Gay Marriage is now legal in California.


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 631 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Mama Kelsey, I lied:

If everyone else is going to pontificate on their ridiculous beliefs, I might as well start posting mine.

For the Right of Gay Marriage...and Divorce!

Vive le Galt!

Off with their HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hee hee!

Black Goblin, you probably shouldn't post in here, either.


One thing that will have to happen is that other laws will have to catch up to gay marriage being legal.

For example (and I don't have a link to this, I'm going from memory) in New York (could be wrong on the state) there was a case of a lesbian couple who wanted a child, but wanted to give birth rather than adopt. They had a male friend who was asked to donate the required "materials" and he agreed, also knowing that he wouldn't have any parental rights in the end.

Fast forward a few year, the two women broke up, and the one with the kid takes the sperm donor to court for child support, and wins. Personally, I think that's wrong myself. The other half of the relationship can't legally be held accountable due to outdated laws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

One thing that will have to happen is that other laws will have to catch up to gay marriage being legal.

For example (and I don't have a link to this, I'm going from memory) in New York (could be wrong on the state) there was a case of a lesbian couple who wanted a child, but wanted to give birth rather than adopt. They had a male friend who was asked to donate the required "materials" and he agreed, also knowing that he wouldn't have any parental rights in the end.

Fast forward a few year, the two women broke up, and the one with the kid takes the sperm donor to court for child support, and wins. Personally, I think that's wrong myself. The other half of the relationship can't legally be held accountable due to outdated laws.

That is messed up. A sperm donor should never be responsible for the offspring.

It could just as easily have been a single woman. To blame same sex as the fault is absurd.

I don't agree that halting progress will help other laws catch up. In fact, same sex marriage will probably act as a catalyst towards gender equality in the courtroom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ion Raven wrote:
To blame same sex as the fault is absurd.

I'm not. But the fact that many laws are out of date shouldn't be ignored.

As a side note, the legal mentality of the past tells be exactly how bad a mother I had as a young child. My birth parents divorced in the mid 1970's, back when the worst mother was considered a better choice by many judges than the best father. Full custody (without any visitation rights) was awarded to my father anyways, despite the fact that he was still on an overseas military tour in a place that is still technically a war zone (Korea).

Grand Lodge

What I got from the entirety of this thread was:

..a Rabbi, a Priest, a post-op Transgender Atheist, and Drizzt Do'urden walk into a bar....

Roll for initiative.....and/or migraine.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I really just want the laws changed so that things like this never happen again.

This might get my post deleted for the anger I am about to spill, but I'm going to say it anyways.

No civil settlement is enough to make up for that crap. Everyone involved in that creating fiasco needs to see the inside of a jail cell, preferably for several years.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Sorry, I decided posting that probably wasn't useful to discussion, but didn't delete it in time.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Maccabee wrote:

What I got from the entirety of this thread was:

..a Rabbi, a Priest, a post-op Transgender Atheist, and Drizzt Do'urden walk into a bar....

Roll for initiative.....and/or migraine.

The Black Goblin failed his role and got a headache from reading parts of this thread. The Black Goblin liked your joke and now must go get another beer hahahahahahahahah


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sorry, I decided posting that probably wasn't useful to discussion, but didn't delete it in time.

It's relevant, as it shows what can happen from the combination of outdated ideas backed up by outdated laws.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ion Raven wrote:
Beckett wrote:
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.

O.o? Like what? The children!? which is unsupported except by unfounded speculation. Children are adopted by single parents, why can't they be adopted by same-sex parents?

I don't like looking at extremely overweight people with their fat hanging out, should I get legislature to enact mandatory wearing of shirts in public (including the beach0 if one is over a certain weight? If others ask why it should be passed other than personal distaste, I should claim that the body heat exerted by overweight people not wearing shirts is destroying our ozone.

I would support a weight restriction on spandex...

Grand Lodge

Kryzbyn wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:
Beckett wrote:
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.

