If You Oppose SSM, How Will You Feel When It's Allowed?

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by SanVito

No, they seem worse. And I say that as an atheist. At least religious folks think they are following God's wishes and savings us all from hell. You're just a tight wad. Ugh.

Listen, you object the tax benefits for married couples, we get it ( if that was my objection, I wouldn't give benefits to families either, but then I'm like the Child Catcher). So why don't you make a stand on that as a separate issue, rather than using it to enforce an inequality for gay couples?

You obviously don't understand my position. I don't object to subsidies for people raising children. The United States dropped below ZPG 40 years ago.

I object to providing a tax subsidy to people who aren't raising children. All I have done is state my position and defend if from people who disagree. If you don't want to discuss this, then all you have to do is shut up.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by D-bear

There are many benefits that are automatic when people become married that would have to be individually filed for, and the associated costs for them are astronomical. Some counts are as high as 1,138.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/a...arried-couples

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.GAO.pdf

I'm sorry, but you are actually making my point for me. There are a lot of tax breaks and subsidies that accrue to married couples that single people can't get. That is a good deal for the married people, but you seem to have skipped the part where single people end up picking up the slack.

If you are talking about marriage benefits that don't involve the government, then it could get expensive if you had a lawyer draw up the contract individually, but I suspect standard boiler plate contracts already exist. Frankly flexibility in how a marriage contract is drafted seems like a feature instead of a bug.

[Clothahump]

Well, the major damage to marriage has already been done when no-fault divorce became the norm. SSM will just be a kick in the belly to something already on the ground.

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

There are a lot of tax breaks and subsidies that accrue to married couples that single people can't get.

I've never felt the need to quote myself before now... perhaps because my last post got stuck at the bottom of page 1, you didn't see it? Read on, my man:

Originally Posted by Rachellelogram

There are good reasons for the government to support marriage.

• Married men tend to get paid more than single men.
• Couples are more likely to invest in real estate: as of November 2011, the National Association of Realtors reported that 64 percent of all home buyers were married couples and 18 percent were single women. Only 10 percent were single men.
• Also, married people tend to get into fewer shenanigans than single ones: only 1/5 of inmates are married, and more than half have never married. Marriage lowers the desire to engage in risky behavior. It also reduces one's free time, so that costly accidents occur less frequently (car accidents from drag racing, drinking binges, property damage, tying tin cans to stray dogs' tails, etc).
• Marriage lowers the risk of STDs from random hookups.
• Also, married couples remaining voluntarily childless is a fairly recent development. Historically, the vast majority of married couples were planning to have kids within a couple years of the honeymoon, if not sooner.

For these reasons, and probably others I'm not considering, the government has chosen to financially support marriage--regardless of whether a couple has children. Given all these factors, it makes sense for government to financially support marriage. You don't have to get married, by any means. And hey, perhaps you're a rich, conscientious, single homeowner who doesn't engage in risky behavior like random hookups or drunken debauchery on a regular basis. Good for you. But statistics aren't meaningful on an individual level, so you shouldn't feel so personally wronged by this policy. There are some very good reasons for the government to financially support marriage, in the aggregate. Can't you see that?

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Rachellelogram

There are good reasons for the government to support marriage.

• Married men tend to get paid more than single men.
• Couples are more likely to invest in real estate: as of November 2011, the National Association of Realtors reported that 64 percent of all home buyers were married couples and 18 percent were single women. Only 10 percent were single men.
• Also, married people tend to get into fewer shenanigans than single ones: only 1/5 of inmates are married, and more than half have never married. Marriage lowers the desire to engage in risky behavior. It also reduces one's free time, so that costly accidents occur less frequently (car accidents from drag racing, drinking binges, property damage, tying tin cans to stray dogs' tails, etc).
• Marriage lowers the risk of STDs from random hookups.
• Also, married couples remaining voluntarily childless is a fairly recent development. Historically, the vast majority of married couples were planning to have kids within a couple years of the honeymoon, if not sooner.

