(no subject)

[oakenguy]

The statewide hubbub about gay marriages has made me stop and think: why, exactly, DO married couples get legal and economic benefits that single people don't?

Yes, this is my greed talking.

Comments

[stanharding.livejournal.com]

That's been my stance, actually - why does the government have any interest in marriage? If it's about parenting, well, then make it about parenting and not marriage.

[amare.livejournal.com]

Yeah I have no idea. I mean, I'm certainly not above benefitting from it, but I don't really think it's fair.

[my-tallest.livejournal.com]

I think, in a lot of ways, the government's civil marriage thing is just there to provide auto-"defaults" for situations with coupling involved. Hospital visitation rights. Who gets the stuff when one of you bumps off. Who's the kids' guardians. Those kind of things. All of which can be specified with a lot of long, expensive legal documentation, which is still iffy, or can be auto-defaulted for both of you to each other and solidly respected by lawyers, if you two just have this little piece of paper registering you as together. All that living will stuff, visitation rights, guardianship, insurance, and other junk has to be independently done and be checked over by a lawyer-- that's the benefit.

When you think of it that way, there really isn't much for "real" singles to be jealous of-- since they're single, they can't have an auto default. But it's the folks called singles who aren't, except in that they can't get said piece of paper.

[antiophelia.livejournal.com]

Our conservative government seems to favour marriage (of the heterosexual type, of course) because it's a way of keeping people in their "proper places". When people get married, their lives usually become consumed by bills (cars, the house, all the expenses children bring, insurance, etc.), working, and dealing with family stuff (you spend eighteen years raising a kid, then they go to college and bug you about money, then your parents/aunts/uncles start dying, then your kids get married and have their own kids, etc.); because of all this clutter in their lives, married people ideally aren't supposed to have the time to actively do something about the government.

When you're unmarried, you have more time and opportunities to question things; and if you're a single parent, it's virtually impossible to overlook the way the government screws people over in terms of health care, education, etc. Gay marriage is a threat to conservative governments like ours because it shows that people are thinking and rebelling. It may also lead to a domino effect--unmarried people with kids will demand tax breaks, and then everyone will find a reason for their demands.

It's breath-taking, really.

I think that the government should pay people NOT to have kids. I volunteer myself, yes yes.

Well, yeah, except....

[amyura.livejournal.com]

You're assuming all married people are going to have kids, and all kids are going to be born to married couples. That's kind of a big assumption. There are also a lot of childless couples who basically live as though they're married, but for whatever reason have decided not to marry. (I'm married, and we have no children; hence we live like an unmarried couple in a lot of ways.)

Also.....single people have bills, too! In fact, some of those bills can be even more of a burden if you live alone, because you've only got one income to pay mortgage, electric, phone, etc. That would keep people's minds off rebelling against "our conservative government" a lot more than if you had someone to help you out financially.

And anyone with children can claim the kid as a tax deduction. That's not reserved for married couples. In fact, until Bush's tax cut a few years ago, married couples actually had to pay more in certain taxes than two singles living together.

I don't think the government is afraid of gay marriage. I think they're afraid of being voted out of office. That's what this "civil unions" bullshit is all about. Religious conservatives are the ones who are afraid of gay marriage, because it's an obvious, tangible sign that they don't exert the influence they like to think they do, more on society than on the government. And the politicians are afraid of losing the votes of those people, particularly in areas where they are heavily concentrated and could lose said politicians important electoral votes.

But really, if we're talking marriage, then on a secular level, which is the only one the government has any business in, all couples should be allowed to get married, except for family members.....because marriage deals with the legality of child custody, inheritance, visitation, and assets. These are issues that concern gay and straight couples. The religious aspect of marriage (which I feel is important to my own marriage, but couldn't care less about others) should be left entirely to religious institutions....somewhat like the way things are done in France, where all couples have both a religious and civil ceremony. If a conservative religious institution doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they don't have to. But they should have NO say in what the state does.

