Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Equality for all!


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:13 PM

http://news.yahoo.co...-140330141.html

 

Supreme court strikes down DOMA - it's unconstitutional. (duh) Congratulations to those who have fought hard for equality.

 

Will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds in the individual states....



#2 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:16 PM

Good decision.

Hope they go the way of freedom on the Cali case, but some of what I'm reading of the Windsor decision suggests they may duck deciding on Prop 8.



#3 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:48 PM

And in hindsight, much as I'd like to see marriage equality nationwide right now, the decision vacating the Prop 8 decision by the 9th Circuit is probably a proper one. IMO.



#4 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:09 PM

And in hindsight, much as I'd like to see marriage equality nationwide right now, the decision vacating the Prop 8 decision by the 9th Circuit is probably a proper one. IMO.

 

 

I'll agree with that...



#5 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,185 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:29 PM

smart-chart-gay-marriage-us-960.jpg



#6 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:55 PM

Still not a lot of states will recognize, but it's a big step for those who just want to be treated the same.

 

I think my biggest beef with what's happened with this (and MJ is another perfect example) is the disagreement between state and federal law. There should NEVER be laws between the two that contradict. An issue should either be controlled by the state, or by the federal government. There shouldn't be laws in both realms. If they agree, it's redundant, and leaving itself too open for interpretation and conflict, and if they disagree (like gay marriage and MJ) then that's just idiotic and makes no sense whatsoever.



#7 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:51 PM

the very very very easy solution to all of this is for no one to get married anymore, thus nullifying the issue altogether, while doing away with an antiquated and ultimately useless social institution.

 

But everyone wants to be married (then divorced) for some reason.  Far easier to just not....and then no need o tell anyone what they can or cant do, legally....

 

idk, to me, it makes sense.  :wink:



#8 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:54 PM

IMHO, marriage should have NOTHING to do with the government.

 

There shouldn't be tax breaks, or any other type of benefit. That was created to persuade people to start and keep families. If someone wants to go through a commitment ceremony of whatever capacity, go for it. Whatever. But why in the fucking hell do I have to have my government give me the thumbs up saying I've picked an acceptable partner? What is this, junior high, and I have to ask my parents' permission who I go to the dance with? Fuck.



#9 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:04 PM

IMHO, marriage should have NOTHING to do with the government.

 

There shouldn't be tax breaks, or any other type of benefit. That was created to persuade people to start and keep families. If someone wants to go through a commitment ceremony of whatever capacity, go for it. Whatever. But why in the fucking hell do I have to have my government give me the thumbs up saying I've picked an acceptable partner? What is this, junior high, and I have to ask my parents' permission who I go to the dance with? Fuck.

 

exactly, but the whole marriage "goal" is so ingrained that people dont even realize it.  Marriage does not help two people stay together (ahem divorce), and plenty of children are raised by unmarried or single parents.  The need for marriage is a total myth or something, created, and I dont know why it persits.



#10 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,185 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:11 PM

Propaganda and laws

 

There are spiritual reasons to be married, however that has nothing to do with needing legal regulations.



#11 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:13 PM

i don't think there's much in the way of tax breaks for marriage (aside from not having to pay estate tax).  there are more breaks for having children then there are for marriage (which i always found kind of ridiculous, but that's another story). 

doesn't a newly married couple get screwed tax-wise if they start filing jointly because the combined income bumps them up to a higher tax bracket?



#12 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:13 PM

Propaganda and laws

 

There are spiritual reasons to be married, however that has nothing to do with needing legal regulations.

 

It would be easier to abandon marriage than to convice SOME religious people that gays should be allowed to get married. 

 

Put that in your pipe and make sensi of it....



#13 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:20 PM

It would be easier to abandon marriage than to convice SOME religious people that gays should be allowed to get married. 

 

 

Agreed, but as you said before, marriage is soaked into our brains as a culture from the get-go. I still think the fairest option is to separate marriage from the government (what's this? separation of church and state??? gasp.)