You seem to have your causation reversed. The government subsidies for marriage actually predate most of the things you mentioned. The statistics you cite, actually seem to prove that women prefer to marry rich non-felons and don't actually demonstrate that childless single couples are desirable.

The differential tax rates for married couple were is the Tax code from the beginning, so most of the things that you say was an intentional act of government is just wrong. Back then, most married couples were single income families with children.

http://rdftaxpro.tripod.com/taxhelp/id10.html

DINKS are a relatively recent development and it wasn't the intention of the government to subsidize them.

[Hbns]

I support marriage between any two consenting adults.

But I want to scream and pull my hair out with all the inane and ridiculous justifications being put forth by both sides. Who the hell cares. How about treating the adults like adults and let them decide? Nobody should have to justify their marriage. Sheila and Frank shouldn't have to, and neither should Bob and John.

[sachertorte]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I'm opposed to SSM. I'm an atheist, so it can't violate God's law, but I don't understand why SSM should be tax deductible.

SSM is not tax deductible. In certain cases, a SSM family may pay less tax than if they were single, but NOT ALWAYS. In my case, I file singly for Federal and Married for Massachusetts State. In order to file my taxes, I must prepare a never-to-be-seen-by-the-IRS 1040 as a Married couple. This married 1040 is to fill out my State Taxes (or at least that is what TurboTax tells me). It's a pain in the ass having to do Federal taxes three times, but I do get to see the difference between "single"x2 and "Married." Right now we pay less tax because the IRS won't let us file as married. If and when the US government recognizes our marriage, our tax bill will go UP not down.

My speculation is that overall gays will pay about the same in taxes with SSM. Some will pay more and some will pay less, but overall, the change will be insignificant.

[Ethilrist]

A bunch of the people arguing against SSM don't seem to me to be really against it; what they're hot under the collar about is homosexuality in general, and they think that if they make being gay as unpleasant as possible, people will stop being gay and everything will be fine.

To them, legalization will be one more thing that enables and validates people who do things they are opposed to, whether it's gays in the military, boy scouts, grade schools or the Olympics: it's not that they're allowed to participate, it's that they're allowed to be gay.

What I really wonder is, what is their NEXT hot-button topic going to be? Gay parenting? Good luck with that...

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by sachertorte

SSM is not tax deductible. In certain cases, a SSM family may pay less tax than if they were single, but NOT ALWAYS. In my case, I file singly for Federal and Married for Massachusetts State. In order to file my taxes, I must prepare a never-to-be-seen-by-the-IRS 1040 as a Married couple. This married 1040 is to fill out my State Taxes (or at least that is what TurboTax tells me). It's a pain in the ass having to do Federal taxes three times, but I do get to see the difference between "single"x2 and "Married." Right now we pay less tax because the IRS won't let us file as married. If and when the US government recognizes our marriage, our tax bill will go UP not down.

My speculation is that overall gays will pay about the same in taxes with SSM. Some will pay more and some will pay less, but overall, the change will be insignificant.

The advantage will be when couples have have a big difference in income, especially when only one person works. I know people that have put off marriage for years because of that. Of course if they would eliminate the Married category from the IRS code, like I suggested, then the problem goes away. Gays have to come out ahead. If the taxes are too adverse, then gays simply won't get married.

[sachertorte]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Gays have to come out ahead. If the taxes are too adverse, then gays simply won't get married.

You seem to think that tax rate is the main motivating factor. This assumption is wrong. There are plenty of reasons to get married beyond being able to claim your spouse on your tax return.

Like I said, our taxes will go up when the US recognizes our marriage. That didn't and wouldn't stop us from marrying.

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

You seem to have your causation reversed. The government subsidies for marriage actually predate most of the things you mentioned. The statistics you cite, actually seem to prove that women prefer to marry rich non-felons and don't actually demonstrate that childless single couples are desirable.

Wow, you're ridiculous.

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

You seem to have a peculiar idea about what is a civil right.

You mean marriage? Yeah, me and the Supreme Court. Seriously, are you playing? Are you genuinely this ignorant?

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Rachellelogram

Wow, you're ridiculous.

You know that isn't a rebuttal. That is an admission that you don't have one.

