Do Single People Deserve equal protection that Married couples have?

[King]

People with children deserve equal protection.  Single people with few responsibilities to others have to absorb the shift in the burden.

[AggregateDemand]

People with children deserve equal protection.  Single people with few responsibilities to others have to absorb the shift in the burden.

Rich. It is the job of people without children, who may want children, to finance the children of others. Sounds like something I'd hear at an innercity Welfare office.

[milhouse24]

To trigger the estate tax, you need to be transferring assets worth over $5.34 million (in 2014). Repealing it is a pretty killer tax cut exclusively for the rich. Not a huge priority for me.

Doesn't the estate tax apply when you want to give your inheritance to non-spouses?  such as giving your inheritance to your biological children.

For example, a single (or widowed) father or single mother would have to pay the estate tax on the inhertitance passed to their children. 

Its odd, that the government is punishing the children, who may need that inheritance money for their parents. 

But the government is rewarding SS spouses who can't biologically have shared children.  These so-called marriage laws and benefits are discriminatory to any one not married or divorced. 

[milhouse24]

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?

MARRIED PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE SEX

SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!
Straight married couples have sex and create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but don't create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but can't create babies

Gay married couples can have sex but can't have babies as a result of sex

------

Would you like it a pop up book, or book with lift up flaps to help explain it better. I'll pay the shipping charge?

The government can't force married couples to have sex.  
Before viagra, there were plenty of senior citizens who re-married later in life and did not have sex.  
I doubt that anna nicole smith ever had sex with her geriatric husband.  

Besides, what is your definition of sex? At one point in time, there were laws against sodomy. 

Does a marriage need to be consummated to be legal?

Who is making the laws on what is sexually legal and what is sexually illegal?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

To trigger the estate tax, you need to be transferring assets worth over $5.34 million (in 2014). Repealing it is a pretty killer tax cut exclusively for the rich. Not a huge priority for me.

Doesn't the estate tax apply when you want to give your inheritance to non-spouses?  such as giving your inheritance to your biological children.

For example, a single (or widowed) father or single mother would have to pay the estate tax on the inhertitance passed to their children. 

Its odd, that the government is punishing the children, who may need that inheritance money for their parents. 

But the government is rewarding SS spouses who can't biologically have shared children.  These so-called marriage laws and benefits are discriminatory to any one not married or divorced. 

Same-sex couples often have children these days, you know.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To trigger the estate tax, you need to be transferring assets worth over $5.34 million (in 2014). Repealing it is a pretty killer tax cut exclusively for the rich. Not a huge priority for me.

Doesn't the estate tax apply when you want to give your inheritance to non-spouses?  such as giving your inheritance to your biological children.

For example, a single (or widowed) father or single mother would have to pay the estate tax on the inhertitance passed to their children. 

Its odd, that the government is punishing the children, who may need that inheritance money for their parents. 

But the government is rewarding SS spouses who can't biologically have shared children.  These so-called marriage laws and benefits are discriminatory to any one not married or divorced. 

Same-sex couples often have children these days, you know.

But not yet children who are the biological offspring of both same-sex parents.  (With a possible exception where one of the two in the same-sex couple is also transgender.)  Altho of course, even within traditional marriage, adopted children gain inheritance rights, so I don't see why millhouse should harp so much about biological children.

However, given the rejection by the courts of procreation as a justification for recognizing only opposite-sex marriage, it may be time to rethink the spousal exemption to inheritance taxes.
The principal reason for them can be achieved via the use of a trust that gives the spouse the right live in the family residence for the remainder of eir life and access to the income of any other assets in the estate with the trust dissolving and being inherited by the children when the spouse dies.  At the wealth level where the estate tax comes into effect, it makes sense.

[Torie]

This is all about where the issue of a person's arguable right to enter into a relationship with one other person entailing a certain basket of rights and duties prescribed by law has to be balanced with issues of tax evasion and/or avoidance. So any statute needs careful drafting and thought. Thanks for listening.

[AggregateDemand]

This is all about where the issue of a person's arguable right to enter into a relationship with one other person entailing a certain basket of rights and duties prescribed by law has to be balanced with issues of tax evasion and/or avoidance. So any statute needs careful drafting and thought. Thanks for listening.

How is this kind of intelligent diplomacy going to help politicians lead the general public to a bikeshedding melee?

[King]

People with children deserve equal protection.  Single people with few responsibilities to others have to absorb the shift in the burden.

Rich. It is the job of people without children, who may want children, to finance the children of others.

Yes, as it has always been.  The debate is only if you want your tax dollars to pay for their healthcare and education (far left to center right position) or their prison sentence (far right position).