 

The problem with that is quite simple, and not isolated to just this topic - if there is even one person who benefits from a law, to do away with it someone would get sued. "my rights have been taken! this isn't fair!!!" (like trying to take away unemployment, or some other monetary benefit from someone after they've gotten used to having it....)

 

And yeah, the kid deduction chaps my ass too.



#14 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:22 PM

Agreed, but as you said before, marriage is soaked into our brains as a culture from the get-go. I still think the fairest option is to separate marriage from the government (what's this? separation of church and state??? gasp.)

 

The problem with that is quite simple, and not isolated to just this topic - if there is even one person who benefits from a law, to do away with it someone would get sued. "my rights have been taken! this isn't fair!!!" (like trying to take away unemployment, or some other monetary benefit from someone after they've gotten used to having it....)

 

And yeah, the kid deduction chaps my ass too.

ill be doing my part to make marriage seem as unattractive to every young person I meet for as long as I live.  Maybe we can eradicate this problem at it's base.  Its not that gays should be allowed to marry, its that no one should get married.  As an added benefit, divorce rates will plummet to ZERO!



#15 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,185 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:25 PM

i don't think there's much in the way of tax breaks for marriage (aside from not having to pay estate tax).  there are more breaks for having children then there are for marriage (which i always found kind of ridiculous, but that's another story). 

doesn't a newly married couple get screwed tax-wise if they start filing jointly because the combined income bumps them up to a higher tax bracket?

 

 

We have a tiered system of taxation in this country, rather than bracket cliffs.

 

There are also certain tax credits and benefits couples who are married filing separately do not get that those married filing jointly do get.

As for 2 single people, consult your tax advisor.



#16 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:25 PM

Marriage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with love or commitment.



#17 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,185 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:27 PM

It would be easier to abandon marriage than to convice SOME religious people that gays should be allowed to get married. 

 

Put that in your pipe and make sensi of it....

 

 

Note the use of the term spiritual.



#18 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:29 PM

Marriage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with love or commitment.

 

This is why it should be fucking tossed!



#19 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:33 PM

Note the use of the term spiritual.

 

 

 

Propaganda and laws

 

There are spiritual reasons to be married, however that has nothing to do with needing legal regulations.

 

Spiritual or not, I dont understand how "marriage" makes being together with someone any more or less deep.  Likewise, bonding through some simple or elaborate ceremony doesnt make the bond permanant in any way.



#20 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,185 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:37 PM

Actually it does.  There is an energy in declaring the commitment to friends, family, and the public, in formalizing the commitment, bringing it to this physical realm.

 

You might be surprised at how many long-term relationships ended here in VT within 1-2 years or becoming married after years not being allowed for "outside" reasons.



#21 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:42 PM

Actually it does.  There is an energy in declaring the commitment to friends, family, and the public, in formalizing the commitment, bringing it to this physical realm.

 

You might be surprised at how many long-term relationships ended here in VT within 1-2 years or becoming married after years not being allowed for "outside" reasons.

 

Yes, there is an energy, but I don't think it always has to do with the relationship itself. I've been married and divorced - I called the whole thing off a week before, because I hated his guts and I was sick of his drinking. We got married anyway, and he moved out of the house one week after our 1st anniversary.

 

Now let's talk about my wedding day - as a day, it was the best day of my life. I have never felt a more joyous feeling before, or since. Still. It was just an amazing and happy day, and it was for him as well, but that didn't mean shit for our marriage.

 

Will I get married again? Who knows. I don't rule it out, but I don't really give a shit if I never do again. I'd like that lifelong relationship though, those are nice.



#22 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,185 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:48 PM

Not the same as to that which I am referring.  Note the long-term relationship status prior to getting married.  Perhaps I should add between those who do love each other.



#23 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:03 PM

Oh, I gotcha.



#24 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,995 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:30 PM

Marriage has historically been supported for reasons other than emotional love. When ideas about the purpose of marriage shifted to love and personal fulfillment, so did the stability of it.

 

Maybe it is outdated but it (might be helpful?) with legal issues regarding property, children's rights.. this can be much messier without legally binding agreements.  I agree that keeping govt out of personal relationships is a fabulous idea, problem is relationships end and people can't work their shit out without govt intervention.  Kids/financials/properties get caught in the middle and behold, people end up in court relying on govt to untangle their messes.

 

Also, how are courts, places of employment supposed to discern who is family or spouse for medical benefits, etc? Will cohabitation be part of the criteria (Tim and I currently don't live together).. what proof will people need? Will this proof be standardized or will different companies have different criteria... a lot of issues will need sorting out...

 

Tim and I do not need a govt issued license to know we are married and we'd both prefer not to have one. Given the current system, and ambiguities that may arise without a license, I reluctantly asked Tim if he was ok with getting one. Things to consider: medical decisions, trusts, tax exemptions, wills, social security, family leave if one of us gets sick...



#25 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,749 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:47 PM

Contract law. No need to intervene. All the government should be there for is in the event a contractual dispute. Having to obtain a license means that marriage is outlawed under the law without govt. permission. There are three entities involved in your marriage; you, your partner and the state.

 

Plan on a bed big enough accordingly.



#26 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:56 PM

I personally like the idea of just having a sort of legal contract that anyone can sign, and deals with death, taxes, inheritance, etc.

 

Here's an example (and could easily be reality for some...):

 

Two older widowed friends move in together, to help take care of each other. They have no other (or very little) family that would legally represent or care for them. One gets seriously ill, or dies. Since the two women signed a legal contract stating that the other person was their _____ (caretaker? legal partner? dunno?) the survivor can take care of all of that mess. You don't have to be in a sexual relationship, you don't have to be related to the person, you just sign a paper saying you are legally responsible for someone, and they you. If something like this was set up, instead of any sort of marriage, civil union, whatever, it would take a lot of headache and argument out of the picture. Make it with time terms, too. One year, five year, voidable at any time with both parties' consent.

 

If I moved across the country with my best girlfriend, and we shared living expenses, I would sign this document with her. I'm not married, and a will would only cover death stuff re: family & parents.



#27 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,995 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:06 PM

Contract law. No need to intervene. All the government should be there for is in the event a contractual dispute. Having to obtain a license means that marriage is outlawed under the law without govt. permission. There are three entities involved in your marriage; you, your partner and the state.

 

Plan on a bed big enough accordingly.

 

Failure to recognize a marriage = out-lawed. I hadn't thought about it like that.

 

It does bother me/us  to "apply" for a license for our relationship to be seen as legit, hence the reason we weren't going to get one (fuck them)

 

I guess I just began worrying (me? worry? lol)  and caved and said if we're gonna have to go to lawyers, pay them, and go through the hassle of writing up contracts, hence go a legal route anyway, why not simplify by paying $24 and be done with it.

 

 

 

You now know, poor Tim will make his goodnight phone call and i'll be asking all kinds of questions about should we rethink this :lol:

 

i wub you (said with cute face) 



#28 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,185 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:08 PM

Hippieskichick, I see people do such on the regular.  However, note you can leave an unlimited estate to your spouse with zero estate tax.  The same rules do not apply for non spouse beneficiaries.



#29 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:11 PM

Hippieskichick, I see people do such on the regular.  However, note you can leave an unlimited estate to your spouse with zero estate tax.  The same rules do not apply for non spouse beneficiaries.

 

 

That's why I like the idea of a legal contract to whomever you choose. And IMHO, there shouldn't be a tax break for someone just because they are married. I'm a big supporter of across the board equal taxes - period. No waivers, no writeoffs, no bullshit. K.I.S.S. taxes.



#30 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,749 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:19 PM

Failure to recognize a marriage = out-lawed. I hadn't thought about it like that.