[Waenara]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Gays have to come out ahead. If the taxes are too adverse, then gays simply won't get married.

Do you really, truly believe that? I know several gay couples who have gotten married here in Canada, and generally it was for different reasons than tax benefits.

There are many possible benefits of marriage, besides income tax, including things like (off the top of my head):

• Having a family health insurance plan, rather than two individual plans
• Automatically inheriting upon the others' death, rather than having their SO's family swooping in and excluding the spouse
• Immigration law makes it much easier if you are a married couple
• Being able to make medical decisions for each other, rather than risk being overriden by their SO's "real family"
• Heck, even being guaranteed that they'll be able to see their spouse if they're sick in hospital, no questions asked
• Pensions and survivors benefits
• Being able to take paid or unpaid leave from work to care for a sick spouse (which wouldn't be allowed for a "roommate" or friend)

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by DianaG

You mean marriage? Yeah, me and the Supreme Court. Seriously, are you playing? Are you genuinely this ignorant?

Apparently you are underinformed. The Supreme Court never said that marriage is a civil right. They said that marriage can't be restricted by race, which isn't the same thing. If the law says that you can't restrict access to a restroom by race, it doesn't mean you are required to supply a restroom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

If marriage was actually a right then some states couldn't require blood tests to get married.

If you weren't paying attention,, the Supreme court hasn't ruled on DOMA yet.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Waenara

Do you really, truly believe that? I know several gay couples who have gotten married here in Canada, and generally it was for different reasons than tax benefits.

There are many possible benefits of marriage, besides income tax, including things like (off the top of my head):

• Having a family health insurance plan, rather than two individual plans
• Automatically inheriting upon the others' death, rather than having their SO's family swooping in and excluding the spouse
• Immigration law makes it much easier if you are a married couple
• Being able to make medical decisions for each other, rather than risk being overriden by their SO's "real family"
• Heck, even being guaranteed that they'll be able to see their spouse if they're sick in hospital, no questions asked
• Pensions and survivors benefits
• Being able to take paid or unpaid leave from work to care for a sick spouse (which wouldn't be allowed for a "roommate" or friend)

I don't know about Canadian law, but I already pointed out that some of the things on your list can be handled contractually in the United States.

I don't understand the medical comments. I thought Canada already had Universal health care. A lot of other things you listed are actually equivalent to taxes if you are talking about equivalent to subsidies if you are talking about social security survivor benefits.

I'm not too thrilled about marrying people for a green card in any case, but my main concern there is an immigration policy based on nepotism.

The last place I worked didn't actually distinguish between sick leave and vacation. It was all paid time off. I liked that since there were too many people that abused sick leave.

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Apparently you are underinformed. The Supreme Court never said that marriage is a civil right. They said that marriage can't be restricted by race, which isn't the same thing. If the law says that you can't restrict access to a restroom by race, it doesn't mean you are required to supply a restroom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

If marriage was actually a right then some states couldn't require blood tests to get married.

If you weren't paying attention,, the Supreme court hasn't ruled on DOMA yet.

Wikipedia. Adorable. You might try reading the actual text of the decision.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...88/1/case.html

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by DianaG

Wikipedia. Adorable. You might try reading the actual text of the decision.


http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...88/1/case.html

Did you notice that you are quoting something that Justice Warren didn't actually say, but a quote from another court. If your interpretation is actually correct, then:

• Requiring people to buy a marriage license is unconstitutional.
• Saying first cousins can't marry is unconstitutional.
• Saying people with syphilis can't marry is unconstitutional.

Maybe I should invite Bricker to come over and make a ruling? I personally suspect that this is an Obiter dictum or Justice warren would have actually put that language in the decision instead of a quote.

[Waenara]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I don't know about Canadian law, but I already pointed out that some of the things on your list can be handled contractually in the United States.

What about the states who have passed laws or amended their state constitutions to prevent gay people from privately making their own legal contracts that even approximate marriage? And even if those anti-gay amendments did not exist, not all of the rights conferred by marriage could be made with a private contract.

I don't understand the medical comments. I thought Canada already had Universal health care.

