DOMA

[davjohns 1]

I keep hearing stories on the radio, TV, etc. I find it annoying.

Can anyone give me a rational argument, within the context of a secular government / society, for government getting involved in personal relationships where everyone consents and nobody is clearly being harmed?

Feel free to relate this to plural marriage as well.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[TriGirl 333]

I will comment on plural marriage. The government should only be involved where the people in question are getting some kind of government benefit (Social Security, tax dedutions, etc). In that case, I say plural marriages should be up to those involved (consenting legal adults), as long as there are no additional government benefits associated.

In the same light, those elements of "marriage" that apply to civil law should be applicable whether my spouse is the same gender or opposite. They already apply regardless of the age difference (as long as everyone involved is of legal age), sleeping arrangements, intent (or ability) to procreate, or where the contract was signed (place of worship or courthouse). However, taking advantage of public benefits for multiple spouses is taking it a little too far, IMHO. Having a "marriage" as defined only by a religious institution among multiple adults should not be a crime, as long as they are not perpetrating a fraud on the government by filing for benefits for more than one spouse.

Good topic, DJ.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[DiverMike 5]

Why should only one spouse get benefits? That is not the current tax law. A divorced woman who has never worked can claim part of her ex husbands social security if she was married to him for 10 years even if he remarries. This realistically means 5 or more women can claim the benefit of a single working man. Is it really fair if one man was married to two different women at different times and they both get benefits, but if they are married at the same time only one gets benefits?

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[shropshire 0]

Anyone daft enough o marry 2 (or more women) deserve the mother in laws that they end up with.

The government should actually have ZERO input into our Legal private lives.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 2]

The right to marry whomever, and however many, you want is the birthright of every free individual.

[lawrocket 3]

I'd apply the same "government getting involved in personal relationships where everyone consents and nobody is clearly being harmed" to other matters. I.e., I neither want the government in my bedroom nor bathroom nor medicine cabinet.

As far as a rational argument, if the theme is "control of the population" then it makes perfect sense.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

The right to marry whomever, and however many, you want is the birthright of every free individual.

Must . . . . not . . . respond. Temptation . . . overcoming . . . . me.


Arrrrrrgh.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[FlyingRhenquest 1]

davjohns

I keep hearing stories on the radio, TV, etc. I find it annoying.

Can anyone give me a rational argument, within the context of a secular government / society, for government getting involved in personal relationships where everyone consents and nobody is clearly being harmed?

Feel free to relate this to plural marriage as well.

It's not that long ago you couldn't marry outside your race in much of the USA. Such bigoted views now seem like an anachronism. No doubt 50 years from now our children will feel the same way about the laws we're now dismantling.

Same-sex marriage is going to require some software to be rewritten. Plural marriage would require a LOT of software to be rewritten, and updates to various tax codes and things that assume that can't happen. From an IT perspective I say BRING IT ON! The updating will keep me in business until I hit retirement age, and beyond!

I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

[kallend 2,106]

FlyingRhenquest

***I keep hearing stories on the radio, TV, etc. I find it annoying.

Can anyone give me a rational argument, within the context of a secular government / society, for government getting involved in personal relationships where everyone consents and nobody is clearly being harmed?

Feel free to relate this to plural marriage as well.

It's not that long ago you couldn't marry outside your race in much of the USA. Such bigoted views now seem like an anachronism. No doubt 50 years from now our children will feel the same way about the laws we're now dismantling.



Utah's bigots have just been given a black eye by a Federal Judge, and Ohio's may not be far behind.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

Why does the tax code need to be re-written? .. Torn up sure..... it's just people living together why should there be ANY tax code associated with that?

There should be ZERO tax benefit or penalty based upon who you live with!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

There should be ZERO tax benefit or penalty based upon who you live with!

What are your feelings towards inheritance tax? Today a widow does not pay inheritance tax. What if there are 6 widows married to the same man at the same time?

What are your feelings about entitlements like government funded pension plans? Are you saying the pension should stop at the death of the worker who earned it, and the non working spouse(s) should get nothing?

I don't believe it is a cut and dry as you are making it.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[shropshire 0]

No one should pay inheritance tax.

That fact that some one scrimps and saves all of their lives to build a pot (small or large) for their family does NOT do so to line the pockets of the F**king government....

Any inheritance or pension rights would be shared out to the People that the dead person "Wills" it to.

I think that it can be cut and dry .. it just tends not to be when the Government is involved.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

shropshire

No one should pay inheritance tax.

That fact that some one scrimps and saves all of their lives to build a pot (small or large) for their family does NOT do so to line the pockets of the F**king government....

Any inheritance or pension rights would be shared out to the People that the dead person "Wills" it to.

I think that it can be cut and dry .. it just tends not to be when the Government is involved.

No, you're still missing some of the problems.