 

It does bother me/us  to "apply" for a license for our relationship to be seen as legit, hence the reason we weren't going to get one (fuck them)

 

I guess I just began worrying (me? worry? lol)  and caved and said if we're gonna have to go to lawyers, pay them, and go through the hassle of writing up contracts, hence go a legal route anyway, why not simplify by paying $24 and be done with it.

 

 

 

You now know, poor Tim will make his goodnight phone call and i'll be asking all kinds of questions about should we rethink this :lol:

 

i wub you (said with cute face) 

 

 

it makes perfect sense to go the govt program route. They've made it a disaster not to under the tax and estates codes. Do any of you know when the government began licensing marriages in the US and for what purpose?



#31 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:21 PM

Failure to recognize a marriage = out-lawed. I hadn't thought about it like that.

 

It does bother me/us  to "apply" for a license for our relationship to be seen as legit, hence the reason we weren't going to get one (fuck them)

 

I guess I just began worrying (me? worry? lol)  and caved and said if we're gonna have to go to lawyers, pay them, and go through the hassle of writing up contracts, hence go a legal route anyway, why not simplify by paying $24 and be done with it.

 

 

 

You now know, poor Tim will make his goodnight phone call and i'll be asking all kinds of questions about should we rethink this :lol:

 

i wub you (said with cute face) 

 

:lol:

<3



#32 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,185 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:22 PM

To promote racism?



#33 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:07 PM

Actually it does.  There is an energy in declaring the commitment to friends, family, and the public, in formalizing the commitment, bringing it to this physical realm.

 

You might be surprised at how many long-term relationships ended here in VT within 1-2 years or becoming married after years not being allowed for "outside" reasons.

 

Talk is cheap, actions are what count in a relationship.  Do not make promises that are impossible to keep.



#34 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,995 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:21 PM

Talk is cheap, actions are what count in a relationship.  Do not make promises that are impossible to keep.

 

impossible? no.

 

improbable given our state of consciousness? prolly.



#35 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,995 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:21 PM

:lol:

<3

 

wubba :)



#36 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,995 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:23 PM

it makes perfect sense to go the govt program route. They've made it a disaster not to under the tax and estates codes. Do any of you know when the government began licensing marriages in the US and for what purpose?

 

we're not here to do your research for you, baller

 

not sure how accurate http://en.wikipedia....arriage_license

 

yikes. makes it even harder to get behind this if its accurate: "the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism."



#37 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:28 PM

Talk is cheap, actions are what count in a relationship.  Do not make promises that are impossible to keep.


I don't think they're impossible to keep today. And today is all we have to deal with.



#38 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:03 AM

impossible? no.

 

improbable given our state of consciousness? prolly.

Death is coming for you, or your spouse, eventually, thus seperating you inevitably.  So, why even pledge anything more than today?  If you make it to tomorrow, keep on going.  One day, you wont keep going.



#39 Jim

Jim

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 3,825 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:58 AM

Equality.jpg?itok=vBARp94f



#40 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:25 AM

Death is coming for you, or your spouse, eventually, thus seperating you inevitably.  So, why even pledge anything more than today?  If you make it to tomorrow, keep on going.  One day, you wont keep going.

 

 

I was with you, until this point. It's a conscioius choice, and a conscious pledge to that other person. Death typically isn't a conscious decision, thus null and voiding your point.



#41 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:45 AM

Death is coming for you, or your spouse, eventually, thus seperating you inevitably.  So, why even pledge anything more than today?  If you make it to tomorrow, keep on going.  One day, you wont keep going.

 

Or perhaps, in the be all and end all, death will actually make us all less separate. :moose:



#42 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:56 AM

I will love you and honor you all the days of my life. ... better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherishtill death us do part."

 

 

Now with yes homo!!   :thumbsup:



#43 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,795 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:25 PM

http://www.hrc.org/r...married-couples

 

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.

The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status.

  Social Security

Social Security provides the sole means of support for some elderly Americans.  All working Americans contribute to this program through payroll tax, and receive payments upon retirement.  Surviving spouses of working Americans are eligible to receive Social Security payments.  A surviving spouse caring for a deceased employee’s minor child is also eligible for an additional support payment.  Surviving spouse and surviving parent benefits are denied to gay and lesbian Americans because they cannot marry.  Thus, a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive drastically unequal benefits, as set forth below.

