The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.
In the second issue: Civil unions, being mere "contracts" can, and often are, challenged in civil courts by the relatives of the deceased or ill spouse. Marriage rights are clearly recognized and are not absent extreme circumstances.
If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.
As I have proposed, there are no tax breaks, benefits, etc, except those relating to children. These can be claimed whether married or not. In the case where the parents are not married or no longer married, then they switch off which years they claim the children as dependents. If there is no child support, then only the parent providing support can claim the children. The primary exception would be a spouse who does not have employment but is the primary care provider for the children. There can also be dependent family members. The legal recognition of marriage simply provides the legal structure to define family members. In the case of married, but no children/dependent family members, or even if those are present but both spouses work, they get the same benefits and are taxed the same as a single person.
Without the need to provide primary care for children, and in rare cases, other dependent family members, there is no reason to extend benefits, tax breaks, etc to a spouse who can work and no reason not to. The current structure was built at the time when women rarely entered the work force and were dependent upon their husbands. Since we can be equal in the work force now, and often are, then there is no longer a basis for married people to have any different benefits, tax breaks, etc except when children/dependent family care interferes with one spouses ability to be employed.
Be sure to work hard and get lots of overtime. People on welfare want more steaks and free upgrades to smart phones with unlimited data packages.
Yes, governments should not only recognize marriages they should only recognize marriages performed by state sanctioned officials. In the Netherlands for example people go and marry at the city registrars office first and then they can marry in the church afterwards. The church marriage is purely a private ceremony with no legal consequences, the real marriage is when the registrar signs the signed and witnessed marriage license.
Dutch Medal count Paralympics Rio 17 gold 19 silver 26 bronze
BLADE BABE STRIKES AGAIN!!!
The immigration aspect is if a foreigner marries a citizen. Currently that tends to grant a right (or at least strong favour) to their immigrating. Without state recognition of marriage, you loose that.
Not I'm not making a definitive argument here, only pointing out some of the arguments from the opposite direction.
What this means, ultimately, is that the institution of marriage continues to be promoted both by the bureaucracy and by hysterical politicians despite its high failure rate and a complete lack of hard evidence as to why it fails so often and what might make a better alternative.
Never fear, politicians will continue to sing the praises of marriage in front of the cameras because it will continue to be a cheap way to score votes for the foreseeable future.
Domestic partnership in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAlthough the program enjoys broad support in California, it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.
Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationship?
Are we going to change our laws before marriage is a thing of the past?
A surviving spouse would not be entitled to benefits of any kind, which in a lot of cases would pose a great hardship especially when children are involved.