Take capital gains - while most people do not exceed the X million threshold where the inheritance tax kicks in, they do frequently have a house with a considerable increase in value, and potentially some long term stock holdings. This is, of course, taxable income. But when one member of a married couple dies, the tax basis of those assets get stepped up to current market value, and that tax liability vanishes. In a scenario with multiple spouses, this translates to a perfect tax shelter.

I can't really think of a valid reason to prevent bigamy, but so long as our tax policy accords considerable benefits to married couples, then you only get to designate two as the married taxpayers.

[Croc 0]

shropshire

Why does the tax code need to be re-written? .. Torn up sure..... it's just people living together why should there be ANY tax code associated with that?

There should be ZERO tax benefit or penalty based upon who you live with!

+1

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[shropshire 0]

kelpdiver

***No one should pay inheritance tax.

That fact that some one scrimps and saves all of their lives to build a pot (small or large) for their family does NOT do so to line the pockets of the F**king government....

Any inheritance or pension rights would be shared out to the People that the dead person "Wills" it to.

I think that it can be cut and dry .. it just tends not to be when the Government is involved.

No, you're still missing some of the problems.

Take capital gains - while most people do not exceed the X million threshold where the inheritance tax kicks in, they do frequently have a house with a considerable increase in value, and potentially some long term stock holdings. This is, of course, taxable income. But when one member of a married couple dies, the tax basis of those assets get stepped up to current market value, and that tax liability vanishes. In a scenario with multiple spouses, this translates to a perfect tax shelter.

I can't really think of a valid reason to prevent bigamy, but so long as our tax policy accords considerable benefits to married couples, then you only get to designate two as the married taxpayers.

Nope - sorry, you're missing my point... LOSE THE TAX and the problem goes away. Why for example should the government get any of our money because our houses go up in value BECAUSE the Government/Banks run the market that causes that increase?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[davjohns 1]

TriGirl

I will comment on plural marriage. The government should only be involved where the people in question are getting some kind of government benefit (Social Security, tax dedutions, etc). In that case, I say plural marriages should be up to those involved (consenting legal adults), as long as there are no additional government benefits associated.

In the same light, those elements of "marriage" that apply to civil law should be applicable whether my spouse is the same gender or opposite. They already apply regardless of the age difference (as long as everyone involved is of legal age), sleeping arrangements, intent (or ability) to procreate, or where the contract was signed (place of worship or courthouse). However, taking advantage of public benefits for multiple spouses is taking it a little too far, IMHO. Having a "marriage" as defined only by a religious institution among multiple adults should not be a crime, as long as they are not perpetrating a fraud on the government by filing for benefits for more than one spouse.

Good topic, DJ.

I agree with you fully as far as you go. One step further...why are there benefits to marriage? Or having children? Why should an individual's decisions give them greater rights / privileges / entitlements / benefits other than what they earn?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

shropshire

Anyone daft enough o marry 2 (or more women) deserve the mother in laws that they end up with.

The government should actually have ZERO input into our Legal private lives.

Agreed and agreed. Then, I read your other posts and continued to agree.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[shropshire 0]

davjohns

***Anyone daft enough o marry 2 (or more women) deserve the mother in laws that they end up with.

The government should actually have ZERO input into our Legal private lives.

Agreed and agreed. Then, I read your other posts and continued to agree.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,106]

Utah's bigots have now received an additional black eye from the 10th Circuit appeals court.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

davjohns

I agree with you fully as far as you go. One step further...why are there benefits to marriage? Or having children? Why should an individual's decisions give them greater rights / privileges / entitlements / benefits other than what they earn?

Because there are benefits to the government.
Having children means increased population.
That means more taxpayers, economic growth, more revenue, more potential workers/soldiers/slaves (going back in history some).

The tax code has long rewarded behavior that benefits the government.

Some of it is historical and still in there because it's hard to take stuff out, but most of it is there because it generates more revenue in the long run.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

shropshire

Nope - sorry, you're missing my point... LOSE THE TAX and the problem goes away. Why for example should the government get any of our money because our houses go up in value BECAUSE the Government/Banks run the market that causes that increase?

So...stop taxing capital gains entirely? That would be great the for inheritance class, but obviously would further shift the burden of government expense on wage earners.

It would also have devastating effects on real estate - the moneyed classes would own everything, and everyone else would be renters.

No, a much better question here is why do we give the step up to widows?

[turtlespeed 226]

Andy9o8

The right to marry whomever, and however many, you want is the birthright of every free individual.

But NOT my responsibility to fund them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 2]

turtlespeed

***The right to marry whomever, and however many, you want is the birthright of every free individual.

But NOT my responsibility to fund them.

It was a pun on something Dave said in another thread.

[turtlespeed 226]

Andy9o8

******The right to marry whomever, and however many, you want is the birthright of every free individual.

But NOT my responsibility to fund them.

It was a pun on something Dave said in another thread.

Missed that one I guess.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[davjohns 1]

Well, you make excellent points...

So, the best defense of DOMA is that it provides the government more taxpayers and cannon fodder.

I think I felt myself become a little more cynical just now...

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.