DOMA is No MORE

Single parents?

 

Check the Census....almost 50% of all households in this country are led by a single parent. And you still can file for exemptions for your children, married or not.

So no, tax exemptions are not why people get married, or to make future tax payers. For most and still for many, it was religion-based.

 

That's actually incorrect. While it's true that more than 80% of the population tend to adhere to a belief system, the idea of marriage has less to do with religion and more to do with other factors, mainly a status symbol. By those other factors, they are

• Financial Security
• Assistance in Raising a Family
• Support to make a proper household
• Romance
• Lifelong Companionship

Of those five, three of them (along with a few other reasons) tend to be more about money in some form or another. Plus, it'd be wrong to dismiss those secular, nonreligious individuals who hold weddings as well.

As for your first paragraph, that's pretty much true.

 

Yes, of course. Any one.

In fact, here is the finding in part...

Thus if granted (which it was), then every US citizen and legal resident shall therefore be afforded that inalienable RIGHT. Why aren't they, is all I ask.

BTW, here is the LAWSUIT grounds....

 

I can understand single parents, since they are raising children, but just single people in general? Unless I'm mistaken and you're including domestic partnerships and civil unions, then I'd be more than happy to say, yes, I fully agree.

But if we're talking about individuals who are merely single by choice, there are other statues of tax exemptions they can accumulate, and actually there are some jobs which would tax exemptions would apply to the individual who is single.

 

How is it incorrect? He stated people married for tax breaks, I disagreed.

Of people who chose to marry today, MOST do it to raise a family in sanctity and their religion. Not for tax breaks. Even amongst the non-secular. There is no "Will you marry me please...so we can get some tax breaks."

In fact, people marry today for the traditions more than ever because they no longer really have the societal pressure to do so.

 

I didn't say that there are no tax exemptions because of having children. You are leading this talk to some where else. My comment is that the tax exemptions that are specifically going to married couples are there to promote marriages. Children in those marriages tend to be better off. Meaning, they get a good job and pay taxes.

This doesn't mean that single parent homes don't do this. This arguement isn't about single parents or tax exemptions because you have children. It is about why the tax exemptions that are given based on being married are given.

 

I am all for equality, but I don't have any particular feelings about gay rights.

 

I have never stated that this is the only reason why people get married. I don't know who this he is. That's the problem how you interpreting my words. I specifically have stated that it promotes marriages. I also stated that it is not the only reason why people get married.

You are interpreting what you want and not what I typed unless this he is someone else.

 

Hmmm, again...not entirely true. Looking on various sources, ranging from various sites which cite research studies and op-eds, none of the top reasons for marriage has anything to do with religious reasoning and so-called sanctity. It's more practical to look at marriage as more about protection and property rights, as pretty much the reason for it in the first place.

Link 1: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_people_get_married

Link 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/o...ple-still-bother-to-marry.html?pagewanted=all

Link 3: http://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top-10-reasons-to-get-married_1.html

While many of these are op-eds, they do provide some factual reasoning behind the idea as to why people marry. We could also argue other legitimate reasons. As for religion, it's a minor reason for people, otherwise the divorce rates wouldn't be evenly split in this country. And where does it all drive itself back to? Financial security.

 

I think that is your opinion why these tax breaks are in place, but it is not a fact.
These tax breaks were put in place in another era, where promotion of marriage were not in need to be promoted, it was customary and the religious part of it was a major factor for marriage. most families back then only had one person contributing to the family economy and I would guess that is why it was set in place. A lot of things have changed since then in terms of marriage.


I would love to see some facts about when they were put in place and why. Not guesses,or opinions but facts. Any lawyers on here knows?

I never really thought about it

 

A parent actually does get a tax break already. Why? They have a child. There is no exemption 'if you are married"...Have a child - you get the break.

So now single people ask: why do people who sleep with the same sex and take an oath in a church or town hall get FEDERAL estate tax exemptions? (as the lawsuit said straights get). Further, what about single people in a relationship who do not believe in marriage? Or a person wanting to pass on their estate to a a single friend?

Because marriage is not a piece of real-estate. A piece of real-estate is just that. If you get the benefit, then so does anyone else who owns transferable estate. Just like if you have kids and I have kids, we both get the tax benefit. If don't have kids, I don't get it. Married or not, it's irrelevant.

But most importantly, the ruling found it is discriminatory and now a Right.
Once you cite ..."to protect in personhood and dignity, By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment." in your finding, then it becomes blanket personhood.

Including not violating the dignity of those not married.

 

Your answer was not about kids coming from married couple alone. It was simply because of kids. single parent homes are generally less successful than married ones.

The lawsuit isn't about single people getting the same rights as married people. If you really want to get into that we can switch subjects.

 

"...single people in a relationship..."

That sounds highly contradictory since a relationship requires two people or more, so in this respect, this individual isn't a single person. Rather, this individual has a domestic partnership with this other person.

And on that note, I do agree with you there, as the same when it comes to civil unions. They already have a few benefits via the federal government, but not all of the 1100+ benefits that are fully brought into a married couple. So perhaps that case can be considered in the future, along with polygamous relationships/marriages, etc...

And marriage is a social construct that can be considered as a piece of real-estate since marriage has been about property rights.

 

Ok I read your first link you cited and stopped.

C'mon are you serious? This is your source??? :smt095

:???: I can't today....

 

I'll agree that they were placed for some non financial reason back then but now they do serve as a manner to assist marriages in lasting to create tax payers in the future. It isn't so much as an opinion as you can simply point to individuals like bill gates. There are failures in the the system as well but the successes so heavily outweigh the failures that it is a good reason to keep it going. I don't think they should expand it to single people. Single people with kids have tax exemptions for kids and the ones without.

sucks to be you aka me!!! lol:smt042

 

I have two others and they all provide pretty much a common thread. Are there any sources in which says otherwise? Do people still do it out of religion and "sanctity?" Chances are unlikely since the divorce rate contradicts that line of reasoning.

 

I also said... v v v

And... v v v

And I followed it with... v v v

But most importantly, the ruling found it is discriminatory and now a Right.
Once you cite ..."to protect in personhood and dignity, By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment." in your finding, then it becomes blanket personhood.
Including not violating the dignity of those not married.

 

Jobs like what please?

And name me the tax exemptions only single people get?

No, marriage is not a "piece of real-estate" just BECAUSE is involves 'property rights'. Ridiculous.

I said I stopped after the first one. You know why.

BTW, Religion encompassed many genres. Don't confuse it with Christianity. And don't confuse divorce with marriage.

 

One Word:

Yay.


Now I can marry that sexiness from down under.