How is it not,
for those couples? The law is not changed and last I checked they would still pay more yearly in taxes. When the law is changed, then it saves you no money.
Division of assets occurs in the courts without marriage. Alimony payments can be ordered by the court without a marriage (though it's not called alimony.)
I’ve never once come across a case where a same-sex partner has gotten alimony by that name or otherwise without legal marriage. Can you site an example?
In fact, one case that was recently “resolved” in my area comes to mind. A lesbian left her partner and their kids claiming to have become heterosexual (not true in the end). They had a bunch of contracts regarding their home, but the thing was in the cheater’s name due to tax concerns. In the end the stay at home mother was made homeless. She took welfare and is living with relatives until she can find her footing again. You are paying for that, but you think she could legally get alimony?
Change the state law, not federal law.
Wish it could be, but still this is another way in which the public pays for not giving out marriage rights.
Whether taxes pay for welfare or SSI survivor benifits, it's still tax dollars.
I don’t then think what I thought of a common cliché was common enough to your experience.
Say there is a gay couple; one stays at home taking care of home and possibly kids, and the other works. Also say the worker has a brother. If the gay couple, like many young couples, don’t have a will and the worker dies unexpectedly in, say, a car crash, the $ goes to the brother. It’s taxed just the same if it goes to a brother or to a partner, but which is a greater burden on society? A brother who has had to make a career all his life and suddenly comes upon some extra cash, or a stay at home parent suddenly without assets or income?
You want me to be concerned about unethical considerations?
I’m not sure I want you to be concerned or not, but I do see this happen often and it is a way in which you pay to keep people unmarried nonetheless. If a couple could stop 5K from being taken from their family with a legal marriage and the law won’t let them, then they feel entitled to take the 5K back in the form of welfare. The society is the one classifying them as “single parents”. While I think it wrong to take $ intended for the destitute, even if it is $ taken from you unjustly, it’d be tough to convince them you (big you) aren’t the one acting unethical in the first place by taking $ disproportionately from their family. Their neighbor isn’t more entitled to their income than they are. Still, yes 2*wrong~=right.
Okay, fine, I'll give you that maybe some of these people would get married legally.
Aaron, “some”? Really, what % of the population do you think would rather go through welfare than simply keep their income?
But forgive me if my heart doesn't pour over for people scamming the system to get more of my money.
And that’s the problem isn’t it? These people don’t care if your heart pours out to them anymore, and they’ve stopped caring about us (big us). They’re thinking “screw you; you won’t treat my family as I treat yours, then I’ll take what I can get.” At least I think we can both agree it’s a sad situation.
I have to admit to scratching my head on this one. You're trying, with a straight face, to claim that the financial costs of marriage exceed those of the unmarried?
No, not really; it’s not that simple. If you cheat and get a divorce, then they certainly do. With a straight face, try to tell a man who pays multiple alimony payments that the costs of marriage don’t exceed those of unmarried.
I’m really saying that, if society is going to pay for the destitute (which ours does), you save money by making couples, gay and straight, legally responsible for each other.
I've been advocating the dissulution of legal recognition of marriage for years because of the financial discrimination these laws have against single people. The laws are INTENTIALLY written to advantage married people.
They are also written to keep families together and to make their dissolutions fair, so that the society doesn’t have to pay for the fallout.
The claim is that the state has a compelling interest in encouraging the marriage institution. And that may very well be, and I still think the government needs to get out of the business. I know we've disagreed about this on one thread before.
Yes, I do think the law needs be involved.
But I swear, you are the only person I've encountered who has ever disagreed with me based on the premis that marriage is a net negative financially. Most the disagreement I get is that the discrimination against single people is justifiable.
Again, I’m not saying that it’s a net negative financially (though it can be). I’m saying both you and the married couple benefit by these laws. To what extent can be debated.
I’ll find those studies which seem to show a net savings for the general public and post a link. Got to go again…
Aaron
P.S. For full discloser I'm a newlywed (and fully enjoying all of the discriminatory laws, but I'll continue to fight for equality for singles.)
Hey! Aren’t you then kind of in the same boat as the gay couples taking welfare even when they know they shouldn’t have it?