[AggregateDemand]

Yes, as it has always been.  The debate is only if you want your tax dollars to pay for their healthcare and education (far left to center right position) or their prison sentence (far right position).

Your post is literally the opposite of the debate. We decided centuries ago to finance education, healthcare, and justice with a local taxes. Despite glaring flaws in the system, very little debate exists, other than the school choice debate, which still uses public funding for charter schools.

The disparity in wealth between single households and married households is a modern phenomenon caused by declining birth rates, dual-income households, and sociological changes caused by female labor force participation. Also, President Bush created aggressive child tax credits to alleviate the decline of single-income families with children, but the child tax credits have accentuated the inequity in the US tax code between married and single individuals.

The phenomenon is recent. The tax code no longer reflects socio-economic reality in the tax base. Single people are getting hammered down by the system, and many of them, mainly homosexuals and single women, are demanding more federal handouts from the Democratic Party.

[milhouse24]

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?

MARRIED PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE SEX

SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!
Straight married couples have sex and create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but don't create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but can't create babies

Gay married couples can have sex but can't have babies as a result of sex

------

Would you like it a pop up book, or book with lift up flaps to help explain it better. I'll pay the shipping charge?

I don't know why my previsous post on Sex was removed.  But by allowing gay marriage and same-sex couples, this changes the "definition of sex" - for example, a lesbian couple has sex by fingering.  In Male-Female couples, that would be considered foreplay and not "actualy sex" 

The government has changed the definition of "sex" or "sexual intercourse" and now as it stands according to the law, there really doesn't have to be any sex or sexual contact to be in a "marriage" - after all, a platonic relationship can exist between 2 males or 2 females; but they can still be "in love"

Isn't marriage just an "expression of love" and not of "sexual monogamy"

Many couples have open marriages or are swingers.  The government does not prosecute people for having extramarital affairs anymore.  It is also acceptable for people to be bisexual and have both male and female lovers at the same time. 

So your idea that "sex has to come with a automatically marriage license" is idiotic.

[milhouse24]

To trigger the estate tax, you need to be transferring assets worth over $5.34 million (in 2014). Repealing it is a pretty killer tax cut exclusively for the rich. Not a huge priority for me.

Doesn't the estate tax apply when you want to give your inheritance to non-spouses?  such as giving your inheritance to your biological children.

For example, a single (or widowed) father or single mother would have to pay the estate tax on the inhertitance passed to their children. 

Its odd, that the government is punishing the children, who may need that inheritance money for their parents. 

But the government is rewarding SS spouses who can't biologically have shared children.  These so-called marriage laws and benefits are discriminatory to any one not married or divorced. 

Same-sex couples often have children these days, you know.

But government decided long ago to provide financial incentives to "married couples" and to alleviate the financial burden that it costs to have biological children.  The spousal tax ememption was provided to allow for the surviving spouse to take care of those children after death. 

But in present day society, single mother are being unfairly punished and discriminated against because the inheritance to their children will be taxed.  Essentially, the tax-free exemption has proven to be discriminatory and punishes children, which it was actually meant to protect. 

If the government is going to give tax-free exemptions to SS couples that don't have any biological children together, then it would be discriminatory to not allow Single People and Single mothers the same opportunity for "tax free exemptions".  Often times, single mothers are divorced or their ex-boyfriends won't marry them, yet the government has decided to financially punish these women and their children.  But the government has given financial incentives to SS couples, who don't have the burden of raising biological children.  Sure, many SS couples adopt, but adoption is usually a choice based on a couples financial ability to adopt and pay for those children. 

[afleitch]

So your idea that "sex has to come with a automatically marriage license" is idiotic.

I'll leave you with this to start off with;

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

So that's what it was. Marriage was inextricably linked with carnal matters. Now we understand that the bonded attraction between 'mates' (to use a more neutral term) extends to those who have same sex attraction and it seems strange to bar them from forming similar unions. That's the only change to marriage in terms of participants that has happened. If you want to be radical and allow mothers to marry sons/daughters, and brothers to marry brothers and so forth, then that's very 'right on' of you you daring social liberal

[Bojack Horseman]

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?

MARRIED PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE SEX

SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!
Straight married couples have sex and create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but don't create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but can't create babies

Gay married couples can have sex but can't have babies as a result of sex

------

Would you like it a pop up book, or book with lift up flaps to help explain it better. I'll pay the shipping charge?

Well from what I've heard, couples only have sex until they're done having kids, and then from there it never happens again...

[TNF]

I am unconvinced the state should be involved in either creating incentives or deterrents to being married. Government ought to interact with citizens on an individual-by-individual basis rather than having special rules for households of varying populations or couples of certain types.

This is the correct answer. The government should get out of the marriage business.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I am unconvinced the state should be involved in either creating incentives or deterrents to being married. Government ought to interact with citizens on an individual-by-individual basis rather than having special rules for households of varying populations or couples of certain types.