O.o? Like what? The children!? which is unsupported except by unfounded speculation. Children are adopted by single parents, why can't they be adopted by same-sex parents?

I don't like looking at extremely overweight people with their fat hanging out, should I get legislature to enact mandatory wearing of shirts in public (including the beach0 if one is over a certain weight? If others ask why it should be passed other than personal distaste, I should claim that the body heat exerted by overweight people not wearing shirts is destroying our ozone.

I would support a weight restriction on spandex...

And now we're back to bigotry against overweight metahumans.....SERIOUSLY???

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That sword cuts both ways, battle. I'm rather disappointed in you, if you really think allowing gay marriage will lead to the absurdities my link refutes. If I've misunderstood your view, I'm sorry, but from reading this thread, I don't think I have.

I was asked for examples of non-religious arguements and motivations against same sex marriages. Period. Thats it. Like I said, the only one I actually find as an issue is the economic one.

I do however think that there is a much worse issue with people hiding behind the religion is the enemy and cause of all my pain, and the double standards.


Beckett wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That sword cuts both ways, battle. I'm rather disappointed in you, if you really think allowing gay marriage will lead to the absurdities my link refutes. If I've misunderstood your view, I'm sorry, but from reading this thread, I don't think I have.

I was asked for examples of non-religious arguements and motivations against same sex marriages. Period. Thats it. Like I said, the only one I actually find as an issue is the economic one.

I do however think that there is a much worse issue with people hiding behind the religion is the enemy and cause of all my pain, and the double standards.

Religion is most definitely not the enemy. Religion is the victim. The problem is that there are many people pulling any defense from anywhere which mostly happens to be a narrow minded interpretation of their religion to excuse their own discomfort.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
I was asked for examples of non-religious arguements and motivations against same sex marriages. Period. Thats it. Like I said, the only one I actually find as an issue is the economic one.

Then I would be interested in your answer to Finn's question about why childless couples, like my wife and I, should be afforded the economic benefits and not homosexual couples.

And no, we are not waiting on it, we plan on never having children, besides the four-legged kind.

Shadow Lodge

I agree, but that goes absolutely both ways, particularly here, where we are seeing more the otherside of it.


Maccabee wrote:

What I got from the entirety of this thread was:

..a Rabbi, a Priest, a post-op Transgender Atheist, and Drizzt Do'urden walk into a bar....

Roll for initiative.....and/or migraine.

What I got out of this was:

A dyslexic man walked into a bra ... and screamed in terror when he discovered that it was Robert Paulson who was wearing it.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Then I would be interested in your answer to Finn's question about why childless couples, like my wife and I, should be afforded the economic benefits and not homosexual couples.

And no, we are not waiting on it, we plan on never having children, besides the four-legged kind.

Are you asking me?

Exactly what benefits/rights are being denied a homosexual couple without children that are given to a heterosexual legally married couple without kids, that can't be gotten otherwise?

What does this have to do with religion/faith/the church?


Beckett wrote:

I agree, but that goes absolutely both ways, particularly here, where we are seeing more the otherside of it.

I'm pretty sure it started with a "religious" fanatic tossing in religion as the reason why same sex couples can't marry, [sarcasm]clearly it's not just their own discomfort [/sarcasm].

It's not religion being attacked, it's the reasoning, even by others of religious partaking. Some people like to use religion as a wall to support their own bigotry, even if they have to twist it and excuse other parts in it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urizen wrote:
Maccabee wrote:

What I got from the entirety of this thread was:

..a Rabbi, a Priest, a post-op Transgender Atheist, and Drizzt Do'urden walk into a bar....

Roll for initiative.....and/or migraine.

What I got out of this was:

A dyslexic man walked into a bra ... and screamed in terror when he discovered that it was Robert Paulson who was wearing it.

"His name is Robert Paulson"

"His name is Robert Paulson"

"His name is Robert Paulson"

Shadow Lodge

Urizen wrote:
Aretas wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Yeah, this is a meaningful discussion.

