Belgian_Draft 0 #1 March 21, 2011 Why is it that married couple enjoy benefits that single couples don't? Tax breaks in some situations, insurance coverage, etc.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko 1 #2 March 21, 2011 Because married people are married and single people are not married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 March 21, 2011 Short list: Access to Military Stores Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Sick Leave to Care for Partner Tax Breaks Veteran’s Discounts Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Automatic Inheritance Automatic Housing Lease Transfer Bereavement Leave Burial Determination Child Custody Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits Divorce Protections Domestic Violence Protection Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse Joint Adoption and Foster Care Joint Bankruptcy Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records) Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Certain Property Rights Sick Leave to Care for Partner Visitation of Partner’s Children Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits A more comprehensive list: http://gaylife.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=gaylife&cdn=people&tm=30&f=10&su=p284.9.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,603 #4 March 21, 2011 I think it goes back to when in upper class families (which were the only ones that counted in those days), the men worked and the women stayed home. The benefits made that easier. Note that in many poor families, the women had to work, either at home doing piecework, on the home farm, doing domestic labor, or out in factories. That's my theory and I like it Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #5 March 21, 2011 QuoteShort list: Access to Military Stores Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Sick Leave to Care for Partner Tax Breaks Veteran’s Discounts Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Automatic Inheritance Automatic Housing Lease Transfer Bereavement Leave Burial Determination Child Custody Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits Divorce Protections Domestic Violence Protection Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse Joint Adoption and Foster Care Joint Bankruptcy Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records) Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Certain Property Rights Sick Leave to Care for Partner Visitation of Partner’s Children Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits A more comprehensive list: http://gaylife.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=gaylife&cdn=people&tm=30&f=10&su=p284.9.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf Ok, but why? What is special about today's marriages that warrants giving them special treatment?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #6 March 21, 2011 >What is special about today's marriages that warrants giving them special treatment? Good question. "Tradition" is one answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko 1 #7 March 21, 2011 Tradition and societal views. Which sometimes go hand in hand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #8 March 21, 2011 "Because we've always done it that way" has probably killed more soldiers and LEOs than any other asinine idea. Being "tradition" doesn't make it right. Honestly, what do we have to lose? I'm married, and we enjoy the benefits listed above. If others were to gain those beneifts, would we somehow lose something? Not as far as I can tell.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 36 #9 March 22, 2011 I think I'm missing something here. Married couples have a marriage certificate (well, over here they do), a legal document that either spouse can present on demand when applying for some of the rights and benefits discussed here. They can usually do this even when their spouse is not present, all they need is the certificate. What would single couples present as their legal evidence of being "a couple", especially if their partner were not present? Or is this not about being "a couple" at all? ... in which case absolutely anyone including completely single individuals would qualify for the same benefits that married couples do. In short, I would think that there are significant legal differences between married couples and single couples, that have bearing on these kinds of benefits. With regard to tax breaks; if everyone had equal tax breaks then they wouldn't be 'breaks' at all. The overall drop in tax revenue would need to be compensated.... by raising tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #10 March 22, 2011 Quote I think I'm missing something here... ...In short, I would think that there are significant legal differences between married couples and single couples, that have bearing on these kinds of benefits. Nope. You're not missing it at all. That is the root of the argument. In US federal law there are somewhere in the area of 1100 benefits given to "married couples" and "families." These range from survivor benefits for pensions to discounts to enter national parks. Many "civil union" or "domestic partnership" arrangements aren't eligible for those benfits because the law specifically states "married". So the choice is to rewrite each and every one of the laws, or simply redefine the word marriage in a legal sense."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #11 March 22, 2011 QuoteShort list: Tax Breaks When we got married our taxes went up. The main benefit I saw from being married was --- being married to a lovely woman.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 36 #12 March 22, 2011 How exactly do "civil union" or "domestic partnership" arrangements work under US law? Does it include a legal agreement document or certificate, signed and sworn by both partners, and registered with a government department ? If not then I would still be curious how an individual would show proof of a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" when applying for these benefits. If these other social arrangements are a lot less formal than marriage, would it not be easily open to abuse by "couples of convenience" ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #13 March 22, 2011 QuoteHow exactly do "civil union" or "domestic partnership" arrangements work under US law? Does it include a legal agreement document or certificate, signed and sworn by both partners, and registered with a government department ? If not then I would still be curious how an individual would show proof of a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" when applying for these benefits. If these other social arrangements are a lot less formal than marriage, would it not be easily open to abuse by "couples of convenience" ? Yes, which is one practical argument to giving committed gay unions the legal status of "marriage" instead of something else: because in order to terminate the status, you have to go through the shit-storm of divorce and equitable distribution of property. Thus, it would present a certain discouragement to people casually becoming couples of convenience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #14 March 22, 2011 QuoteHow exactly do "civil union" or "domestic partnership" arrangements work under US law? ... I don't know exactly. I haven't needed to find out. Some states seem to have it very close to marriage, with licenses, documentation, and processes for termination. Others seem to have it just a simple process of registration of forms. A lot of it (at least here in the US) is for purposes of obtaining employer provided health insurance. And some places allow those "couples of convenience" to get family health coverage by simply signing a form saying that they are a couple (either same-sex or non-married opposite sex)"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #15 March 22, 2011 >When we got married our taxes went up. Ours went down, since our combined income dropped us a tax bracket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #16 March 22, 2011 Quote The main benefit I saw from being married was --- being married to a lovely woman. Cheers! Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #17 March 22, 2011 QuoteHow exactly do "civil union" or "domestic partnership" arrangements work under US law? Does it include a legal agreement document or certificate, signed and sworn by both partners, and registered with a government department ? If not then I would still be curious how an individual would show proof of a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" when applying for these benefits. If these other social arrangements are a lot less formal than marriage, would it not be easily open to abuse by "couples of convenience" ? Domestic partnerships and civil unions are not recognized at all by the national government. Thus, they are ineligible for federal tax benefits, Social Security survivior benefits, and other benefits of FEDERAL law. All of those benefits are tied to marriage, which in federal law has to be between a man and a woman. Different STATES have different levels of reconition of "domestic partnerships", "civil unions", and "same sex marriages". My state does not recognize any status of domestic partnership except one man-one woman marriage. Most of the states the do recognize such relationships (as I understand it) intend for all of the State-Level benefits of marriage to apply to same-sex couples. I could not speak to the legal documentation or how well states are realizing that intent, probably differs widely by state."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #18 March 22, 2011 i've been saying this for years. if we held to traditions for their sake, we'd(some of us) would be allowed to own others. most of us wouldn't be allowed to vote, etc... i went to combat twice under the oath to protect and defend the constitution, and in my eyes(because they're as open as my mind) every legal citizen of this country should have the same rights as every other one, until their actions provide the basis for the loss of those rights. pipe dream? maybe, but it's getting better, right?http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #19 March 23, 2011 QuoteWhy is it that married couple enjoy benefits that single couples don't? Tax breaks in some situations, insurance coverage, etc. Through the tax code, the government encourages certain behaviors including... - Buying a house (write off mortgage interest and property taxes) - Investing in a retirement fund (401(k) and other tax deferrals) - Getting married and having one person be the primary bread-winner (joint filing and no imputed income on partner health coverage) - Having children (dependant deductions and, again, no imputed income for health coverage) - Putting your kids through school (write off education expenses) Which, to me anyway, starts looking like a list of someone's idea of "normal." I'm not saying there's a hand-kneading troll behind a curtain somewhere making this list up, but just that between the government tending towards stability and people tending towards getting perks for things they were going to do anyway, this is the kind of list that emerges. The monetary tax perks related to being married, as well as a number of other rights associated with being married, are not available to homosexual couples whether they have a "civil union" or otherwise. The simplest solution for this imbalance, to me, is to let homosexuals get married. Some people, however, don't like the idea of homosexuals getting married for whatever reason and so they do one of three things: 1) Suggest that we remove some or all of the perks and advantages of being married, saying that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway. 2) Suggest that we create an entirely equivilant thing called "civil unions" or "garriage" or something with all the same benefits and rights as marriage (but don't call it marriage) 3) Protest soldiers funerals with signs that say, "God hates fags." The reason the debate is so exasperating is because 1) and 2) are political impossibilites. And you can explain to the people that suggested them why they're never going to happen, and they'll probably agree with you. But then at the end of the discussion they'll still insist that homosexuals not be allowed to get married and that, "Hey, I suggested 1) or 2), it's not my fault it didn't work out." all the while happily enjoying the imbalanced benefits and rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #20 March 23, 2011 QuoteShort list: Access to Military Stores Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Sick Leave to Care for Partner Tax Breaks Veteran’s Discounts Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Automatic Inheritance Automatic Housing Lease Transfer Bereavement Leave Burial Determination Child Custody Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits Divorce Protections Domestic Violence Protection Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse Joint Adoption and Foster Care Joint Bankruptcy Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records) Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Certain Property Rights Sick Leave to Care for Partner Visitation of Partner’s Children Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits I think you got carried away with the copy and paste function. You have 'sick leave to care for partner' in there at least three times. Most marital benefits can be re-created or thwarted through a will, power of attorney or other simple instruments. I think most benefits come from a time when women were in a lesser position to their husbands and needed protection under the law. For instance: a woman plays the role of the homemaker and her husband dies. If she did not work 40 quarters, she does not qualify for social security benefits. So, the law accounts for that and allows her to draw against her husband's accrual of benefits. There was a constitutional amendment decades ago that tried to eliminate most of those benefits. The Equal Rights Amendment. It was a big feminist issue. They rightly claimed that those types of laws facilitated women maintaining a backseat role to men. I would personally prefer to get rid of the whole concept of government sanctioned personal relationships and let people figure it out for themselves. Marriage contracts specific to the parties were once the norm. Enforce them like any other contract if you like.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #21 March 23, 2011 Seriously...I didn't even read what you wrote....sorry. The professor stated reality....we shouldn't get extra benefits for marriage. Problem solved....end of story...goodbye thread.... the benefit is finding TRUE LOVE! God I love the the Professor! You are blessed Sir....Salute!Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #22 March 23, 2011 Quote Seriously...I didn't even read what you wrote....sorry. The professor stated reality....we shouldn't get extra benefits for marriage. Problem solved....end of story...goodbye thread.... the benefit is finding TRUE LOVE! God I love the the Professor! You are blessed Sir....Salute! +1 HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #23 March 23, 2011 Because the Ponzi scheme know as modern civilized society requires people to breed and create new worker drones to pay more tax dollars to the state. Every generation needs to out breed the previous one or else the society is fucked. Single people are less likely to breed then married folks, so the state rewards behavior which is beneficial to itself.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #24 March 23, 2011 Quote...we shouldn't get extra benefits for marriage. Why not? After all, there are extra responsibilities for marriage."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,603 #25 March 23, 2011 In a legal context, what are the extra responsibilities of marriage (except for alimony, which is really an imposed responsibility for the dissolution of marriage) Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
