sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Celebrating the permission to get permission!
Celebrating the permission to get permission!
IMO this whole thing is putting a lot of stock in government authority/control/licensing...
To be honest, I think I'd rather prefer my marriage to not be recognized by the government - it'd feel more real that way.
LOL Wait until they discover the Marriage Tax Penalty that we old breeders have paid since taxes became progressive.
IMO this whole thing is putting a lot of stock in government authority/control/licensing...
To be honest, I think I'd rather prefer my marriage to not be recognized by the government - it'd feel more real that way.
LOL Wait until they discover the Marriage Tax Penalty that we old breeders have paid since taxes became progressive.
except if not governmentally recognized, you miss out of gaggles of medical, SSI, etc. benefits the government doles out...
quote USToday:
In fact, the ruling could add anywhere from $20,000 to more than $250,000 in lifetime benefits to same-sex couples, says Christopher Jones, chief investment officer at Financial Engines.
In one scenario, Financial Engines profiles a fictitious couple — Henry, age 64, (current salary $80,000), and Logan, age 62 (who has had a lower-paying job interrupted by taking several years off). If Henry dies at 84 and Logan dies at 90 they would receive total Social Security benefits of $797,280 as two single people if they start collecting benefits at ages 64 and 62.
But if Henry and Logan claim Social Security as a married couple, their lifetime benefits would grow to $938,112, an increase of $140,832. That's because Logan can now receive spousal and survivor benefits based on Henry's higher earnings history.
And if Henry and Logan optimize when they claim Social Security they would get more than $1.1 million, some $202,176 more than if they claimed at ages 64 and 62.unquote
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/06/26/same-sex-social-security/28699323/
ipse
I wonder when all the people who choose not to marry are going to file a lawsuit for equal treatment under the taxation laws since those that choose to marry get such a break on taxes?
I wonder when all the people who choose not to marry are going to file a lawsuit for equal treatment under the taxation laws since those that choose to marry get such a break on taxes?
IMO this whole thing is putting a lot of stock in government authority/control/licensing...
To be honest, I think I'd rather prefer my marriage to not be recognized by the government - it'd feel more real that way.
Homosexuality is the worst form of bigotry and hatred. They hate God and everything he (sic) stands for. They try to cram down our throat their immoral deviate behavior and say they are normal. It is not gay and straight it is gay and normal. Gay is not normal and they are not born that way. If they are then child molesters and rapists are born that way also. It is willful chosen behavior. Stop trying to force your filthy ways on normal people.
I for one thank the Constitution, and the atheist non-gods, that your disagreement has no legal bearing, or weight of the law, anymore.
(Snip)...
SCOTUS can through judicial fiat declare by a 5 vote majority anything to be a fundamental right.
This utterly destroys the concept of sovereign states, the 9th & 10th A as well as the foundation of a republican form of government.
!
It is ultimately the highest purpose of the Court to take power away from government and hand it back to the individual. That is all that happened here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
...
But remember the reason they got it right, so that a group of people would be eligible for government perks, thus giving government more control of that subset of people. Gays always had the ability for a union without government sanctions, but lacking entitlements. The sole reason for the fight was for those private, and government entitlements.
Eliminating government benefits that may no longer serve a useful purpose is a different issue. The government should not be encouraging high reproductive levels and it is somewhat outdated to think that a woman needs the protection of a man so should be encouraged to wed as soon as possible.
Although, this does mean that us men have a better chance to get and keep control by locking in our spouse early, before s/he finds someone better. ;-)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek for that last sentence.
While my ex may have said to her family that I was too controlling, the fact that we lived 450 miles apart for the last eight years of the marriage might indicate otherwise.
But this does bring up the matter of why people get married in the U.S. Sometimes it is because of pressure by a religion, aka Birdman's view that one shouldn't fornicate or live in sin. Sometimes it is the "lock-in" that I mention - a way to keep your chattel from others. (The real reason for most of the Ten Commandments) And sometimes it is necessary for legal purposes. The state wants parents to me married so laws are written for that purpose. Fixing the laws to make marriage a strictly religious event could solve certain problems for unwed and single parents, too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk