"A Gay-Marriage solution..." What say you?
By ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
United States
March 17, 2009 9:02am CST
Hello All,
I recently stumbled upon a "Time" story, and it got me thinking.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html
If you're all charged up for a debate over "gay marriage", I'm sorry to dissapoint. That is definitely NOT the focus of this discussion.
This Prop 8 fight is so far beyond a debate at this point because of both the constitutional questions surrounding the issue and because of the the threats of violence and intimidation associated with it. What's interesting to me is that the 'argument' seems to have many millions of Americans distracted from what I see as perhaps the real solution to the dilemma.
Instead of battling over the definition of a word, in this case "marriage", the real issue seems to be the tax incentives and benefits provided to "married" couples. Right?
If so, then perhaps the real solution is to abolish the "incentive-based" tax structure and adopt a "Fair Tax" or the "Consumption Tax".
http://www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf
In light of the growing number of elected or nominated representatives who, despite their role in forging tax laws or public policy, claim that our tax system is too complex to understand, doesn't it make sense that tackling this idiocy known as the encyclopedia of "Tax Code" is a way to nip these two issues in the bud?
Any thoughts?
1 person likes this
5 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
17 Mar 09
Replacing the income tax with either one of those would help all around... except for our tax and spend government.
As to the gay marriage issue... there is a lot more to that than taxes and marriage benefits.
The whole issue is an attack on the very foundation of marriage and religion. They are out to destroy both... and our family values as well.
It is nothing short of a culture war that fits in with the liberal's agenda as well.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
17 Mar 09
Ever see Shrek and his onion analogy? It's all about layers, and under those layers is the ugly truth.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
17 Mar 09
Yup, I sure have.
'Course I was a late bloomer in surrendering to the jollies of contemporary animation. Cartoons are definitely not just for kids anymore. Since I've never been much of a fan of animation, I nearly missed out on the whole Shrek thing. Thankfully Hubby bought the DVD and converted me.
Funny how it took Shrek to make the peeling onion analogy a household concept, huh? I wonder what Sigund Freud would have to say about his famous analogy being applied to a big, green, ogre? If it works, eh?
![](/Content/images/ajax-loader.gif)
@twoey68 (13627)
• United States
17 Mar 09
In honesty, you kind of confused me at first...starting out with the gay marriage issue and then jumping over to tax changes. Hubby explained it though so now I got it :)
As to the questions...the tax changes sound like a good idea on the whole and would probably benefit alot of ppl. However I don't see it solving the problem of gay couples wanting to be entitled to the same benefits that married couples have b/c it isn't just the tax break that they want. They also want to be able to claim their partner's Social Security benefits, be able to be covered by their partner's isurance policy, in other words have all the benefits that a married couple have.
The problem comes in that by doing that they are being allowed to claim benefits they are not entitled to. They are having rules changed to suit their lifestyle choices. I don't see why marriages cannot be left just as they are and have Civil Unions for gay couples. I still don't think that even under Civil Unions they should have the right to the benefits b/c like it or not that is not what those benefits were meant for.
There are alot of programs that are set up in a specific manner...as an example...Hubby has VA for his medical. It only covers him b/c he served in the military. Even though we are married it doesn't cover me and I don't have any medical coverage. However that is their policy and they aren't going to suddenly change it just to suit me...and I don't expect them to.
That's the difference...most ppl follow the rules but here's a group of ppl that want all the rules re-wrote to suit them. So like I said, although I think that the tax change would benefit ppl, no I don't think it would solve the gay marriage issues.
[b]~~AT PEACE WITHIN~~
**STAND STRONG IN YOUR BELIEFS**[/b]
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
17 Mar 09
Hello Twoey,
Thank you. Based on your contribution there can be no question that you most certainly do have an intricate understanding the nuances of this issue. Perhaps your poignant explanation will help others to understand some of the incongruities of this gay marriage issue.
'Course, I'm still all for using the rationalization that I've highlighted to justify the burial of the 'incentive-based' tax code, and the adoption of either the Fair Tax or the Consumption Tax. Whatever it takes, eh?
@blondbat (503)
• United States
17 Mar 09
I think alot of the problem people have with this is that "marriage" is an institution, with all the history and religious connotations of centuries of use. Also, most of society is already set up to deal with the default rights one automatically receives when a heterosexual legal union occurs.
All the homosexual community wants is that same set of default rights that the heterosexual community gets automatically. If you stand before a judge, minister, rabbi or other legally authorized person and swear by the same words to do the same things then you should reap the rewards and benefits that union confers.
Is this issue different than polygamous marriages? Just curious how that works out, since this apparently happens quite often. If you are the 2nd or 3rd spouse, are you still entitled to all the same rights just because it is heterosexual union? Didn't mean to muddy the waters with that last idea, but I do wonder.
If you make marriage ONLY legal between 1 man and 1 woman, that leaves alot of people and "unions" across the country and around the world out in the cold. If you are serious about your commitment to that person, or persons, then you should get all the responsibilities that go along with it. Convincing a government that is not set up for that union to accommodate it will be the hardest part - SS, Medicare, and all other county, state AND federal rights of the marriage vow.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Mar 09
"Medicare, and all other county, state AND federal rights of the marriage vow"
Hello Blondbat,
Would you please be more specific about what the tootsie pop center really is? What, pray tell, is the real beef? What do the Gay Marriage activists want that either can't be provided through legal contract, or is inaccessible because of governmental default?
@dismalgrin (2604)
• United States
17 Mar 09
I am not too sure that it is a 'reward' for hetro couples to get married under the tax system we now have. Most married people I know get txed more than the unmarried couples I know. But, I don't think that their should be any legal or religious issues surrounding marriage. I think it should be more of a comminity/personal thing. If you love someone enough to want to spend the rest of your life with them. To commit yourself to someone. They 2 consenting adults should be allowed to make and mark that commitment in whatever way they choose. If they want to jump over a broomstick in the street, or have someone say words of blessings over their heads, or whatever, it's a personal decision and the end result is that they have chosen to be together and have chosen to make it public. I think that's was real marriage should be about anyway.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
17 Mar 09
"Most married people I know get txed more than the unmarried couples I know."
To your point above: I'm curious about this. I realize that many tax benefits are slated to sunset soon, or are on the chopping block, and that tax realities are highly individualized, though I don't know of any tax situation that would tax a married couple more based solely on their filing status. Have any of these married couples shared any more info about this with you?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Dismalgrin.
@dismalgrin (2604)
• United States
17 Mar 09
I am not sure about all the details with the tax situations. I do know that one married couple I know had one child and they got half as much as I got as a single mom to 2 children. So, I know that I had the cut of 2 children on my taxes that year. But, they had JUST gotten married and had a child on the same year! So, it should have balanced out. A lot of married couples I know file that they are legally seperated and go about that route so that they can get the money at the end of the year. I'm not too sure how or why they do this. But, I think it has something to do with the ones that teeter on the edge of low income statis. They make too much to be low income, but not enough to really be anything but low income! LoL. Anyhow, they often say it would be much easier to get a divorce and then choose to live together but not be married. Also, if the husband has children not in the current marriage. He will have to pay child support out of the taxes at the end of the year and not only will no regaurd be giving to any children he has to file as dependants on his current marriage, but they will also take his wifes income tax to help pay for his child support. I know a lot of this is extra stuff not really dealing with the topic at hand. But, there do seem to be a lot more factors involved in taxes than just weather you are married of not.
![](/Content/images/loading.gif)