mlmpetert
08-03-2012, 03:48 PM
The difference that you seem to be missing, is marriage isn't forcing a single thing on the churches. It is creating more freedom for the individuals to make decisions, while others are trying to constrict freedom. The amount of time and money taken up by gay marriage is beyond crazy to me. Let them get married so that they can be viewed legally as one for things like healthcare, next-of-kin, etc type decisions. It doesn't affect anyone in a negative manner if we do this. If this went live today, no one here (unless you're a gay person that gets married) has their life changed.
Most gay couples, and many non-gay couples, couldn't give half a shit if the 'church recognizes' their marriage. It's about the legal ramifications around not being married that matters; if this happens, non-gay couples need to have their title to the government changed as well. It is about fairness and consistency.
The church doesn't have to recognize marriage. Call it something else if you like -- as long as it fills the legal roles of a typical marriage. Your argument should have 0 credibility or influence on this decision because the church, and their values, should not be weighed or factored in when it comes to making governmental decisions. No Christians are being forced to do anything, they're just trying to force others from having something.
I think you are completely misreading Skinsguy's post. I dont think he said anything at all about churches. Hes saying remove the federal govt. from marriage all together. That a marriage, gay, straight, poly or anything else shouldnt be recognized by our government. Because why should it?
And i almost completely agree with him and i think skinsguy put it very well. But not the tax thing.
Everyone thinks theres some big benefit to getting married tax wise. There really isnt. There used to be back in the day (pre-70's) when the tax scale for 1 person was twice as steep as it was for 2 married people. But they changed that and made the tax scale much steeper for married people.
The last time i checked tax revenues are nearly identical when you compare actual numbers to the estimates of what total revenues would be if everyone had to file as single. This means a couple things:
-If you are low income or high income there is a almost always a Marriage Penalty
-Lower Middle and Middle income (i think 50-80k joint) there are usually some minor benefits. But not always (watch out if your incomes are very similar)
-Usually the differences change from year to year
Also filing jointly usually:
-Means youre probably paying more if you make over 100k jointly, unless just one person is the income earner. Most people now a days especially the 100-500k range people are dual earners and are penalized.
-Usually always hurt the poor. The IRS LOVES single moms. There are so many benefits poor people forgo by getting hitched. I think its never better (tax wise) to get married if youre poor. It may be worse, sometimes a lot worse (earned income credit), but never better. Very sad.
Honestly the more i think about, the supposed "marriage benefit" is a pretty inconsequential thing for most of those who actually get the benefit. However it can really really f-over poor people.
But it may not matter because the big Marriage Penalty is set to come back this year. GW Bush was the President that ended the original Marriage Penalty, but he didnt really replace it with a "marriage benefit". It was a revenue neutral thing, and its set to go away.
Also skinsguy, getting rid of marriage law doesnt mean getting rid of alimony, ex-wives, divorce court or any of that stuff. When someone gets married they are entering a contract. The marriage license is just a contract. We will still need contracts (which the "life-partner" crowd already uses) to bring 2 (or multiple) people together legally. If they separate it will be a breach of contract and shared achievements will need to be accounted for and divided.
OKay all that said there is one BIG benefit to being married tax wise. You can give your assets to your spouse tax free. This primarily effects estate taxes, which as we all know only affect those disgusting rich people. Maybe a provision of the contract people would enter into would allow for this?
Most gay couples, and many non-gay couples, couldn't give half a shit if the 'church recognizes' their marriage. It's about the legal ramifications around not being married that matters; if this happens, non-gay couples need to have their title to the government changed as well. It is about fairness and consistency.
The church doesn't have to recognize marriage. Call it something else if you like -- as long as it fills the legal roles of a typical marriage. Your argument should have 0 credibility or influence on this decision because the church, and their values, should not be weighed or factored in when it comes to making governmental decisions. No Christians are being forced to do anything, they're just trying to force others from having something.
I think you are completely misreading Skinsguy's post. I dont think he said anything at all about churches. Hes saying remove the federal govt. from marriage all together. That a marriage, gay, straight, poly or anything else shouldnt be recognized by our government. Because why should it?
And i almost completely agree with him and i think skinsguy put it very well. But not the tax thing.
Everyone thinks theres some big benefit to getting married tax wise. There really isnt. There used to be back in the day (pre-70's) when the tax scale for 1 person was twice as steep as it was for 2 married people. But they changed that and made the tax scale much steeper for married people.
The last time i checked tax revenues are nearly identical when you compare actual numbers to the estimates of what total revenues would be if everyone had to file as single. This means a couple things:
-If you are low income or high income there is a almost always a Marriage Penalty
-Lower Middle and Middle income (i think 50-80k joint) there are usually some minor benefits. But not always (watch out if your incomes are very similar)
-Usually the differences change from year to year
Also filing jointly usually:
-Means youre probably paying more if you make over 100k jointly, unless just one person is the income earner. Most people now a days especially the 100-500k range people are dual earners and are penalized.
-Usually always hurt the poor. The IRS LOVES single moms. There are so many benefits poor people forgo by getting hitched. I think its never better (tax wise) to get married if youre poor. It may be worse, sometimes a lot worse (earned income credit), but never better. Very sad.
Honestly the more i think about, the supposed "marriage benefit" is a pretty inconsequential thing for most of those who actually get the benefit. However it can really really f-over poor people.
But it may not matter because the big Marriage Penalty is set to come back this year. GW Bush was the President that ended the original Marriage Penalty, but he didnt really replace it with a "marriage benefit". It was a revenue neutral thing, and its set to go away.
Also skinsguy, getting rid of marriage law doesnt mean getting rid of alimony, ex-wives, divorce court or any of that stuff. When someone gets married they are entering a contract. The marriage license is just a contract. We will still need contracts (which the "life-partner" crowd already uses) to bring 2 (or multiple) people together legally. If they separate it will be a breach of contract and shared achievements will need to be accounted for and divided.
OKay all that said there is one BIG benefit to being married tax wise. You can give your assets to your spouse tax free. This primarily effects estate taxes, which as we all know only affect those disgusting rich people. Maybe a provision of the contract people would enter into would allow for this?