in response to Stephen's comment
I think being gay is wrong and immoral. To me it is sexual deviation.
That said, I don't agree with the federal amendment. Though I believe states can do what they want. So if a vote was put before my at the state level, I would vote against same sex marriage.
Secondly, I really feel that the state government should stay out of "marriage" per say. If they did away with marriages and created civil unions it would just be a tax benefit (which i would immedatly take advantage of with my best friend). To me marriage is a religion issue.
The federal government could make every one equal and just do away with joint tax filings and make everyone file separately, because it is not fair to treat married people any different from single people right?
cube
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The federal government could make every one equal and just do away with joint tax filings and make everyone file separately, because it is not fair to treat married people any different from single people right?Sure it's fair. Marital (or Civil Union) tax benefits help couples form a legal partnership, and accounts for their likely sharing of expenses and income.
The fact is that two romantically involved individuals can do things like share a one bedroom apartment, or support one another while raising a family or pursuing a more aggresive career. The fluidity of a marriage, as well as the one-bedroom thing, makes the relationship ever so slightly different than an adult dependent. Specifically, it's unlikely that an adult dependent and his or her supporter will swap roles; in marriages, that can and does happen all the time. Furthermore, both may even contribute evenly to a common fund that supports their joint expenses.
There really ought to be some legal and tax term to represent this kind of relationship, given that it's so common. I suppose that it could theoretically be abstracted so that you and your platonic best friend could form a similar partnership, but it's generally understood that the romantic commitment of marriage (straight or gay) is less transient than some kind of mutual income/expenses partnership that you would form with a platonic friend. This lesser transience confers greater simplicity on the legal and tax code books, therefore leading to less confusion and less administration costs.
In short: commited romantic relationships are exceedingly common and enable a special sort of income/expense partnership. The combination of these two factors encourages their general representation in tax law.
[And one can also make social benefit/family arguments, but it's more debatable than this rather straightforward financial argument.]
So now we are making tax laws and financial decisions based on emotions? Uncontrolled and fickle emotions?
~Stewardess
Post a Comment