about this "subsidy" you're talking about. Can you link me to something? Do people get a check cut to them when they're married now? If so, I might consider it!

Taxes. They don't appear from thin air.

[allegro]

Also, I'm really unsure about this "subsidy" you're talking about. Can you link me to something? Do people get a check cut to them when they're married now? If so, I might consider it!

Subsidy is a new hip word for "penalty"

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...-Penalties.cfm

Marriage Penalty

A “marriage penalty” occurs in the tax system when a wife and husband pay more income tax filing jointly as a couple than they would if they had remained single and filed as individuals. Conversely, a “marriage bonus” occurs if a couple pays less tax filing jointly than they would if they were not married and filed singly. Couples with marriage bonuses far outnumber those incurring marriage penalties but precise estimates are not available.
Source: For Better or for Worse: Marriage and the Federal Income

Marriage penalties and bonuses result from the combination of progressive tax rates and taxation of a married couple as a single tax unit. With progressive taxes (which impose higher rates on higher incomes), combining spouses’ incomes can result in some income incurring higher rates than if incomes were taxed separately, but only if joint tax brackets are less than twice as wide as individual brackets.

Couples in which spouses have similar incomes are most likely to incur marriage penalties. Couples in which one spouse earns all of the couple’s income never incur a marriage penalty and almost always receive a marriage bonus.
Marriage penalties are not confined to the tax system. Married couples often receive lower benefits from government programs than they would if they had not married.
Source: The Widespread Prevalence of Marriage Penalties

Tax legislation since 2001 has substantially reduced marriage penalties and increased marriage bonuses by raising the standard deduction for couples to twice that for single filers and by setting the income range of 10 and 15 percent tax brackets for couples to twice that for individuals. Legislation also raised the starting point for the EITC phaseout range by $3,000 for married couples.
Source: Major Enacted Tax Legislation Since 2000

Marriage penalty relief is costly. The TPC estimates that extending the marriage penalty reductions from their scheduled sunset in 2010 through 2017 would cost more than $130 billion. Much of the cost results from raising marriage bonuses.
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbe...cfm?DocID=1429

Much of the benefit of marriage penalty relief goes to the wealthiest taxpayers. According to TPC estimates, the average taxpayer in the top income quintile will receive $1, 064 in 2010 due to marriage penalty tax cuts, compared to just an $83 benefit for middle quintile taxpayers. Proportional to income, marriage penalty relief affects taxpayers similarly; the marriage penalty cuts taxes by about 1 percent across all income quintiles.
Source: Table T07-0028 - Extend Marriage Penalty Relief, Pre-EGTRRA Baseline with AMT Fix

Despite the recent reductions, many aspects of the tax code perpetuate penalties. For example, joint filer brackets for tax rates above 15 percent are not twice as wide as single brackets; income limits on some tax subsidies are less than twice as high for couples as for single filers; and alternative minimum tax (AMT) parameters for couples are the same as or less than twice those for unmarried individuals.
Taxpayers who might qualify for the earned income tax credit (EITC) can suffer particularly large marriage penalties if the income of one spouse disqualifies the other from getting the credit. At the same time, marriage can increase the EITC if a nonworking parent marries a low-earning worker.

Source: The Hefty Penalty on Marriage Facing Many Households with Children

[green]

There's nothing hip about it. It's the monies taken in taxes, and then used for entitlements.

[Sarah K]

@green , if you scroll back up, she quoted me when she was talking about getting off topic.

I don't think that the topic is making anyone uncomfortable. This board, by and large, is very much in support of equality.

Is is your opinion basically that everyone should simply be granted domestic partnerships more or less, with no benefits? And only those who are able AND want to reproduce should be granted any financial breaks?

[allegro]

Then what does topic header have to do with anything?

No, you were talking about "living together" which is cohabiting which in legal terms means "not married." Which is a different topic.

Look, for the record, my partner and I cohabited for SIXTEEN fucking years and got married only a few years ago so I could get his health insurance. But, that's our bullshit system. And you ain't gonna fix it anytime soon.

And if gay people wanna suddenly go buy into that system (and get health insurance), hey, whatever. Insurance sucks, I can't believe we NEED the shit, and we gotta get married to get cheaper insurance? I bet we don't need that shit if we don't live IN THE FUCKING UNITED STATES. But moving ain't an option right now so whatever. I'M WAY THE FUCK BEYOND CHILDBEARING YEARS, WE DON'T WANT ANY FUCKING KIDS, BUT WE GOT MARRIED SO I DON'T GET RAPED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES. Okay, and we're life partners who also plan to get old together but we probably wouldn't have needed the whole "state license of approval" bullshit.

And we CERTAINLY didn't get any fucking tax breaks (we are in the "tax penalty" category, go look up "AMT"). If anything, you tax payers are BENEFITING from us getting married, and we're taking it up the ass.