Should marriage be privatized?

[Deleted User]

This thread is so confusing. @Kkitkat79, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue, because I feel like you're arguing in circles. Basically you want to abolish the marriage as a public institution because some groups of people are unable to benefit from marriage? Wouldn't it be better to just make marriage accessible to all consenting groups of adults? Why would you want to privatize something and make it much worse for people, as mentioned by @STARMOON44? Privatization could lead to even more inaccessibility.

anjemon

I'm still confused the benefits that are not available to singles that OP thinks privatizing will change. As far as I can tell, most of the marriage benefits are because there are two people who are closely sharing their lives. If a single person finds someone with whom they want to closely share their life, they can join with them and have those benefits. Until they have another person, it doesn't really make a difference. People do get married for the benefits, but single people can too if they find someone they want to join themselves too.

And the tax benefit is really not that big a benefit now that many families have two working partners. I know my tax bracket is going to go up because H and I both make decent money. There isn't a tax benefit for us. 

And while I'm thinking about it, there will still need to be some government rules about married couples even if it's privatized. Because you would probably still need laws about married couples and visiting rights in the hospital, parental rights, and property rights. Having marriage not regulated by the government either wouldn't change that, or there will be A LOT more work for lawyers and getting married will become prohibitively expensive because you will need a contract for absolutely everything.

kkitkat79

abcdevonn said:

This thread is so confusing. @Kkitkat79, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue, because I feel like you're arguing in circles. Basically you want to abolish the marriage as a public institution because some groups of people are unable to benefit from marriage? Wouldn't it be better to just make marriage accessible to all consenting groups of adults? Why would you want to privatize something and make it much worse for people, as mentioned by @STARMOON44? Privatization could lead to even more inaccessibility.

I have asked this question a number of times, maybe you can reply. Do you think marriage is a public good* that benefits society or is it a contract between consenting adults and nothing more?

I claim that marriage is not a public good, at least not any more. I claim that marriage is a legally binding contract between consenting adults. This contract is very meaningful and special to people who enter the contract, but it has no special meaning or benefit to anyone else. 

Therefore, I argue that there is no basis for government's discrimination against people who choose not to enter a marriage contract in favor of people who choose to enter a marriage contact. There should be no special tax breaks, special social security benefits, etc. that are reserved only for married people.

However, if marriage is a public good we need to decide who qualifies for the special status of being married. As of now, with gay marriage recognized, any two people who choose to enter a marriage contract qualify for the marriage status. My question is, are we ok with this definition? Are we ok with saying that only contracts between two people are a public good and contracts between three or more people carry no public benefit at all? Also, are we ok with saying that couples who live together, but choose not to enter a marriage contract are inferior, at least in some sense, to couples who choose to enter a marriage contract? 

*I use "public good" as in " a thing that benefits society", not in the economics definition sense.

**With respect to poor people having less access to marriage contracts if they are privatized. We already help the poor with legal advice through both public and private bodies. There already is a standard marriage contract in place. That's what we sign when we get the marriage license. Take the state out of the contract, make this contract publicly available for free. People will be able to download it, sign it, and register it with whatever legal authority. It should cost no more than what a marriage license costs now.  

STARMOON44

kkitkat79 said:

abcdevonn said:

This thread is so confusing. @Kkitkat79, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue, because I feel like you're arguing in circles. Basically you want to abolish the marriage as a public institution because some groups of people are unable to benefit from marriage? Wouldn't it be better to just make marriage accessible to all consenting groups of adults? Why would you want to privatize something and make it much worse for people, as mentioned by @STARMOON44? Privatization could lead to even more inaccessibility.

I have asked this question a number of times, maybe you can reply. Do you think marriage is a public good* that benefits society or is it a contract between consenting adults and nothing more?

I claim that marriage is not a public good, at least not any more. I claim that marriage is a legally binding contract between consenting adults. This contract is very meaningful and special to people who enter the contract, but it has no special meaning or benefit to anyone else. 