Canada has "universal health care" that does not actually cover everything. Visits to doctors are covered, and most treatments done by doctors in their clinic are covered (if medically necessary, not cosmetic). Hospital stays and treatments and drugs taken in hospital are covered. Diagnostic tests are covered if prescribed by a doctor (e.g. bloodwork, x-ray, MRI). But any prescription drugs taken outside hospital (i.e. your average prescription) are not covered. Also, dental care is usually not covered (unless it's extremely health- or life-threatening, which is very rare). Other supplemental benefits are also not covered (e.g. purchase of medical devices for home use, physiotherapy, massage). So most people either have a supplemental health insurance plan through their employer, or they purchase their own individual plan.

A lot of other things you listed are actually equivalent to taxes if you are talking about equivalent to subsidies if you are talking about social security survivor benefits.

Well you were specifically talking about how gay people wouldn't bother getting married if they weren't able to file jointly on their income tax. I was just pointing out that even if they couldn't file jointly, there are other financial benefits that are an incentive to marry.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Either you are a married person who takes money out of my pocket to subsidize your lifestyle or you are the fool.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x_2008.svg.png

Look at this chart. That isn't petty. That is billions of dollars every year that single people have to subsidize for childless married couples. Explain to me why you think childless people should be subsidized by other childless people?

You do realize this charts lines are damn near paralell, and the gap represents the difference between 1 and 2 standard deductions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deduction

and dont forget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
If you look there the standard deduction for a married couple is exactly double the standard deduction for a single person. 2 people get two standard deductions, whats so unfair about that?

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Did you notice that you are quoting something that Justice Warren didn't actually say, but a quote from another court. If your interpretation is actually correct, then:

• Requiring people to buy a marriage license is unconstitutional.
• Saying first cousins can't marry is unconstitutional.
• Saying people with syphilis can't marry is unconstitutional.

A quote of a ruling that he felt it worthwhile to include as justification. And if your interpretation is correct, then requiring people to acquire gun permits is unconstitutional.

And with that I'm out, because this really is a hijack, and because you're simply not rational on the subject.

[Acsenray]

Fundamental civil rights are often not absolute and may be subject to some restrictions. Free speech, for example, which triggers the highest level of protection, manifested in the strict scrutiny standard, can still be subject to some restrictions. Marriage being a fundamental civil right would not necessarily require that all restrictions be eliminated.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Waenara

What about the states who have passed laws or amended their state constitutions to prevent gay people from privately making their own legal contracts that even approximate marriage? And even if those anti-gay amendments did not exist, not all of the rights conferred by marriage could be made with a private contract.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you actually have a reference to an American law that has actually withstood up to a court challenge?

Well you were specifically talking about how gay people wouldn't bother getting married if they weren't able to file jointly on their income tax. I was just pointing out that even if they couldn't file jointly, there are other financial benefits that are an incentive to marry.

I actually talking about childless couples getting subsidies and tax breaks that aren't available to single people, so single people end up picking up the tab. I stated that I'm okay with breaks for people actually raising children.

Talking about Canada is difficult. I don't even know if they know what their tax laws say about childless married couples.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by DianaG

A quote of a ruling that he felt it worthwhile to include as justification. And if your interpretation is correct, then requiring people to acquire gun permits is unconstitutional.

And with that I'm out, because this really is a hijack, and because you're simply not rational on the subject.

But he didn't think it was enough important to explicitly mention in the decision of the court.

Your firearm analogy is flawed. Firearms exist as actual physical property.

Marriage only exists in the context of law. Otherwise you just have a bunch of people shacking up. Marriage only exists when the government starts telling you things you can't do and things you must do. Of course, I'm talking about secular marriage.

A better analogy would be voting and a poll tax.

All I did was state was why I would object to SSM. You are the people that hijacked the thread. I never posted a single thing, except as a response to someone else.

You seem to flip-flopped the meaning of the word rational. I haven't actually raised any emotional objectionions to SSM at all. The thing I don't see is why society should subsidize childless marriages.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

The thing I don't see is why society should subsidize childless marriages.

