1 post tagged “the taxman”
As the April 15th tax filing deadline looms, many gay couples are facing higher tax bills because they do not get the federal tax benefits that accompany marriage. The same is true for heterosexual couples who chose not to get married. Do you think this is fair?
Well, I'm talking politics again! Sorry about this, but I feel like I'm in a ranty mood.
No, I think the situation is totally unfair. The heart of this issue is the gay marriage debate, of which there are generally two significant sides. Those who believe that due to religious reasons, the term "marriage" should be defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. The other side is those who don't believe that to be the case. That's nothing you probably didn't already know of course...
I take issue with the individuals who are trying to push a definition of marriage that is consistent with their own religious views. Because at that point we're bringing religion into government and the last time I checked, the government was supposed to be separate from religious views on account of the fact that people in the United States aren't all the same religion.
Additionally, I take issue with the view that we need an amendment to the constitution to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and to define the term as a joining of one woman and one man. The definition of "sanctity" is holiness, or the quality of being holy. Writing this into the the constitution wouldn't make any sense at all. It'd be like writing into the constitution that all citizens are required to pray five times a day in the direction of Mecca or eating non Kosher foods is now totally banned. It's a pushing of ones own religious belief on others which, as you know if you read my previous rantings on religion, I detest on all levels.
What should happen is this, in my view anyway. The government should get involved in marriage as far as providing legal protections to the couple. It shouldn't matter who the couple is, 2 guys, 2 girls, 1 guy/1girl, etc. In the eyes of the law, all people should be equals. Discrimination written into law against homosexuals is no different from discrimination written into law against blacks. It's the same thing with a different target. The government should offer "civil unions" to recognize that two people are together in the eyes of the law, with all of the protections, privileges and associated rights that go along with that as far as things like medical information, death benefits, etc. The government shouldn't even mention the term Marriage, because that has a spiritual significance to it which is what got us into this in the first place.
Where religion should enter into it is, well...within the religion. A spiritual bond should be left up to the individual religions. Because not everybody has the same traditions. The sanctity of marriage will be protected in the only place where it actually means anything...within the context of religion. And with it goes all of the spiritual significance that the individual religions place in the term. If a religion feels that gay marriage is wrong, then they are free to not allow such people to be married in the eyes of the church.
So that's what I think. The government should deal in civil unions which provide protection in the eyes of the law. And marriage (or whatever it's termed in each religion) should stay in the confines of the individual religions.
No, I think the situation is totally unfair. The heart of this issue is the gay marriage debate, of which there are generally two significant sides. Those who believe that due to religious reasons, the term "marriage" should be defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. The other side is those who don't believe that to be the case. That's nothing you probably didn't already know of course...
I take issue with the individuals who are trying to push a definition of marriage that is consistent with their own religious views. Because at that point we're bringing religion into government and the last time I checked, the government was supposed to be separate from religious views on account of the fact that people in the United States aren't all the same religion.
Additionally, I take issue with the view that we need an amendment to the constitution to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and to define the term as a joining of one woman and one man. The definition of "sanctity" is holiness, or the quality of being holy. Writing this into the the constitution wouldn't make any sense at all. It'd be like writing into the constitution that all citizens are required to pray five times a day in the direction of Mecca or eating non Kosher foods is now totally banned. It's a pushing of ones own religious belief on others which, as you know if you read my previous rantings on religion, I detest on all levels.
What should happen is this, in my view anyway. The government should get involved in marriage as far as providing legal protections to the couple. It shouldn't matter who the couple is, 2 guys, 2 girls, 1 guy/1girl, etc. In the eyes of the law, all people should be equals. Discrimination written into law against homosexuals is no different from discrimination written into law against blacks. It's the same thing with a different target. The government should offer "civil unions" to recognize that two people are together in the eyes of the law, with all of the protections, privileges and associated rights that go along with that as far as things like medical information, death benefits, etc. The government shouldn't even mention the term Marriage, because that has a spiritual significance to it which is what got us into this in the first place.
Where religion should enter into it is, well...within the religion. A spiritual bond should be left up to the individual religions. Because not everybody has the same traditions. The sanctity of marriage will be protected in the only place where it actually means anything...within the context of religion. And with it goes all of the spiritual significance that the individual religions place in the term. If a religion feels that gay marriage is wrong, then they are free to not allow such people to be married in the eyes of the church.
So that's what I think. The government should deal in civil unions which provide protection in the eyes of the law. And marriage (or whatever it's termed in each religion) should stay in the confines of the individual religions.