Therefore, I argue that there is no basis for government's discrimination against people who choose not to enter a marriage contract in favor of people who choose to enter a marriage contact. There should be no special tax breaks, special social security benefits, etc. that are reserved only for married people.

However, if marriage is a public good we need to decide who qualifies for the special status of being married. As of now, with gay marriage recognized, any two people who choose to enter a marriage contract qualify for the marriage status. My question is, are we ok with this definition? Are we ok with saying that only contracts between two people are a public good and contracts between three or more people carry no public benefit at all? Also, are we ok with saying that couples who live together, but choose not to enter a marriage contract are inferior, at least in some sense, to couples who choose to enter a marriage contract? 

*I use "public good" as in " a thing that benefits society", not in the economics definition sense.

**With respect to poor people having less access to marriage contracts if they are privatized. We already help the poor with legal advice through both public and private bodies. There already is a standard marriage contract in place. That's what we sign when we get the marriage license. Take the state out of the contract, make this contract publicly available for free. People will be able to download it, sign it, and register it with whatever legal authority. It should cost no more than what a marriage license costs now.  

Hahahahagabahahahaha at the idea that the poor are totes fine because free legal advice and downloadable contracts.

kkitkat79

@Viczaesar, Then how do you justify state benefits that are reserved only for married people?

@TrixieJess, You argued that my claim is invalid because I am a hypocrite. That is an ad hominem argument by definition. The question is whether your ad hominem argument is fallacious or respectable. Since you invoked Descartes and Plato I am assuming that you understand ad hominem as it is used in philosophy, that is you object to my claim that marriage should be privatized because it is incompatible with other views that I hold. I assure you, I believe most things should be privatized. My beliefs are not hypocritical, my actions are. Furthermore, I reject philosophies of Descartes and Plato so I am consistent there as well. We can debate philosophy if you want, I would love to, but we should probably make a new thread for it.

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

@Viczaesar, Then how do you justify state benefits that are reserved only for married people?

@TrixieJess, You argued that my claim is invalid because I am a hypocrite. That is an ad hominem argument by definition. The question is whether your ad hominem argument is fallacious or respectable. Since you invoked Descartes and Plato I am assuming that you understand ad hominem as it is used in philosophy, that is you object to my claim that marriage should be privatized because it is incompatible with other views that I hold. I assure you, I believe most things should be privatized. My beliefs are not hypocritical, my actions are. Furthermore, I reject philosophies of Descartes and Plato so I am consistent there as well. We can debate philosophy if you want, I would love to, but we should probably make a new thread for it.

Naw, I just reject your argument because you don't know how to argue. You can't seem to find a logical outcome and as other posters have stated, you are running a circuitous route leading no where. It's nice that you reject the fathers of modern philosophy while trying to discuss valid/invalid argument points which proves my point of you not understanding what you are discussing. As well, I never called you a hypocrite. You called yourself a hypocrite, I just agreed and pointed out how that made your argument invalid. 

Have fun with with your bigotry and classcism! It goes over very well here.  

kkitkat79

@anjemon, I am not saying the privatizing marriage will extend benefits to singles. I am saying that privatizing marriage will take way some public benefits that are now only available to married people. There will be less benefits for everyone instead of more benefits for a special group.

You raise a fair point. A marriage contract is a complex one, it governs a lot of aspects of our lives. And it is possible that because of this complexity privatizing marriage completely is not a realistic proposition. But I think we should at least be honest about it. We either think that marriage is a special thing that benefits society and that it is why we should keep encouraging it. I wish someone would explain to me why they think marriage benefits society, no takers so far. Or we think that it is not fair, but it is what it is and some level of unnecessary discrimination is just a part of life.

@STARMOON44, you are right, it is definitely not as simple as I wrote. I can accept an argument that we need to keep marriage public as an additional service to the poor. I think it is debatable, but it is a different debate.   