"Gay people shouldn't marry because my imaginary sky fairy said so".

Uh huh.

I understand that among your peer group its ok and fashionable to insult someones religion but in the civilized world its not appropriate.

Hm. Let's re-frame what you said and re-address accordingly:

"I understand that among your peer group its okay and fashionable to [deny certain people the right to marry] but in the civilized world its not appropriate."

Quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo (this for that, I think you mixed it up with something else)

would involve "certain people" being called every insulting name under the book, and expecting the gay community to be absolutely ok with you slandering them harshly.


Beckett wrote:
Exactly what benefits/rights are being denied a homosexual couple without children that are given to a heterosexual legally married couple without kids, that can't be gotten otherwise?

Here. Many of these cannot be gained unless your state and the Federal government recognizes your union, civil or religious.

Shadow Lodge

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Exactly what benefits/rights are being denied a homosexual couple without children that are given to a heterosexual legally married couple without kids, that can't be gotten otherwise?
Here. Many of these cannot be gained unless your state and the Federal government recognizes your union, civil or religious.

Can you give me a brief rundown, It says Access denied?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Wall of Text:
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
Family #3: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor able to adopt child through second-parent adoption
Not Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
 

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 (c) 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(c)(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]


Beckett wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Exactly what benefits/rights are being denied a homosexual couple without children that are given to a heterosexual legally married couple without kids, that can't be gotten otherwise?
Here. Many of these cannot be gained unless your state and the Federal government recognizes your union, civil or religious.
Can you give me a brief rundown, It says Access denied?

Another, not mentioned there since that deals with Federal issues, is "Next of Kin" status. Legally important especially for medical decisions and funerals. As I said far upthread, these have been used to remove long-term partners from end of life decisions and turn everything over to often estranged parents.

Some states have ways to declare someone your next of kin outside of marriage, but many do not.

Obviously, by changing state and federal laws you could create a status for gays that works just like marriage in every way but isn't marriage. You do run into "separate but equal" legal concerns there.
Essentially at that point all your other objections go away and you're left only with the semantic issue of the word itself. Which is very hard to see as anything but a religious issue.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Becket,,
I'm curious, do you think that your quid pro quo example isn't already happening every single day to gay people in America?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
I was asked for examples of non-religious arguements and motivations against same sex marriages. Period. Thats it. Like I said, the only one I actually find as an issue is the economic one.

Then I would be interested in your answer to Finn's question about why childless couples, like my wife and I, should be afforded the economic benefits and not homosexual couples.

And no, we are not waiting on it, we plan on never having children, besides the four-legged kind.

This actually saddens me a bit. Someone with your intellect and wit should be passing on his genetic code.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but the world would implode if he and his wife's awesomely dry and pointed sense of humor were combined into one uber being :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Listen to Derek, for he has met us both and knows what he's talking about.

Kryzbyn wrote:
This actually saddens me a bit. Someone with your intellect and wit should be passing on his genetic code.

Gosh, I think I'm blushing.

Personal offtopic:
We're both too selfish with our time to be willing to give a child the amount of effort and attention they deserve. We chafe at the restrictions the dog places on our ability to go do things. It was much easier to take off for the weekend when all we had to do was put down extra food and water for the cat.

Plus, I can't justify bringing a child into this world with my current finances. Cyz is finishing her masters and looking at a doctorate. I'm struggling to make rank and avoid the drawdown cuts, and working towards my own degree should I not make that cut. I'll still have two years of college before I will feel competitive enough for the current market. And I'll be dealing with my first actual taste of the harsh reality of life outside the shelter of parents or military service.

Thank you for the kind words. I truly appreciate you, Kirth, and everyone else that remind me I'm not worthless from time to time.

Liberty's Edge

Oh, and for the record, people who have known me here for a while know my default posting style isn't "douchebag". I will be very much so if someone else is posting crazytalk, however. Which is why I get along with a lot of people I disagree with, even people I've gotten into it with before, like Paul and Scott.

