State amendments regarding gay marriage

minnemooseus writes:

quote:

---

I am told that the federal "marriage tax" is a very real thing.

---

Yes, but whether it's a good thing or a bad thing depends upon how you're married.If you and your spouse both work and you both earn a substantial and fairly equal amount, the taxes owed for having to file as a married couple (be it jointly or married, filing separately) is larger than if you were single.But if one earns significantly more than the other, the couple actually pays less in taxes as a couple than if they were single.And in the end, the "marriage penalty" is nothing but a bugaboo. While many couples do pay more income tax as a couple, they come out very much ahead of the game when all other expenditures are taken into account. For example, insurance benefits for an unmarried partner are considered taxable income. You can transfer property to your spouse to avoid taxes.In the end, a married couple is usually better off financially than the same couple as an unmarried couple.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

But they can, if they get married to that person. Which, while not trivial, is also not difficult. There's plenty of people who want to get married, if you're not choosey.It's like saying the existence of the Tasty Freeze (which provides ice cream to people with money who come into the store) is discriminating because people with no money or who aren't in the store can't get any. If you want the ice cream, get some money and come into the store. It doesn't discriminate against the lazy to refuse to deliver.

I understand that there are certain benefits/penalties granted/denied by the state associated with being married. I also understand that these benefits/penalties are a major reason homosexuals are petitioning for the state to recognize their unions. I simply feel that it isn't the state's place to recognize marriage. Any legal relationships between the two individuals, like your wife sharing your pension or 401k, could be easily handled by private contracts. But any benefits/penalties granted by the state to married couples is discrimination against single peopel. I think the state should only recognize individuals.

---

the world is a fine place and worth fighting for

quote:

---

But they can, if they get married to that person. Which, while not trivial, is also not difficult. There's plenty of people who want to get married, if you're not choosey.

---

really now... that's just silly. It's the same as if the state gave benefits for being muslim and said,"Hey you want these extras? Just convert to Islam. There're plenty of Mosques accepting members."

---

the world is a fine place and worth fighting for

Right, but it's the mechanism of the state that allows those contracts to be enforcable. So, in fact, the state does have an interest here. So you said, but you have yet to tell us why. Since any single person who can sign a contract can get married, it's not clear why you would believe that to be so. I disagree; I think the state should recognize any sort of binding partnership that someone might want to enter.

Ah, but see, we have Constitutional protections guaranteeing your freedom from religious coercion.Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can't try to get people to marry, particularly when that's proven to be a positive thing for society?Moreover, I don't see that most of the benefits of marriage are things that can apply to a single person. How does it discriminate against you as a single person if my wife is allowed to visit me in the hospital or have power of attourney?Is it discriminatory against you that I get to have sex with my wife and you do not? That's a benefit of marriage, too, though not one that comes from the government.If you want to be single, then you need to accept the consequences of that, for instance, that you have no person who gets automatic power of attourney, or that you have no one to whom you can transfer property tax-free. If you want those things, then you would have to be married anyway.I just don't see the discrimination. A married couple is a different situation than one single person; not least of the differences is that there's two people involved instead of one.

quote:

---

Right, but it's the mechanism of the state that allows those contracts to be enforcable. So, in fact, the state does have an interest here.

---

Certainly, it has an interest in enforcing the contract, not in the relationship between the people.

quote:

---

So you said, but you have yet to tell us why. Since any single person who can sign a contract can get married, it's not clear why you would believe that to be so.

---

see above.

quote:

---

I disagree; I think the state should recognize any sort of binding partnership that someone might want to enter.

---

But only through contractual means. Marriage is a bond between two people hopefully in love. As far as two people sharing assets, this could be done through private contracts.

---

the world is a fine place and worth fighting for

quote:

---

Ah, but see, we have Constitutional protections guaranteeing your freedom from religious coercion.

​

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can't try to get people to marry, particularly when that's proven to be a positive thing for society?

---

If the Islam example is wrong, then the benefits granted based on marriage is also wrong. I'm not really interested in debating constitutional law. I'm just looking at it from a purely philosophical viewpoint, and I think we both know that what the state does and what people think it should theoretically do so is often different.

quote:

---

Moreover, I don't see that most of the benefits of marriage are things that can apply to a single person. How does it discriminate against you as a single person if my wife is allowed to visit me in the hospital or have power of attourney?

---

It doesn't. Again I think such things could be handled contractually. I'm referring to privaleges granted by the state in the form of monetary benefits or tax breaks. Any assistance, granted really.

quote:

---

Is it discriminatory against you that I get to have sex with my wife and you do not? That's a benefit of marriage, too, though not one that comes from the government.

---

Exactly - not one that comes from the government. We're debating what the state should do, not what you, your wife, or me as individuals with ownership over our own respective bodies should do.

quote:

---

If you want to be single, then you need to accept the consequences of that, for instance, that you have no person who gets automatic power of attourney, or that you have no one to whom you can transfer property tax-free. If you want those things, then you would have to be married anyway.

​

I just don't see the discrimination. A married couple is a different situation than one single person; not least of the differences is that there's two people involved instead of one.

---

Again, it the same as the Islam example. If you choose to be christian then you don't get benefits from the government. Tough Luck.