This is the correct answer. The government should get out of the marriage business.

Should it also get out of the inheritance, child custody, and spousal abuse intervention businesses?  Or do you just mean that the package of rights, privileges, and responsibilities that legally are a part of civil marriage should have a name other than marriage?

[milhouse24]

I am unconvinced the state should be involved in either creating incentives or deterrents to being married. Government ought to interact with citizens on an individual-by-individual basis rather than having special rules for households of varying populations or couples of certain types.

This is the correct answer. The government should get out of the marriage business.

Should it also get out of the inheritance, child custody, and spousal abuse intervention businesses?  Or do you just mean that the package of rights, privileges, and responsibilities that legally are a part of civil marriage should have a name other than marriage?

The government should get out of the marriage licensing business, especially if the benefits associated with that license discriminate against Singles and other groups.  But most "single women" will still want some sort of "protection" against "dishonest men."  Marriage is primarily a civil matter, since it really is a "financial contract" between the 2 individual spouses - that promises financial support during and after the marriage partnership.  But the Government has created so many "financial incentives to married couples" that it has thrust itself into a situation, that did not require government intervention when the Roman Catholic Empire ruled Europe.  There are many tribal cultures that don't require "marriage or monogamy" if the tribe or groups of women help raise the children.

The "procreation activists" can utilize "Common Law marriage" rules to regulate those couples who produce biological children, and assign parental rules and financial obligations. 

[Link]

The government should get out of the marriage licensing business, especially if the benefits associated with that license discriminate against Singles and other groups.  But most "single women" will still want some sort of "protection" against "dishonest men."  Marriage is primarily a civil matter, since it really is a "financial contract" between the 2 individual spouses - that promises financial support during and after the marriage partnership.  But the Government has created so many "financial incentives to married couples" that it has thrust itself into a situation, that did not require government intervention when the Roman Catholic Empire ruled Europe.  There are many tribal cultures that don't require "marriage or monogamy" if the tribe or groups of women help raise the children.

The "procreation activists" can utilize "Common Law marriage" rules to regulate those couples who produce biological children, and assign parental rules and financial obligations. 

All that just to say you hate the gay?

Besides, why shouldn't the children be taken care of after their parents die, instead of being taxed into poverty.

Assuming your parents had you at a normal age 20-30s and they live a normal lifespan you should be in your 30s-60s when your parents kick the bucket.  You mean if you inherit $1 million tax free at 60 you will be living in "poverty"?  Dude, how bad are you with money?

Remember, spousal inheritance is "TAX FREE" - that is saving potentially "hundreds of thousands of dollars"

That's because usual when a spouse dies the other spouse is elderly and either not working or at the end of their career.  It's also because it is expected that the spouse will die in a few years so the government is going to get their money anyway pretty soon.  No need to harass grandma.

Well, if you follow the NFL, most owners are unable to pass the ownership onto their children because of the high inheritance tax.

Yes, NFL team owners... the real oppressed minority.  Gotta be honest with you I have never thought about the plight of NFL team owners.  I can honestly say I don't give a ph-ck about them.

We want to give "marriage benefits" to SS couples.  But we should also give "benefits" to Singles who are being punished for being widowed, divorced, or having children out of wedlock.

WTF?!  Your problem is you are falling for all this Republican word play.  Like the "x% of people don't pay taxes" BS.  Look whether you want to call it sales tax, FCC fees, gas tax, income tax, payroll tax, etc just about every adult pays taxes.  Fine you want to look at one particular quirk of the tax code.  That's cool.  But don't pretend there are not other breaks and money transferances given to the single people you listed.  If you are a widow of someone who worked you and your children will get a check from the government.  I helped a widow do her taxes after her husband died and her financial situation improved dramatically once she was no longer married and became a single mother doing it on her own.  Really, milhouse24, please stop using widows and orphans as pawns in your "I hate the gay" campaign.  It is really unbecoming.

[justfollowingtheelections]

People with children deserve equal protection.  Single people with few responsibilities to others have to absorb the shift in the burden.

That's the most stupid thing I have ever heard.  Single people are most definitely discriminated against.  Studies have shown that single people on average pay a lot more than people in relationships pay for housing.  They are also more likely to lose their job.  Being single isn't fun in America.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

People with children deserve equal protection.  Single people with few responsibilities to others have to absorb the shift in the burden.

That's the most stupid thing I have ever heard.  Single people are most definitely discriminated against.  Studies have shown that single people on average pay a lot more than people in relationships pay for housing.  They are also more likely to lose their job.  Being single isn't fun in America.

Yes, they're absorbing the shift in the burden.