They don't

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by drachillix

You do realize this charts lines are damn near paralell, and the gap represents the difference between 1 and 2 standard deductions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deduction

and dont forget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
If you look there the standard deduction for a married couple is exactly double the standard deduction for a single person. 2 people get two standard deductions, whats so unfair about that?

So are you are stating that you are perfectly okay with eliminating the married deduction and just having single and head of household? If you are then there isn't anything to argue about.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

So are you are stating that you are perfectly okay with eliminating the married deduction and just having single and head of household? If you are then there isn't anything to argue about.

I'm just not seeing your point, a married couple gets the same deduction as 2 single people. A childless couple does not generally qualify for HoH/single.

If you would like a more detailed analysis I'm sure I could get my mom on here shes currently a supervisor for tax help lines at the IRS. I asked her about the accuracy of my post before posting it, she said your base premise that there is some kind of "bonus for a childless couple" is incorrect and that historically the opposite was true that married couples got taxed higher than 2 singles.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by drachillix

I'm just not seeing your point, a married couple gets the same deduction as 2 single people. A childless couple does not generally qualify for HoH/single.

If you would like a more detailed analysis I'm sure I could get my mom on here shes currently a supervisor for tax help lines at the IRS. I asked her about the accuracy of my post before posting it, she said your base premise that there is some kind of "bonus for a childless couple" is incorrect and that historically the opposite was true that married couples got taxed higher than 2 singles.

You basic fault is the assumption that both spouses have approximately equal incomes. If there is a big deferential in income or one doesn't work then there is a big tax savings, unless their income already puts them in the 35% bracket. Did you actually not notice that or were you trying to sandbag me?

Some people have claimed to be indifferent to the tax consequences of their actions, but I've know people who put off marrying for years for exactly that reason. As I've already said, if you figure out the tax consequences up front, you can't lose.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

You basic fault is the assumption that both spouses have approximately equal incomes. If there is a big deferential in income or one doesn't work then there is a big tax savings, unless their income already puts them in the 35% bracket. Did you actually not notice that or were you trying to sandbag me?

Some people have claimed to be indifferent to the tax consequences of their actions, but I've know people who put off marrying for years for exactly that reason. As I've already said, if you figure out the tax consequences up front, you can't lose.

Why, by your own reasoning they should have been married to reap the "Tax benefits" as early as possible.

2 single people and a married couple have the exact same standard deduction. No somantic dancing changes that.

I realize you may be referring to the fact that its more likely that a bracket will be dropped with a larger combined standard deductible, but that does not affect every married couples tax bracket. Only a small percentage of married couples will even trigger that. The ones most likely to are the ones with a combined household income of less than $45K, who are by no stretch of the imagination reaping huge tax benefits from it. As your income climbs its statistically far less likely that such an event takes place.

So would you be ok as long as only gay couples whos combined deduction does not cross a tax bracket are married?

[D-bear]

How did...

Originally Posted by faithfool

Say SSM is deemed legal in all 50 states, and you disagree with it, how will you feel then?

I'd add a poll, but am unable to do so from my phone. Questions among participants are fine, but please no direct snarking on individuals. There's other threads and the pit for that. I'm just genuinely interested in how these people will cope once this is a foregone conclusion. Thank you.

Turn into a debate about the Tax code and how unfair or fair it is?

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by D-bear

How did...



Turn into a debate about the Tax code and how unfair or fair it is?

JoelUpchurch claims his whole reason for opposing SSM is the difference in taxes paid by married couples vs. singles.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by drachillix

Why, by your own reasoning they should have been married to reap the "Tax benefits" as early as possible.

2 single people and a married couple have the exact same standard deduction. No somantic dancing changes that.

I realize you may be referring to the fact that its more likely that a bracket will be dropped with a larger combined standard deductible, but that does not affect every married couples tax bracket. Only a small percentage of married couples will even trigger that. The ones most likely to are the ones with a combined household income of less than $45K, who are by no stretch of the imagination reaping huge tax benefits from it. As your income climbs its statistically far less likely that such an event takes place.