---

the world is a fine place and worth fighting for

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Single people don't get to do that.

---

​

But they can, if they get married to that person.

---

Which defeats the entire point of being single, does it not? You just argued that 1 is just like 2...provided that you add 1 to it and make it a 2.You said: So the way to analyze this is to look at what single people can do and what married people can do. If you convert the single people into married people, they're no longer single and thus there is no comparison to make.

quote:

---

It's like saying the existence of the Tasty Freeze (which provides ice cream to people with money who come into the store) is discriminating because people with no money or who aren't in the store can't get any.

---

Invalid analogy.As I said at the very beginning of the post to which you responded, it takes two to tango. Just because you want to get married doesn't mean you can. You have to find someone else who is willing to marry you.

quote:

---

It doesn't discriminate against the lazy to refuse to deliver.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?People who want to get married but aren't are just lazy?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Since any single person who can sign a contract can get married

---

Incorrect.It takes two to tango. You can't get married without someone else to get married to. You can sign that marriage license all you want but without someone else's signature next to it, it means nothing.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to michaelxfloyd:

quote:

---

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can't try to get people to marry

---

The same place we find that it says the government can force you into any contract. In other words, nowhere.

quote:

---

particularly when that's proven to be a positive thing for society?

---

Even for people who don't want to get married?

quote:

---

Moreover, I don't see that most of the benefits of marriage are things that can apply to a single person. How does it discriminate against you as a single person if my wife is allowed to visit me in the hospital or have power of attourney?

---

Because what if I want to give one of those rights to one person and another to another?As I mentioned elsewhere, you as a married person can sponsor your spouse for citizenship. Single people can't do that.

quote:

---

If you want to be single, then you need to accept the consequences of that, for instance, that you have no person who gets automatic power of attourney, or that you have no one to whom you can transfer property tax-free. If you want those things, then you would have to be married anyway.

---

Why? What's so special about being married that they should get these benefits but not single people?Marriage bundles a number of rights together all for the cost of a single license filed with the county clerk. Why not allow people to avail themselves of those rights for a pro-rated price? Want to grant someone power of attorney? We've got the form right here...that'll be five dollars. Create a joint ownership arrangement of all property? You'll need the green form, sign here.

quote:

---

A married couple is a different situation than one single person

---

Indeed, it is. But some of those rights granted to married people ought also to be granted to single people to passel out as they see fit.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Of course, which was my point. Being single is a voluntary situation, and therefore differential rights for the single aren't discrimination. Exactly my point again; "discrimination" against single people doesn't exist simply because they have the option to stop being single. Which, while non-trivial, is not a significant barrier. That's probably the least difficult part of getting married, unless you're choosey.And at any rate, the hypothetical single person who's complaining about all these rights married people get must obviously have someone they could get married to; it's incoherent to complain that you're being denied the right to (for instance) transfer property to a specific person tax-free if you don't have anyone to transfer the property to. No, but why would someone complain that they were being denied the ability to have a significant other be able to visit them in the hospital if they had no significant other? And if they do have a significant other, then they can marry that person and have those rights.Ergo, no discrimination.

Agreed, but that's not all that marriage is. It's also an agreement about the status and custody of minors, and I don't see that that's something that the scope of a private contract can hope to encompass.

I don't see that this is being forced, though. And it's certainly the case that states, municipalities, and even the federal government have the perogative to make legislature that promotes certain social policies; hence tax breaks for some corporations to provide local jobs; programs that pay people to be sterilized; marriage benefits; etc.Governments have the right to discourage or punish behavior to serve greater social ends; this is called "the criminal justice system." The other side of that coin is that governments can use positive means to promote behaviors, as well.This is not discriminatory against those who, for whatever reason, opt not to engage in this behavior; just as the criminal justice system is not discriminatory against those who opt to commit crimes. I dunno. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do that. I don't know, though. And many of them are. I don't, however, believe that you should be able to sponsor anybody you want for citizenship in the US. That's not a right that single people should have to give out wherever they please.

Whoa whoa whoooooooooooa. You understand that everything you just said above allows the government to persecute gays then and deny them the right to marry and also to leave out all but Xian marriages?I don't think you get to make the above assertion at all. It seems to me that that is the subject of this debate... the heart of it.Does the government (at any level) have the right to decide what is best for its citizens socially (some GREATER social end) and then use punishments and rewards to encourage the society it wants to see?The founding fathers seemed pretty much AGAINST that idea, and the Rights went a long way to securing this.I think there is a vast difference between a regulatory tax incentive to promote business in an impoverished area, and granting a tax break to those who follow Xian dogma. Why? As long as one has the means to sponsor someone, what is the problem? Or maybe I should rephrase the question... what does marriage grant to a previously single person that makes the choice of who he wants to sponsor better?I should also say I'm surprised to hear you implying that there is some evidence that marriage is some good for society. I would love to see the conclusive stats on that one. While it is usually worse for kids when their parents are broken up, that says nothing about their standing in a Judeo-Xian bond of matrimony.I might add, and this links back with the first issue, so you'd be fine if the majority ended up deciding the Greater social end is polygamous marriage and then punish you for having a single spouse while giving incentives for those who have more? You think that is the proper role of government?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)