[empheliath.livejournal.com]

You know, I don't really know. On the one hand, some of them probably come from the notion of, "You're devoting your life to this person and trust them, and therefore they should have legal rights like hospital visitation and whatnot." That doesn't explain the economic part, though. I just recently learned that if you're married, you pay less taxes. What's up with that?
I'm really torn about the marriage thing. (Not the gay marriage thing, just marriage in general, as it pertains to myself.) On the one hand, you get all these bennies, and it's a romantic notion. But on the other hand, a wedding is expensive and I question what the point really is. You don't need to be married to be committed.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

I've been pointing that out one person at a time as the issue comes up.

Becusae on that wonderful blessed day where everyone descended on St. Ladislaus of the Vaugely Verdant Hillock with the bishop performing the ceremony and the choir singing and the twelve-piece orchestra playing and the shower of rice and bird seed afterward the happy couple got two things. One was out in front of everyone, the other was taken care of in the vestry where they signed their names onto a little piece of paper with a state seal on it. I call that a "widget" now because it doesn't have a better name yet.

The former was happy and wonderful and loving and spiritual and made your two-ness a part of the community in a special way. The widget is where the rubber hits the road. (Both are important.)

Property rights, tax benefits, visitation rights, survivorship benefits, implicit power of attorney in some cases, insurance benefits, heck, even qualifying for the "family plan" cell phone contract or the "family price" meal at the Bucket-O-Pasta(tm). There are zillions of benefits (and responsibilities, for that matter) that are given to people with widgets. And these are (generally) freely transferrable to all 50 states, territories and posessions and generally transferrable around the world.

Some of these can be simulated in some areas by some kinds of agreements which are sometimes transferrable. More often, many important ones can't be.

Single people pay full price for everything. It sucks.

[daemionfox.livejournal.com]

One thing is that a married couple gets to apply as a single taxable entity, they cease being 2 people, 1+ incomes with dependants and become one family with 1+ incomes. It brings in less tax income over all than 2 people filing seperately. Since things like houses and kids and dogs and all the rest start to enter the equation as a drain on communal resources.

Also, the whole gay marriage thing deeply offends the conserative's bed-partners. The right (as in political stance) thinking catholics that make up much of the current government.

I agree with whoever said we should give a break for non-breeding. But instead of the break, why not just let parents shoulder the entire tax burden for their kids.

I have no kids, I don't really feel like I should be paying for the upkeep of public schools and playgrounds. Much less buses, football teams and the rest. I'd much rather have the fire station kept up, and the roads fixed instead.

my .02

[amyura.livejournal.com]

Catholics don't make up much of the current government. We've only had one Catholic president. While there are many Catholics in the government, they're a mix of religious conservatives and secular, non-practicing Catholics. A lot of the religious conservatives are born-again conservative/evangelica/Protestant. And Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

Re:

[aberdeen.livejournal.com]

I have no kids, I don't really feel like I should be paying for the upkeep of public schools and playgrounds. Much less buses, football teams and the rest. I'd much rather have the fire station kept up, and the roads fixed instead.

In 1 - 12 years, when the kids currently at school are out in the world, don't you want them to have the skills and information to get jobs and make good voting decisions? These things are going to affect your life. Public education isn't for the benefit of the parents of the kids in school, it's for the benefit of the society into which those kids will enter.

(This is not to say we shouldn't be doing a much better job at it than we are. But we should also be looking at how dismal a job of parenting is being done, and how we can address that, as well. But that's another rant on another topic.)

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

One thing is that a married couple gets to apply as a single taxable entity, they cease being 2 people, 1+ incomes with dependants and become one family with 1+ incomes. It brings in less tax income over all than 2 people filing seperately. Since things like houses and kids and dogs and all the rest start to enter the equation as a drain on communal resources.

I would disagree. Insanely, I do my taxes each year as both married filing jointly and as two singles just to see the difference. I'd pay far less in taxes if I could be two singles. There is no tax advantage to being married. The marriage penalty has been reduced but not eliminated by Bush.

[(Anonymous)]

Funny, my life has not become consumed with house payments and kid-raising in the five years I've been married -- maybe because I still live in an apartment in the city, have not bred, and live pretty much the same life as I did before. That's not changing anytime soon, if ever, either. Contrary to popular belief, getting a justice of the peace to sign a piece of paper for you doesn't make you or your partner a different person, unless you want it to.

