NationStates Jolt Archive

Again...obviously this is aimed at US citizens....

In my not so humble opinion, the best way to resolve and diffuse the idiotic abusive arguments by partisans on both sides of the issue is to side step the problem. Why not address the actual issues that the legal framework of 'marriage' is designed to address?

We want to ensure that children have the infrastructure and social and economic support necessary to have a stable upbringing. As with most western nations, the US birth rate is declining. Within a few decades we will likely see the population decline considerably. As a result, it seems to be in the national interests to stabilize the population at the present level. As a result, incentives for having children and tax breaks to support the enormous cost burden should be necessary. An incentive should be made for two people to live together to support their children. Why should the gender of the parents matter? For gender to matter, it would require catering to an extremely narrow worldview of a few religions. To do so _IS_PERSECUTION_ON_THE_BASIS_OF_BELIEF.

Let's try to find a REAL solution that separates marriage from an infrastructural tax issue. Let's seek a real egalitarian solution that preserves marriage for those who care, and preserves the rights of individuals, regardless of race, gender, orientation, or creed.

g.e.
Spokesranter for TFPotJW

Bump

there ARE tax breaks for single parent families. anyone with children under 17 gets a 1000 tax credit per child. if you dont make enough to benefit from that tax credit you probably qualify for the earned income credit, which gives money to families with children whose parents work full time but dont make much money. it pays you money beyond what you ever paid in tax.

marriage is about creating a new family, not about taxes. it recognizes the contribution of working and non working members of that family in terms of building up assets. (so the stay-at-home housewife is an equal owner of the assets bought with her husbands paycheck). it confers parental rights, inheritance rights, next of kin rights. it goes on and on. it provides a legal framework for what you can expect out of a permanent relationship with another person, rights that cant be nullified unless you have specifically agreed to it.

many many people marry with no expectations of ever having children from that bond. they have good reasons for legalizing their relationship that has nothing to do with taxes.

I think the ideology behind it is that the wife, in most cases, is a dependant. The government can't care less on how many children you have. i think technically you can classify household pets as dependents.

snip
I agree with you completely that tax breaks and financial incentives should ONLY be given to people who have and raise children. Marriages should be strictly a religious thing.

-snip-
I agree.

I think the situation with homosexuals, though, is that they just want to have the title of marriage.

there ARE tax breaks for single parent families. anyone ....


Aware of this. I should have been more explicit in my qualifications.



marriage is about creating a new family, not about taxes. it recognizes the contribution of working and non working members of that family in terms of building up assets. (so the stay-at-home housewife is an equal owner of the assets bought with her husbands paycheck). it confers parental rights, inheritance rights, next of kin rights. it goes on and on. it provides a legal framework for what you can expect out of a permanent relationship with another person, rights that cant be nullified unless you have specifically agreed to it.


Correct. So this should be a benefit to assign extra benefits to any two adult guardians of a minor/dependent in the interests of fostering an economically stable unit.


many many people marry with no expectations of ever having children from that bond. they have good reasons for legalizing their relationship that has nothing to do with taxes.

But then why would inheritance rights matter? Why do next of kin rights matter? Simplify the law and this reduces the overall level of taxation. Staying at home and not working outside of the home is mostly a vestige of an agrarian society. It is not relevant. Why should there be special rights mandated to create an incentive to stay home? I understand that if you have children, there should be a system in place to allow either parental party to stay at home and nurture the child at any point in time. However, lacking children, the system is highly ineffient and confers no net benefit to society.

But then why would inheritance rights matter? Why do next of kin rights matter? Simplify the law and this reduces the overall level of taxation. Staying at home and not working outside of the home is mostly a vestige of an agrarian society. It is not relevant. Why should there be special rights mandated to create an incentive to stay home? I understand that if you have children, there should be a system in place to allow either parental party to stay at home and nurture the child at any point in time. However, lacking children, the system is highly ineffient and confers no net benefit to society.
my point is that marriage isnt about TAX.
its about making a FAMILY
2 married people are a family. no children required.

so when you marry someone, you get a predetermined set of rights that dont need to be negotiated from scratch with every couple who wants to set up a permanent family relationship (marriage)

when i talk about inheritance rights im talking about MY right to inherit my husbands property should he die before me.
very few marriages exist between people of the exact same financial standing. one person makes more money than the other. in marriage, both partners are equal no matter what their contribution financially and upon death or divorce those rights are enforced by law not by the whim of the more lucrative partner.

without the change of family status provided by mariage, ones family of BIRTH keeps certain legal rights to inheritance and next-of-kin decisions. meaning that if im not married and my partner goes into an irreversable coma, i have no automatic right to visit him, to be consulted as to his treatment, to donate his organs, or even to BURY him if the worst happens. all of those rights are with his parents, siblings or adult children.

if a couple wishes to have one person stay at home for whatever reason. isnt that their right to do so whether or not the government is creating an incentive to do so? and why shouldnt that person who has agreed to stay at home NOT receive the protection of marriage laws?

besides, up until recently, at higher tax brackets it has been a net tax detriment to be married. now it is at best a break even kind of thing

As for inheritance, setting up a Will is good enough.

As for equal ownership, you can always set up a binding legal agreement. As for a long-term spiritual partnership, you can always go to a church for that, but we are discussing legal contracts here...

As for inheritance, setting up a Will is good enough.

As for equal ownership, you can always set up a binding legal agreement. As for a long-term spiritual partnership, you can always go to a church for that, but we are discussing legal contracts here...
Here's the difference--if you're part of a same sex couple, you have to go to a lot of extra expense and hassle to do what a heterosexual married couple gets just for signing a marriage license. Plus, same sex couples still aren't guaranteed recognition for things like family visitation and being able to make medical decisions for a partner in the event of an emergency, and it's even worse if a same sex couple wants to jointly adopt children. There's so much more than tax issues to this problem. Don't get me wrong--removing the marriage issue from the tax equation would be a start, but it's by no means a full solution.

As for inheritance, setting up a Will is good enough.

As for equal ownership, you can always set up a binding legal agreement. As for a long-term spiritual partnership, you can always go to a church for that, but we are discussing legal contracts here...

no setting up a will ISNT good enough.

some people never DO get around to it.
but more importantly that leaves the surviving spouse to the mercy (and intelligence) of the deceased one. under marriage laws a person is limited as to just what property they can will away from their spouse. i can give some examples of just how that could be a disaster for the survivor but im pretty sure that you can come up with those on your own.

why "reinvent the wheel" with binding contracts drawn up by lawyers when the law already has a nice set all done with marriage laws? if you dont WANT those contractual obligations you can either pay a lawyer to write you up a pre-nuptual agreement or just not get married.

as for a long term spiritual agreement, that IS indeed up to the individual and their own spiritualilty.