[Deleted User]

STARMOON44 said:

abcdevonn said:

This thread is so confusing. @Kkitkat79, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue, because I feel like you're arguing in circles. Basically you want to abolish the marriage as a public institution because some groups of people are unable to benefit from marriage? Wouldn't it be better to just make marriage accessible to all consenting groups of adults? Why would you want to privatize something and make it much worse for people, as mentioned by @STARMOON44? Privatization could lead to even more inaccessibility.

I have asked this question a number of times, maybe you can reply. Do you think marriage is a public good* that benefits society or is it a contract between consenting adults and nothing more?

I claim that marriage is not a public good, at least not any more. I claim that marriage is a legally binding contract between consenting adults. This contract is very meaningful and special to people who enter the contract, but it has no special meaning or benefit to anyone else. 

Therefore, I argue that there is no basis for government's discrimination against people who choose not to enter a marriage contract in favor of people who choose to enter a marriage contact. There should be no special tax breaks, special social security benefits, etc. that are reserved only for married people.

However, if marriage is a public good we need to decide who qualifies for the special status of being married. As of now, with gay marriage recognized, any two people who choose to enter a marriage contract qualify for the marriage status. My question is, are we ok with this definition? Are we ok with saying that only contracts between two people are a public good and contracts between three or more people carry no public benefit at all? Also, are we ok with saying that couples who live together, but choose not to enter a marriage contract are inferior, at least in some sense, to couples who choose to enter a marriage contract? 

*I use "public good" as in " a thing that benefits society", not in the economics definition sense.

**With respect to poor people having less access to marriage contracts if they are privatized. We already help the poor with legal advice through both public and private bodies. There already is a standard marriage contract in place. That's what we sign when we get the marriage license. Take the state out of the contract, make this contract publicly available for free. People will be able to download it, sign it, and register it with whatever legal authority. It should cost no more than what a marriage license costs now.  

Hahahahagabahahahaha at the idea that the poor are totes fine because free legal advice and downloadable contracts.

Bolded for truth. Seriously, I think you have a really limited worldview on this subject, and you probably should not make sweeping generalizations about how poor folks will take marriage privatization. 

luckya23

jenna8984

I really didn't want to comment on this thread because it's a fucking rabbithole of nonsense. But I must be like the 5th person to ask- what benefits? You just keep saying married people get federal benefits- I have not seen a single one. The IRS actually imposes a tax PENALTY not a benefit. If two people are not married and make $89,000 each they are taxed at 25%. But when those people get married, they are taxed at 28%. Man, I bet all the unmarried people are real pissed off that they are missing out on that action!

I don't know about your state, but when I signed my marriage license this did not happen....

kkitkat79

TrixieJess said:

kkitkat79 said:

@Viczaesar, Then how do you justify state benefits that are reserved only for married people?

@TrixieJess, You argued that my claim is invalid because I am a hypocrite. That is an ad hominem argument by definition. The question is whether your ad hominem argument is fallacious or respectable. Since you invoked Descartes and Plato I am assuming that you understand ad hominem as it is used in philosophy, that is you object to my claim that marriage should be privatized because it is incompatible with other views that I hold. I assure you, I believe most things should be privatized. My beliefs are not hypocritical, my actions are. Furthermore, I reject philosophies of Descartes and Plato so I am consistent there as well. We can debate philosophy if you want, I would love to, but we should probably make a new thread for it.

Naw, I just reject your argument because you don't know how to argue. You can't seem to find a logical outcome and as other posters have stated, you are running a circuitous route leading no where. It's nice that you reject the fathers of modern philosophy while trying to discuss valid/invalid argument points which proves my point of you not understanding what you are discussing. As well, I never called you a hypocrite. You called yourself a hypocrite, I just agreed and pointed out how that made your argument invalid. 

Have fun with with your bigotry and classcism! It goes over very well here.  