So would you be ok as long as only gay couples whos combined deduction does not cross a tax bracket are married?

I just did the calculations for two people. One makes 20,000 a year and the other makes 100,000 a year. As singles their total tax burden is 20,108. As a married couple the total is 17,506 for a total savings of $2,602 per year. If they both made 60,000 a year then it is a wash with a total of 17,512.

I didn't double check my numbers. I did the calculation here:

http://www.taxbrain.com/taxcenter/ta...or/default.asp

As I said you can't lose as long as you do the math before you tie the knot.

[D-bear]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I just did the calculations for two people. One makes 20,000 a year and the other makes 100,000 a year. As singles their total tax burden is 20,108. As a married couple the total is 17,506 for a total savings of $2,602 per year. If they both made 60,000 a year then it is a wash with a total of 17,512.

I didn't double check my numbers. I did the calculation here:

http://www.taxbrain.com/taxcenter/ta...or/default.asp

As I said you can't lose as long as you do the math before you tie the knot.

So, say SSM is deemed legal in all 50 states, and you disagree with it, how will you feel then?

[Stink Fish Pot]

If the name were different (call it a union, or whatever) instead of marriage, I'm just fine with it.

If the same sex folks keep insisting on having the permanent relationship called a marriage, all 50 states will never happen. Or at least I'll be dead before it does.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I just did the calculations for two people. One makes 20,000 a year and the other makes 100,000 a year. As singles their total tax burden is 20,108. As a married couple the total is 17,506 for a total savings of $2,602 per year. If they both made 60,000 a year then it is a wash with a total of 17,512.

I didn't double check my numbers. I did the calculation here:

http://www.taxbrain.com/taxcenter/ta...or/default.asp

As I said you can't lose as long as you do the math before you tie the knot.

I do believe thats because the deductions and exemptions are shaving off taxable income at a higher marginal tax rate. Your $20K person would have been taxed at 15% individually not 25% (around $3K vs about $5K) making up the vast majority of the differential, at lower tax brackets, the difference is far less pronounced. Any dependent can create this effect, not just a wife.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by D-bear

So, say SSM is deemed legal in all 50 states, and you disagree with it, how will you feel then?

The same thing as I said in post 21:

I'm opposed to SSM. I'm an atheist, so it can't violate God's law, but I don't understand why SSM should be tax deductible. I don't understand why childless opposite sex couples should get a tax write off either, but I can't see why it is desirable to make the loophole bigger.

All I wanted to do was state my position and move on. It is the people that keep objecting to my position that keep dragging it out.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

The same thing as I said in post 21:



All I wanted to do was state my position and move on. It is the people that keep objecting to my position that keep dragging it out.

Partly because it's a weird position, and partly because it doesn't answer the question.

[Waenara]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you actually have a reference to an American law that has actually withstood up to a court challenge?

You've really never heard that some states went further than just banning same sex marriage or civil unions?

The amendments I'm thinking of are described in this Wikipedia article (my emphasis added in bold):

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted. Of these, ten make only same-sex marriage unconstitutional, seventeen make both same-sex marriage and civil unions unconstitutional, two make same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other contracts unconstitutional, and one is unique. Hawaii's amendment is unique in that it does not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional; rather, it allows the state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Virginia's amendment prevents the state from recognizing private contracts that "approximate" marriage. Observers have pointed out that such language encompasses private contracts and medical directives. Furthermore, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that the state's amendment bans not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also domestic partnership benefits such as health insurance.

The US State constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and other contracts are:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Michigan: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Virginia: "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by drachillix

I do believe thats because the deductions and exemptions are shaving off taxable income at a higher marginal tax rate. Your $20K person would have been taxed at 15% individually not 25% (around $3K vs about $5K) making up the vast majority of the differential, at lower tax brackets, the difference is far less pronounced. Any dependent can create this effect, not just a wife.

If you actually find an error in my calculations please get back to me. On the Tax Brain site you only have to plug in a few numbers to get an answer.

