Post #107,829
6/30/03 1:54:15 AM
|
Marriage is not just religious, Box
and hasn't been for a very long time.
Here's a question... you're married. Are you ready to give up your tax breaks for being so?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #107,860
6/30/03 9:58:35 AM
|
If it's not religious
then they shouldn't base the "entry" into such a state on religious belief. If it is a form of incorporation, then they should treat it as such. They don't, however.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #107,898
6/30/03 1:43:34 PM
|
"not religious" is not the same as
"not just religious".
There are churches willing to marry same sex couples in Canada, and have been for years. Not only that, some of them are even mainstream... witness the Anglican parishes in BC that have already performed same sex marriages, over the objections of their dioceses and the mother church in England.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #108,063
7/1/03 1:34:36 PM
|
Actually, they do
Ever participated in a wedding performed by a Justice of the Peace? Absolutely no religion there, Chris, yet it is every bit as legal and as binding a wedding as would be performed by your [insert favorite religious "officer" here].
In several states (including, ironically, Tejas), common-law marriages are considered legal and binding. Not even so much as a ceremony, yet the union must be broken up by a divorce decree, the partners share the responsibilities and privileges bestowed upon married people, etc.
"Holy Matrimony" is merely a term for the Dearly Beloved Gathered Here Before Me.... Marriage is a state of being imbued by the state, not a religious title. The fact that you can be married by a religious 'officer" is mererly a convenience borne (again) from Common Law.
jb4
"We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's."
Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
|
Post #108,805
7/9/03 8:58:09 AM
|
If JotP ceremonies were TRULY "not religious"
then there would be nothing stopping a gay couple from being married by one.
My point is that even in the "not religious" ceremonies there is still a firmly rooted understanding that what is being performed is the judeo-christian marriage rite, only with the name of God taken out.
And it's stupid. There is no reason that a gay couple shouldn't be able to enter into a legally recognized, tax-deductable union recognized by the state, with all legal protections thereof, and there's also no reason a church should feel that their specific understanding of what marriage is must be dictated by the state.
Therefore, the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Don't call it marriage, call it something else entirely, and make it a contract willingly entered between two people that gives you the tax bracket. And just leave it at that.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #108,809
7/9/03 9:19:06 AM
|
Just don't call it a "civil union"
On the radio this morning, I heard various groups who were speaking out against proposed changes in government employee insurance coverage which would recognize civil unions. Two religious "leaders" pointed out how they could attest to the "spiritual, emotional and frequently physical harm" that often comes out of non-married cohabitation. They used this as "proof" that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
If you think this sounds like circular reasoning, you are correct. It was actually more blatant in the original than what I recalled here.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #109,324
7/11/03 5:27:55 PM
|
Except...
If JotP ceremonies were TRULY "not religious" then there would be nothing stopping a gay couple from being married by one. Nothing except, of course, state laws proscribing them.... jb4
"We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's."
Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
|
Post #108,919
7/9/03 5:19:29 PM
|
Hell, I can marry youse
.. in my capacity as a Reverend in the Universal Life Church (done it 3x now). Haven't been asked to do a same-sex intertwining though.
Ashton
Life is..
TragiComedy
|
Post #109,325
7/11/03 5:29:03 PM
|
Sorry, Ash...you're not my type....
jb4
"We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's."
Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
|
Post #109,329
7/11/03 6:06:45 PM
|
Give 'em a freebie and__someone'll rush through the crack
|
Post #107,871
6/30/03 11:13:17 AM
|
Tax Breaks
They cut out the Marriage tax breaks a bit over the past few years or so in the US. I know some couples that are not married because they can file seperate returns and get back more money than filing a joint married return.
But people can get married in a court house, on a ship, by an Elvis impersinator, etc. No religious cerimony involved. My wife and I got married by the Catholic church, which meant we had to pass all of their tests and take a class on Marriage, etc.
"I wonder how much of this BS Corporations will continue to shallow before they start looking into alternatives to Microsoft software?" -[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=106839|Orion]
|
Post #107,935
6/30/03 6:11:38 PM
|
what tax break? We have a marriage PENALTY
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
As the Poets have mournfully sung.
Death takes the innocent young,
The rolling in money,
the screamingly funny,
And those who are very well hung.
W.H. Auden
|
Post #107,939
6/30/03 7:49:36 PM
|
Well, I can't say much about that
except to say that I already knew your gov was insane.
It doesn't work like that up here, believe me. The kinds of things you can work with your taxes when you're married can save all kinds of dough on your tax bill.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #107,954
6/30/03 10:09:28 PM
|
Not insane
just controlled by many Big Businesses like Oil and Tobacco companies, etc. Recent laws are being made in favor of the corps and not the people. The people get shafted when Big Business takes control of the government by buy^h^h^hrenting politicians to pass laws in their favor.
Nothing that a little reform can't fix, maybe voting some of them out of office?
Long ago they made a marriage pentaly in the tax code so that married couples got less back on their income taxes. You can't really benefit from the tax code unless you have a lot of money and can put it into tax shelters or higher high priced lawyers and accountants to find ways to get tax shelters or hide money from the IRS. The averaged married couple gets hit hard with US tax codes.
"I wonder how much of this BS Corporations will continue to shallow before they start looking into alternatives to Microsoft software?" -[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=106839|Orion]
|
Post #108,008
7/1/03 10:11:47 AM
|
orion laments the "marriage penalty"
But do we singletons not also subsidize, via tax exemptions granted you for success in propagating the species (whew! The race won't die out after all!), your miserable little brats adorable children? How's this: We truly level the playing field between married parents and childless singles by dropping the "penalty" and the standard deductions for children? No? Didn't think so.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #108,048
7/1/03 12:32:31 PM
|
no need to be married to have kids
dropping the childrens exemption is fine as long as I get to drop paying social security and medicaid for the old folks, let them get a job and buy health insurance like I have to.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
As the Poets have mournfully sung.
Death takes the innocent young,
The rolling in money,
the screamingly funny,
And those who are very well hung.
W.H. Auden
|
Post #108,052
7/1/03 12:45:20 PM
|
Re: orion laments the "marriage penalty"
The problem with that is that single people can have children too, many Welfare Moms not only can claim their children on their single tax return, they also get paid per child so they are paid to have more. It also is unfair to Married Childless couples to have a marriage pentalty and not have any children to get deductions on.
Besides it costs a lot of money to take care of a child. Food, clothes (they grow fast and always need new clothes), school/daycare, medicine/doctor bills, etc. The amount you get back in deductions is nowhere near the price you pay per year to take care of a child. Not that it should be, just that they don't really give us that much in deductions. I get more in deductions from my doctor bills and medicine bills that insurance doesn't pay per the itemized deductions than I get for my child.
Drop the marriage pentalty and deduction for children, and how exactly does that benefit the single person without kids? The amount the marriage pentalty took out of deductions may be more than what a deduction for a child costs. So married people might actually get more taxes back if they don't have too many kids.
Raising a child is not easy, it takes a lot of hard work and responsibility. Someone has to procreate the future citizens of this country that will eventually take over, unless you want our country to be completely outsourced to other nations?
"I wonder how much of this BS Corporations will continue to shallow before they start looking into alternatives to Microsoft software?" -[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=106839|Orion]
|
Post #108,066
7/1/03 1:49:07 PM
|
Re: orion laments the "marriage penalty"
Besides it costs a lot of money to take care of a child --Should have thought of that first, old son. But why, pray, should I subsidize any part of that outlay? No biggie--I don't really begrudge you the fraction of a mill per annum representing my contribution to the upkeep of your verminous winsome tykes, but must I be compelled as well to listen to you parents whine and moan about the so-called marriage penalty? Someone has to procreate the future citizens of this country that will eventually take over, unless you want our country to be completely outsourced to other nations And why not? It's not as though the present management and staff are doing a stellar job. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #108,265
7/2/03 9:03:37 PM
|
Other considerations
My mother-in-law was married to this one guy for a decade or so. Then divorced, then they moved back together, split up again, ...
Anyway, despite the paperwork, they were a couple. Their emotions and finances and possessions and relationships were all tangled up on a big knot. My kids called him Grandpa. They were closer to each other (even when they were living apart) than either was to anybody else.
So one day the guy croaks semi-unexpectedly. And before he's cold - I mean that in the most literal sense - his relatives who haven't talked to him in years are pushing her out of the funeral arangements and carting off "his" stuff, a substantial part of which she's still making payments on.
She's a tough old bird and mostly came out OK. But she had no rights at all, because of that divorce paper. She had to rely on her rather ummm robust personality.
That conflict could very well have ended up involving civil authorities.
I've heard from others that one partner has been kept from the hospital bed of another, either by relatives or by hospital rules.
What marriage means is official recognition that two people are bound together by emotions, relationships, and posessions, and that they have a relationship that outranks all other relationships. Not just in sentimental terms, but in terms of property and mutual decision-making.
If one of a couple is incapacitated, without marriage the other person has no legal right to express the incapacitated one's wishes. Any relative at all, regardless of how well that relative knew the incapacitated, has the absolute right to overrule the partner's decisions. And that partner almost certainly knows what the incapacitated one would decide better than anyone else.
So if you are gay, whether your organs get donated, when the plug gets pulled, and all the other stuff, gets decided by someone other than the one who knows you best. Someone who gets to inherit your stuff and probably half of your partner's stuff as well. And if the relative is in a pissy mood, your partner won't be by your side at the end.
I'd like to see legal recognition of life-partnerships in general. There are quite a few people who live together as partners without, presumably, any sexual dimension. You don't think every pair of elderly sisters living together are incestuous lesbians, do you? Their partnership deserves protection. Granted, if they are actual sisters their is some next-of-kin recognition, but they often aren't. I know several of those pairs who used to be nuns - their sisterhood is quite real, but not next-of-kin.
Marriage is a really odd kind of corporation. The only one where sex is a legal part of the deal. The only one where the corporation owns ALL of your assets and has an enforceable claim on all future assets.
----
Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug...
|
Post #108,448
7/4/03 6:35:16 PM
|
Bravo, Mike!
Maybe even a Neocon could sorta 'get that' - though religiously required to dismiss it immediately upon grokking. (This Truth shall self-destruct via the miasma of opprobrium).
And especially in the United Corporate Theocracy of Murica '03! does every one of your crystal-clear Points stand pretty much unassailable.
Hey.. if'n ya ever decide to run for any office - -
(no, not the kind with faxes n'cubicles)
Ashton
|
Post #108,773
7/8/03 11:41:46 PM
|
wich is why the gov needs to get out of the marriage bidness
anyone who lived together with comingling funds simply have to have a general powerful enduring power of attourney registered with the probate court of appropriate jurisdiction to cover incapacitation of either party as well as a will registered at the same place. Cost $100 bucks in most places, actual cost priceless. The flea biters can then get fucked.
thanx,
bill
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