Family Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits

  • Family #1: Married husband and wife, both are biological parents of the child
    • Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
    • Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
  • Family #2: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was the biological parent or adoptive of the child
  • Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
  • Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
  • Not Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
  • Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
  • Family #3: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor able to adopt child through second-parent adoption

 

Tax

According to the GAO report, as of 1997 there were 179 tax provisions that took marital status into account.   The following is a limited sample of such tax provisions.

Tax on Employer-Provided Health Benefits to Domestic Partners

In growing numbers, both public and private employers across the country have made the business decision to provide domestic partner benefits in order to promoted fairness and equality in the workplace.   For example, as of August 2003, 198 (almost forty percent) of the Fortune 500 companies and 173 state and local governments nationwide provide health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.  Federal tax law has not kept up with corporate and governmental who take advantage of it are taxed inequitably.

As policymakers have put an increasing emphasis on delivering health coverage through the tax code and as the cost of healthcare has once again begun to skyrocket, the current inequities in the tax code have placed a burden on the employers who provide healthcare coverage to domestic partners and on the employees who depend upon these benefits to provide security for their families.

    1. Burden on Employees
Employers who provide health benefits to their employees typically pay a portion of the premium – if not the entire premium.   Currently, the Code provides that the employer’s contribution of the premium for health insurance for an employee’s spouse is excluded from the employee’s taxable income.  An employer’s contribution for the domestic partner’s coverage, however, is included in the employee’s taxable income as a fringe benefit.

    2. Burden on Employers
An employer’s payroll tax liability is calculated based on their employees’ taxable incomes.   When contributions for domestic partner benefits are included in employees’ incomes, employers pay higher payroll taxes.  This provision also places an administrative burden on employers by requiring them to identify those employees utilizing their benefits for a partner rather than a spouse.  Employers must then calculate the portion of their contribution that is attributable to the partner, and create and maintain a separate payroll function for these employees’ income tax withholding and payroll tax.  Thus, the employers are penalized for making a sound business decision that contributes to stability in the workforce.

Inequitable Treatment of Children Raised in LGBT Households
Recent data shows that at least 1 million children are being raised by same-sex couples in the United States.  The Code contains competing definitions of “child.”  Certain provisions of the Code defining child penalize for the marital status of their parents and caregivers.

    1. Earned Income Tax Credit
Eligibility for the earned income tax credit (EITC) is based in part upon the number of “qualifying” children in the taxpayer’s household.   See 26 USC § 32.   The definition of qualifying child under this provision includes only a child who is the taxpayer’s (a) biological child or descendent; ( B) stepchild of the taxpayer; or © adopted child.  Certain children of lesbian and gay couples are disadvantaged by this provision.  For exampled, a taxpayer and their partner domestic are jointly raising the partner’s biological child.  The taxpayer works full-time and the child’s legal parent stays home to care for the child.  The state in which the taxpayer resides does not permit them to adopt through second-parent adoption or to marry the partner and become the child’s step-parent.  This working family is therefore ineligible for an adjustment of the EITC, and therefore has decreased the resources to devote to the child’s care.

    2. Head of Household Status
Heads of household, as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 2, are eligible for an increased standard deduction that, among other things, provides taxpayers with increased funds to care for their dependents.   The “limitations” section of this provision explicitly denies the benefit of head-of-household status to taxpayers supporting non-biological, non-adopted children.  Thus, a gay or lesbian taxpayer who supports his or her partner’s child (and who is ineligible to adopt the child) has fewer post-tax dollars with which to support the child.

    3. Child Tax Credit
Taxpayers meeting income eligibility requirements are entitled to a credit against tax for qualifying children in their households.   This provision limits the child tax credit to children who meet the relationship test set fourth in the earned income tax provisions, § 32©(3)( B).  As set forth above, § 32 does not include children of a taxpayer’s domestic partner if the children are not related to the taxpayer biologically or through adoption.