[faithfool]

Yeah, as I got tired of banging my head against the wall, post #21 (and all the umpteen bazillion follow ups) still doesn't tell me jack shit about how he'll feel once it's legal. So, I've given up. Perhaps s/he is incapable of telling us the answer to that question and sharing his, wait for it, FEELINGS on the subject of the OP. Good luck finding out.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Waenara

You've really never heard that some states went further than just banning same sex marriage or civil unions?

The amendments I'm thinking of are described in this Wikipedia article (my emphasis added in bold):The US State constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and other contracts are:

You obviously don't understand my point. I talking about private contracts and not marriage. There is nothing in what you quote that would prevent two people from having a binding power of attorney with each other even if the state doesn't recognize any relationship.

The are some interesting discussion in some of the references to laws concerning polygamy. It might be interesting to see how the Supreme Court treats it when they DOMA comes before them.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by faithfool

Yeah, as I got tired of banging my head against the wall, post #21 (and all the umpteen bazillion follow ups) still doesn't tell me jack shit about how he'll feel once it's legal. So, I've given up. Perhaps s/he is incapable of telling us the answer to that question and sharing his, wait for it, FEELINGS on the subject of the OP. Good luck finding out.

I won't like it. Do you expect me to rend my garments on something I don't see as a moral issue? I don't understand why other people think I should care about what other people do with their private parts.

[sachertorte]

I find it odd that Joel has a problem with SSM rather than a problem with the Tax Code. His numbers work the same way for a straight couple with NO CHILDREN.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by sachertorte

I find it odd that Joel has a problem with SSM rather than a problem with the Tax Code. His numbers work the same way for a straight couple with NO CHILDREN.

What part of this sentence do you not understand?

I don't understand why childless opposite sex couples should get a tax write off either, but I can't see why it is desirable to make the loophole bigger.

[faithfool]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I won't like it. Do you expect me to rend my garments on something I don't see as a moral issue? I don't understand why other people think I should care about what other people do with their private parts.

I don't expect you to do anything, except answer the freaking question before sometime before post #100. However, my idea for starting this thread has pretty much been confirmed by the few responses..... those that fight do hard against something that only affects others, themselves will just go back to their regular life with nary a problem or by being affected themselves by what's transpired. And that's galling to me. If there'd been at least a few who were moving out of the country to take a stand against our newfound hedonism, then perhaps I'd have a modicum of respect for that side of the debate. As it stands, any last vestige has evaporated.

[F14tomcat]

I do not support it. I don't hate gays I just don't agree with it. Too be fair though if it does become legal, then I say do it all and also allow multiple-partner marriages as well. Cause at that point what more could it hurt.

My father made comment about this subject the other day that took the edges off it. He said, "Why should they get off so easy, let them marry and suffer like the rest of us!".

I had to call him back after my laughing fit had stopped. He further commented that this could be the key to my future retirement yacht. Said divorces would double in a few years, my wife is an attorney.

[cher3]

Originally Posted by F14tomcat

I had to call him back after my laughing fit had stopped. He further commented that this could be the key to my future retirement yacht. Said divorces would double in a few years, my wife is an attorney.

Do the math before you put any money down on that yacht. Maybe 10% of the population is gay?

[Miller]

Originally Posted by F14tomcat

My father made comment about this subject the other day that took the edges off it. He said, "Why should they get off so easy, let them marry and suffer like the rest of us!".

I had to call him back after my laughing fit had stopped.

You've seriously never heard that joke before? Jesus. Hey, here's a brand new knee-slapper for you! Why did the chicken cross the road?

[Waenara]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

You obviously don't understand my point. I talking about private contracts and not marriage. There is nothing in what you quote that would prevent two people from having a binding power of attorney with each other even if the state doesn't recognize any relationship.

Maybe you missed this part of the Wikipedia article I quoted in my post?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Virginia's amendment prevents the state from recognizing private contracts that "approximate" marriage. Observers have pointed out that such language encompasses private contracts and medical directives.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Waenara

Maybe you missed this part of the Wikipedia article I quoted in my post?

Actually that does appear to be outrageous. Frankly the only way that I can imagine that the Marshall-Newman Amendment has actually survived is that nobody has actually tried to enforce it.