I am more of a mirror, you're going to get from me what you project.

Shadow Lodge

First off, thank you.

Here are myunderstandings of it. I may be wrong, and I'm also certain that different states handle this differently, (which I completely agree with), so it may be different in some places, or not.

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
Family #3: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor able to adopt child through second-parent adoption
Not Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits

I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure this is one that specifically can be signed over via POA and the like.

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.

This is very misleading, and the other side of this is, that by allowing just anyone to be identified as a partner, this opens the door to so much BS fraudulent claims. Just like in the military the various marriages of convenience. This is also misleading in that many of the “tax provisions” are to either mitigate some of the issues that marriage itself stipulates with combining incomes, combining of one parties children and dependents from previous marriages, and things that are either only there because they are there for the married couple in the first place or only actually used under stipulation, for example if you have kids.

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 (c) 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.
We would need to completely change the child support structure first. As it stands, the second unnamed biological parent is paying the children’s tax portions, too, and so what it seems to be implying is that the non-biological parent would be reaping the rewards of someone else pay. For a heterosexual couple, once remarried, this wouldn’t be the issue, either, mind you.

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.
I’m pretty sure that a single individual can claim Head of Household for over other individuals living in that household (legally) without any form of relation between them, so long as they pay the majority of the living expenses and the like, and can prove it.[/spoiler]

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(c)(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.
This is something that the same sex couple could do. The idea is that it is automatic for straight marriages, is false? Otherwise we could all get a tax break for someone else’s kids. This one is also different state to state, I believe, and I could be wrong.

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.
Can’t say much on this. Seems legit, but also seems pretty corner case. Though I will point out that neither can a child or anyone else.

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.
I would say it should be completely up to the companies to allow or not who they agree is an acceptable, and heterosexual couples can have this same issue. NOTE that it doesn’t say that it is illegal to do so, it says that it is not required, and nor should it/can it be.

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.
Misleading. Heterosexual marrages, and in fact being a legal and biological parent does not automatically grant immigration rights or citizenship. There are cases where a married biological parent is either removed from or barred from reentering the country, fined, and also forced the pair to either split or migrate to the other partners country, just the same.

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.

I, . . . can not say something here.

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.

I don’t see the relevance here. Who can and can not benefit from your health coverage is part of the agreement you make when you set it up, and is (and should be) purely at the company’s discretions, (granted it treats all employees equal under those discretions). Not all insurance companies, offer benefits for spouses (under any definition), or to children. Some offer it to whomever you are willing to cover, and that should be purely up to the company what they wish to offer according to their own means, values, and ability.

Shadow Lodge

Paul Watson wrote:

Becket,,

I'm curious, do you think that your quid pro quo example isn't already happening every single day to gay people in America?

Oh I'm sure it does. And with every other minority or majority group, too. That doesn't at all mean it's ok to do it more, and that also doens't mean it's ok to act that way. I'm not okay with it towards gays, or straights, or anyone.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Um, regardless, we are talking about a percentage of less than 10% of the population, really. If that has any noticeable effect on anything, the system is whack and needs to be changed anyway.

Shadow Lodge

I agree, the "system" needs a lot of cleaning up and fixing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beckett wrote:
Social Security: I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is one that specifically can be signed over via POA and the like.

No, you can't sign this over with power of attorney or another legal contract (short of a legally recognized union). Related: Lesbian U.S. Guardsman, dying of cancer, cannot grant her benefits to her female spouse.

Beckett wrote:
Tax: This is very misleading, and the other side of this is, that by allowing just anyone to be identified as a partner, this opens the door to so much BS fraudulent claims. Just like in the military the various marriages of convenience. This is also misleading in that many of the "tax provisions" are to either mitigate some of the issues that marriage itself stipulates with combining incomes, combining of one parties children and dependents from previous marriages, and things that are either only there because they are there for the married couple in the first place or only actually used under stipulation, for example if you have kids.