All three of these inequities have the effect of penalizing families who choose to have one parent in the work force and the other caring for the children full-time.   In addition, they disadvantage such couples and their children by limiting the choice of which parent will be a full-time caregiver.  Although similarly situated married couples may choose which parent will fulfill that role without consequence, lesbian and gay couples, as well as other unmarried couples, face negative tax consequences for the same decision.

Tax on Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer’s Principal Residence

Under Internal Revenue Code §121, a single taxpayer may exclude up to $250,000 of profit due to the sale of his or her personal principal residence from taxable income.   Married couples filing jointly may exclude up to $500,000 on the sale of their home.  Lesbian and gay couples, who are not permitted to marry or to file jointly, are therefore taxed on all gain above $250,000, creating a large tax penalty compared to similarly situated married couples.

Estate Tax
Internal Revenue Code § 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent’s taxable estate.   For same-sex couples who are legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an inequity in taxation.

Taxation of Retirement Savings
Under current law, when a retirement plan participant dies, plan benefits must be distributed in a lump sum or remain in the plan to be distributed in accordance with the minimum distribution requirements of § 401(a)(9).   This problem does not exist if the beneficiary is the deceased participant’s surviving spouse, because the surviving spouse may transfer plan benefits to an IRA or a retirement plan in which he or she is a participant.  This entitlement is valuable because (a) it allows the surviving spouse to defer taxation of the proceeds, often until the survivor is in a lower tax bracket; and ( B) it protects the surviving spouse from being forced to withdraw from an investment program when its value is depressed.  Because gay and lesbian couples are treated as strangers under federal tax and pension law, they cannot transfer plan benefits without incurring significant penalties, and do not have the flexibility to withdraw funds when they choose.  The example below demonstrates this inequity:

Michelle and Sarah have been in a committed relationship for over 10 years.   They have registered as domestic partners under the laws of the District of Columbia.  Throughout their relationship, they have taken every legal step available to formalize their relationship and protect themselves, legally and financially as domestic partners.  Michelle participated in her employer’s 401(k) retirement plans, naming Sarah as the primary beneficiary.  Sarah purchased an individual retirement account (IRA).  While driving to her job, Michelle is killed in a car accident.  Sarah does not have the option to transfer Michelle’s 401(k) funds into her existing IRA because, under current law, only a “spouse” may roll over 401(k) and inherited IRA plans upon the death of a plan participant.  Sarah must then take the entire proceeds of the inherited 401(k) in a lump sum and pay taxes on them immediately at a much higher rate, rather than rolling it over into her own name tax free as a surviving spouse can do. 

  Family and Medical Leave

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees family and medical leave to employees to care for parents, children or spouses.   As currently interpreted, this law does not provide leave to care for a domestic partner or the domestic partner’s family member.  Family and medical leave should be a benefit for all American workers.

  Immigration Law

Currently, U.S. immigration law does not allow lesbian and gay citizens or permanent residents to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.  Approximately 75% of the one million green cards or immigrant visas issued each year are granted to family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.  However, those excluded from the definition, under current immigration law of family, are not eligible to immigrate as family.  Such ineligible person include (but are not limited to) same-sex partners and unmarried heterosexual couples.

Each year, current law forces thousands of lesbian and gay couples to separate or live in constant fear of deportation.   In some cases, partners of lesbian and gays face prosecution by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), hefty fines and deportation and U.S. citizens are sometimes left with no other choice but to migrate with their partner to a nation whose immigration laws recognize their relationship.  This creates a tremendous hardship, not only for those involved, but for their friends and family, and leads to a drain of talent and productivity for our country.

Fifteen countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognize lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of immigration.

