4 ms·
I also thought it was strange that the fight was over "winning" permission from the government to have a relationship rather than ditching the idea that permiss
by gdulli 10y ago
I also thought it was strange that the fight was over "winning" permission from the government to have a relationship rather than ditching the idea that permission should be needed.
- maxerickson 10y agoMarried people enjoy benefits in the eyes of the law. Of course the commitment of those involved is the most important part of a marriage, but given the way our society works, the legal rights are also quite important.
- gdulli 10y agoBut is it right that benefits were set up in the first place so as to promote the morality of one type of relationship but not another?
- maxerickson 10y agoWho cares what the original intent was.
- turc1656 10y agoI care, and you should, too. Because if we don't agree with the original intent anymore or no longer think it's valid or fits in with our current societal values and beliefs, then it should be re-examined and either modified or scrapped altogether.
- maxerickson 10y agoYes, as we are discussing, it was in fact recently modified to fit with current societal values.
- turc1656 10y agoNope, definitely wasn't right in most cases. I can understand why some of it exists, though - like not being able to be forced to testify against your spouse. The two people who are married are supposed to be "one" so the extension of the fifth amendment makes sense. But a lot of the other stuff having to do with tax benefits...I'm not too crazy about. The government is notorious for doling out tax benefits to activities they want to promote. Like the mortgage interest deduction. The government wants to promote home ownership so they created that to incentivize people buy homes. That's arguably the most popular tax break out there, but all it does is give preference to how you spend your money. Spend it on something the government approves of, and you get a tax break. Similar story with child tax credits, dependent care credits, etc. They are basically rubber stamping certain life choices. And the effect is that people who neglect or outright refuse to engage in these choices/expenditures end up paying more in taxes, all else being equal.
- edblarney 10y agoCivil unions would have been a better answer to that. It's a much more culturally secular entity, and can defined better. For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married, which is more fair, I think.
- turc1656 10y agoHonestly, I don't really know much of anything about civil unions so maybe your right. If that's the case, I have no idea what the actual distinction is between a civil union and marriage would be then if they both confer the same benefits/rights/protections. Sounds like civil unions were just created to fill that same-sex marriage gap without pissing off the people who didn't want same-sex marriages. That way the people who are against it can still feel like marriage is just one man and one woman while gay couples can still get the legal perks. Seems like a typical political cop-out. But I could be wrong on this assumption as I don't know enough about it. That's my gut impression, though.
- 10y ago
- turc1656 10y agoThose legal benefits would not be lost. You would obtain/retain those benefits once you sign the paperwork declaring yourself married. That document would be held in force with all legal consequences (benefits and ramifications) until it has been rescinded by those married or through some divorce proceeding.
- maxerickson 10y agoYes, that would be fine. It also would represent a much larger change than extending existing marriage benefits.
- facepalm 10y agoBenefits, but I think also some obligations?