Here in Florida, we have a large population of retired and elderly. Most, if not all, are beyond the ability to conceive children, let alone raise them or other dependants. Yet they are deliberately marrying well into their senior years so that their (hetero) spouse will inherit their property and so they will both share a lower combined tax rate (among other benefits). So you, Beckett, would also be comfortable denying these people the right to marry because they are somehow trying to 'game the system?'

Edit: What about a gay man and lesbian woman marrying, when they will never consummate their marriage, and probably won't have children? Are they just taking advantage of the system too?

Who gets to be the marriage enforcement agents? What are their standards for a 'proper' or 'real' marriage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beckett wrote:

First off, thank you.

Here are myunderstandings of it. I may be wrong, and I'm also certain that different states handle this differently, (which I completely agree with), so it may be different in some places, or not.

Tax: This is very misleading, and the other side of this is, that by allowing just anyone to be identified as a partner, this opens the door to so much BS fraudulent claims. Just like in the military the various marriages of convenience. This is also misleading in that many of the “tax provisions” are to either mitigate some of the issues that marriage itself stipulates with combining incomes, combining of one parties children and dependents from previous marriages, and things that are either only there because they are there for the married couple in the first place or only actually used under stipulation, for example if you have kids.

Which is of course why no one on the gay marriage side is arguing for "allowing just anyone to be identified as a partner". That's a straw man. Of course, any loopholes that would exist if gay marriage was allowed are equally allowed now, you just have to pick a partner of the opposite sex.

This is actually more of an argument against the position that you should be able to duplicate all the existing benefits of marriage with existing laws and contracts. Having a status called "marriage" means you have to take the whole package, not just the tax benefits. Laws against bigamy also prevent you from practicing your tax scam with multiple people. Your partner also gets legal claims on you that you might not want if you were just planning a tax scam.

Will gay people get married just for the legal benefits? Sure, some will. Do people do so now? Yes. Some do. Is there any reason to expect a vast boom in such marriages? No.

And same sex couples can also have the same issues regarding kids and dependents. Why shouldn't they be handled the same way as opposite sex couples?

Most of your other objections break down to either "I don't think such benefits should be legal or required anyway" or "There are some exceptions to such rules now so why not screw gays over too."

Shadow Lodge

The portion that I can't say has to do with the military, and that's a completely different thing.

What you said has nothing to do with what I said.


Beckett wrote:

The portion that I can't say has to do with the military, and that's a completely different thing.

What you said has nothing to do with what I said.

So then, you admit there are at least some inequalities that need to be fixed? Also, feel free to refute the rest.


Beckett wrote:

Inequitable Treatment of Children Raised in LGBT Households:

1. Earned Income Tax Credit:
We would need to completely change the child support structure first. As it stands, the second unnamed biological parent is paying the children's tax portions, too, and so what it seems to be implying is that the non-biological parent would be reaping the rewards of someone else pay. For a heterosexual couple, once remarried, this wouldn't be the issue, either, mind you.

No, it wouldn't need to completely revise the "child support system" (?) or tax code. Simply allow the same-sex non-biological parent to qualify. There, it's that damn easy. Also, I get the impression you don't have experience with EITC, true?

Beckett wrote:
Head of Household Status: I'm pretty sure that a single individual can claim Head of Household for over other individuals living in that household (legally) without any form of relation between them, so long as they pay the majority of the living expenses and the like, and can prove it.

False, your statement is incorrect with the current tax code. Pop on over to IRS.gov and look it up.

Beckett wrote:
Child Tax Credit: This is something that the same sex couple could do. The idea is that it is automatic for straight marriages, is false? Otherwise we could all get a tax break for someone else's kids. This one is also different state to state, I believe, and I could be wrong.

Do you have children? Do you claim any dependents? Again, I get the impression you are not up on your current tax code in the U.S.

Beckett wrote:
Tax on Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer's Principal Residence: Can't say much on this. Seems legit, but also seems pretty corner case. Though I will point out that neither can a child or anyone else.