  Employee Benefits for Federal Workers

According to the GAO Report, marital status affects over 270 provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges.   Most significantly, under current law, domestic partners of federal employees are excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).  Although married couples are eligible for reimbursement for expenses incurred by a domestic partner are not reimbursable.   As of August 2003, nine states and the District of Columbia and 322 local governments offer health benefits to the domestic partners of their public employees, while the nation’s largest employer – the federal government – does not.

  Continued Health Coverage (COBRA)

Federal law requires employers to give their former employees the opportunity to continue their employer-provided health insurance coverage by paying a premium (the requirement was part of the consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; hence the common name COBRA).  An increasing number of employers, including 198 of the Fortune 500, now offer their employees domestic partner benefits.  Although this trend is encouraging, the Federal COBRA law does not require employers to provide domestic partners the continued coverage guaranteed to married couples.  Under 29 U.S.C. § 1167, an employer is only required to offer continuation coverage to the employee and to “qualified beneficiaries,” defined as the employee’s spouse and dependent children, regardless of whether the employee’s original benefits plan covered other beneficiaries.  Because of the narrow definition of “spouse” under federal law, employees are not guaranteed continued coverage for their domestic partners. [2]

 

[1] Defense of Marriage Act: An Update to Prior Report, General Accounting Office, 2004

[2] Nothing in this law prevents an employer from extending COBRA benefits to domestic partners.



#44 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,795 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:26 PM

PS:  I didn't add the smileys.



#45 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:49 PM

I will love you and honor you all the days of my life. ... better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherishtill death us do part."

 

 

Now with yes homo!!   :thumbsup:

 

It is a bad move (IMHO) to make a promise that stretches THAT far out into the unknown.  It is presumptuous, ego-driven, and unrealistic.  Just one persons thoughts on that kind of stuff.



#46 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:53 PM

It is a bad move (IMHO) to make a promise that stretches THAT far out into the unknown.  It is presumptuous, ego-driven, and unrealistic.  Just one persons thoughts on that kind of stuff.


Is it not just as presumptuous and ego-driven to question other people's life decisions as long as they're not harming anyone?



#47 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,831 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:57 PM

It is a bad move (IMHO) to make a promise that stretches THAT far out into the unknown.  It is presumptuous, ego-driven, and unrealistic.  Just one persons thoughts on that kind of stuff.

 

 

It's called having a positive outlook on things. It's called being hopeful.

 

 

"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst"

 

 

Crabass. :moon:



#48 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:59 PM

No, because when SO many people really really nwant to get married and others want to prevent them from doing it legally, it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about, and makes me question the entire thing.  All answers seem to point toward NOT ever getting married in the first place.  Again, this only holds true for ME, but I will always wonder why most people feel the need to hold on to somethnig so much they would promise "the rest of my life" however long (or short) that might be....to me, it's yet another thing we use to try and find security in an ever-changing world.  Nothing is secure, no promise is unbreakable, and nothing lasts forever in the material plane.

 

I think too much



#49 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:01 PM

It's called having a positive outlook on things. It's called being hopeful.

 

 

"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst"

 

 

Crabass. :moon:

 

"Lets love each other today.  If we make it till tomorrow, lets keep loving."

 

cut thru the frills, and this is how I feel things should be looked at.  Cant get any more simpler, or romantic, in my opinion :smile:



#50 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,322 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:04 PM

No, because when SO many people really really nwant to get married and others want to prevent them from doing it legally, it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about, and makes me question the entire thing.  All answers seem to point toward NOT ever getting married in the first place.  Again, this only holds true for ME, but I will always wonder why most people feel the need to hold on to somethnig so much they would promise "the rest of my life" however long (or short) that might be....to me, it's yet another thing we use to try and find security in an ever-changing world.  Nothing is secure, no promise is unbreakable, and nothing lasts forever in the material plane.

 

I think too much


It is, doubtless, in part because people feel fear, and want security. But that's their decision.

All we have is this moment, right here. I have no problem with people committing to stringing their moments together, if that's what they want to do.

You do think a lot. My life is "better off" when I use the tools I've been given to shut it off for a moment. Sometimes for a string of them. :)