It's a misconception that all married people pay lower taxes. It's a misconception on the other side that there's a "marriage penalty" written into our tax code. It depends on the discrepancy (if any) between each spouse's income, and how much the two make together. There may be a benefit, a penalty, or no change. Quite franky, I think there are many more things about our tax system that are more screwed up and need to be addresssed first!

I'm with those who've said the perks of marriage are mainly legal/convenience: hospital visitation with no hassle because you're "family" and not just the boy/girlfriend, etc. You know what else I'm looking forward to same-sex couples having? The added respect your relationship gets from normals (such as most people's families, I'm guessing) when you are married vs. dating/living together. My relationship didn't change when I got that piece of paper, but boy, did people suddenly understand how serious my husband and I were about each other and our relationship. That's not why I got married but I'll admit it was nice to get taken seriously for once.

Anywy, yay Massachusetts, no matter what you think of marriage.

Re:

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

My first reaction to seeing an Anonymous comment was fear that the movie spam was back.

I'm glad that it's not...but who are you?

[callunav.livejournal.com]

The marriage thing does, I admit, remind me a bit of how I felt during the gays-in-the-military thing....On the one hand, I'm against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On another hand, I'm against the military. So....

And here, of course, I'm in favor of recognition of same-sex relationships as being potentially as committed and valid as opposite-sex relationships. On the other hand, the legal institution of marriage is...peculiar, to say the least.

I'm whole-heartedly in favor of same-sex marriage laws for two reasons. No, three. A: the obvious one, it sets a precedent for other states. B: If it's a marriage (not a civil union or a domestic partnership) would have to be recognized in other states, which should produce an enjoyable whoopla. And C: it makes it that much simpler for same-sex couple to adopt, foster, or to be legal coparents of their children. In MA, this actually has been easier than in most other states (due to laws regarding second parent adoption, which most states don't have) but still, it's a major step.

[cordelya.livejournal.com]

I dunno. Why are US military members paid to marry and breed? Why is it that my conscious choice to stay single and childless means I get paid less than my married and married-with-children peers?

[callunav.livejournal.com]

Parked behind a car in JP today which had a bumpersticker reading, in stark white-on-black,

THANK YOU FOR NOT BREEDING.

[eroika.livejournal.com]

It's to support family and raising of children which is based on a somewhat outdated belief system that does not represent our current society. We have tons of laws and rules out there that do not represent or support our current society. The idea that church and state are really separated is turning a blind eye to what is around us. It has never been separate and furthermore Christianity is the religion that has had most of it's paws in the creation of the laws and rules for our society, especially the unspoken ones.

[plastickitty.livejournal.com]

*grumble* it's not your greed talking, but pure, cold logic!

proposed single benefit #1:
being allowed to push couples holding hands into shallow ditches

this is my bitterness talking

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

In rereading this thread I realized I answered slightly off the question. Married people get legal and economic benefits because the goverments which establish those benefits want to encourage that behavior for the continued growth and health of the nation. In America, the laws are set up to encourage heterosexual couples to marry, bear many healthy children, own their own home and save for their children's education--among many other things. Other benefits accrue as a consequence of those goals. As a result we have a country that is relatively strong by those measurements or at least we are not dying out like some isolated jungle tribe.

Benefits like those have always existed to some level at any stage of civilization all the way back to when the elders needed to be sure to have enough strong young men to hunt buffalo (and enough young women to deal with the mess afterwards) for the survival of the tribe. Different cultures set their own standards, for example, the legal and cultural aspects of China's "one child" policy meet the goals that that government thinks are important.

As civilization advanced from gut survival instinct to the judgement of tribal elders to feudal lords to representative governments, we now have endless reams of detailed legal documents, based on endless precedent, listing all of the specific details. However, the rules are written (when they are written) to enforce the norms that the majority, or merely those in power, want to establish.

It wasn't all that long ago that a father couldn't hope to receive custody of his children in divorce proceedings. Single parent households were once rare (or if not rare, then rarely spoken of) as well. For the last several years, other couples and groups of people have been saying that they, too, can raise healthy members of the tribe with their arrangements and they ought to receive the same rights. Cultural norms rarely evolve without friction.