Corner case? How is this a corner case? Do you know how many families sell their primary/only homes every year? Corner case or no, you again admit this is not equitable, correct?

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:

Which is of course why no one on the gay marriage side is arguing for "allowing just anyone to be identified as a partner". That's a straw man. Of course, any loopholes that would exist if gay marriage was allowed are equally allowed now, you just have to pick a partner of the opposite sex.

This is actually more of an argument against the position that you should be able to duplicate all the existing benefits of marriage with existing laws and contracts. Having a status called "marriage" means you have to take the whole package, not just the tax benefits. Laws against bigamy also prevent you from practicing your tax scam with multiple people. Your partner also gets legal claims on you that you might not want if you were just planning a tax scam.

Will gay people get married just for the legal benefits? Sure, some will. Do people do so now? Yes. Some do. Is there any reason to expect a vast boom in such marriages? No.

I'm also not getting your point here at all.What part of I think htis ios misleading = any of what you <both> said?

thejeff wrote:
And same sex couples can also have the same issues regarding kids and dependents. Why shouldn't they be handled the same way as opposite sex couples?

Because in the cases where there is a biological child, in a heterosexual marriage, the non-biological "parent" doesn't automatically get all these rights either. You are confussig things here. A homosexual (non-biological) parent has the same options to either adopt and/or have an option for legal guardianship POA for a non-biological child. Also note, biological father's have lost a lot of these rights as well, where mothers make the choices for them.

This is not a same sex only issue. There are also similar issues with bliateral adoption of a non-biological child. Straight couples, married or not, have all the same issues that homosexual couples do trying to adopt a child, and I would say a few things harder as the potentual to have a biological child can causes issues.

thejeff wrote:
Most of your other objections break down to either "I don't think such benefits should be legal or required anyway" or "There are some exceptions to such rules now so why not screw gays over too."

I don't think so, and that isn't my intention, (with an exception or two). I'm actually trying to say that the percieved rights or benefits that are being denied are either very misrepresented or actually are something that homosexual couples can get/have/recieve.

Shadow Lodge

Beckett wrote:
Head of Household Status: I'm pretty sure that a single individual can claim Head of Household for over other individuals living in that household (legally) without any form of relation between them, so long as they pay the majority of the living expenses and the like, and can prove it.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
False, your statement is incorrect with the current tax code. Pop on over to IRS.gov and look it up.

Head of Household:

You may be able to file as head of household if you meet all the following requirements.
1.)You are unmarried or “considered unmarried” on the last day of the year.
2.)You paid more than half the cost of keeping up a home for the year.
3.)A “qualifying person” lived with you in the home for more than half the year (except for temporary absences, such as school). However, if the “qualifying person” is your dependent parent, he or she does not have to live with you. See Special rule for parent , later, under Qualifying Person."

IRS

So in other words I was right. An "unmarried" person, like a homosexual couple (currently), or a bunch of people living together as rooom mates. If they can proove that they lived together on the last day of the year, that oneof them is NOT also a dependant of the other, and that the one claiming head of household does infact pay more, the can claim Head of Household.

Child Tax Credit::
Beckett wrote:
This is something that the same sex couple could do. The idea is that it is automatic for straight marriages, is false? Otherwise we could all get a tax break for someone else's kids. This one is also different state to state, I believe, and I could be wrong.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Do you have children? Do you claim any dependents?

Yes x2.

Tax on Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer's Principal Residence::
Beckett wrote:
Can't say much on this. Seems legit, but also seems pretty corner case. Though I will point out that neither can a child or anyone else.
Corner case? How is this a corner case? Do you know how many families sell their primary/only homes every year? Corner case or no, you again admit this is not equitable, correct?

I do think this is a corner case, (but I could be wrong), and I also DO agree this one is unequal/unfair.

451 to 500 of 631 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gay Marriage is now legal in California. All Messageboards