I am just going to address the bolded because it is funny. You can reject my argument for whatever reason you want, makes no difference to me, but since you invoke the fathers of philosophy here... Do you have any better arguments to support your claims than ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority? 

MrsMack10612

kkitkat79 said:

abcdevonn said:

This thread is so confusing. @Kkitkat79, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue, because I feel like you're arguing in circles. Basically you want to abolish the marriage as a public institution because some groups of people are unable to benefit from marriage? Wouldn't it be better to just make marriage accessible to all consenting groups of adults? Why would you want to privatize something and make it much worse for people, as mentioned by @STARMOON44? Privatization could lead to even more inaccessibility.

I have asked this question a number of times, maybe you can reply. Do you think marriage is a public good* that benefits society or is it a contract between consenting adults and nothing more?

I claim that marriage is not a public good, at least not any more. I claim that marriage is a legally binding contract between consenting adults. This contract is very meaningful and special to people who enter the contract, but it has no special meaning or benefit to anyone else. 

Therefore, I argue that there is no basis for government's discrimination against people who choose not to enter a marriage contract in favor of people who choose to enter a marriage contact. There should be no special tax breaks, special social security benefits, etc. that are reserved only for married people.

However, if marriage is a public good we need to decide who qualifies for the special status of being married. As of now, with gay marriage recognized, any two people who choose to enter a marriage contract qualify for the marriage status. My question is, are we ok with this definition? Are we ok with saying that only contracts between two people are a public good and contracts between three or more people carry no public benefit at all? Also, are we ok with saying that couples who live together, but choose not to enter a marriage contract are inferior, at least in some sense, to couples who choose to enter a marriage contract? 

*I use "public good" as in " a thing that benefits society", not in the economics definition sense.

**With respect to poor people having less access to marriage contracts if they are privatized. We already help the poor with legal advice through both public and private bodies. There already is a standard marriage contract in place. That's what we sign when we get the marriage license. Take the state out of the contract, make this contract publicly available for free. People will be able to download it, sign it, and register it with whatever legal authority. It should cost no more than what a marriage license costs now.  

Like Jenna, I had planned to stay out of this, but the two bolded are contradictory.  If you want to take the state out of the contract, why would it then need to be registered with a legal authority?  If government shouldn't be in marriage, there's no one to register it with. 

kkitkat79

MrsMack10612 said:

**With respect to poor people having less access to marriage contracts if they are privatized. We already help the poor with legal advice through both public and private bodies. There already is a standard marriage contract in place. That's what we sign when we get the marriage license. Take the state out of the contract, make this contract publicly available for free. People will be able to download it, sign it, and register it with whatever legal authority. It should cost no more than what a marriage license costs now.  

Like Jenna, I had planned to stay out of this, but the two bolded are contradictory.  If you want to take the state out of the contract, why would it then need to be registered with a legal authority?  If government shouldn't be in marriage, there's no one to register it with. 

I don't know contract law very well so I am not sure what one would need to do to make the contract legally binding. You might be right, maybe there is no need to get it registered and just signing it and filing it in a safe place would do the trick. 

Teddy917

kkitkat79 said:

MrsMack10612 said:

**With respect to poor people having less access to marriage contracts if they are privatized. We already help the poor with legal advice through both public and private bodies. There already is a standard marriage contract in place. That's what we sign when we get the marriage license. Take the state out of the contract, make this contract publicly available for free. People will be able to download it, sign it, and register it with whatever legal authority. It should cost no more than what a marriage license costs now.  

Like Jenna, I had planned to stay out of this, but the two bolded are contradictory.  If you want to take the state out of the contract, why would it then need to be registered with a legal authority?  If government shouldn't be in marriage, there's no one to register it with. 

I don't know contract law very well so I am not sure what one would need to do to make the contract legally binding. You might be right, maybe there is no need to get it registered and just signing it and filing it in a safe place would do the trick. 

If nobody but the couple is involved, why would you need it to be legally binding?

kkitkat79

@jenna8984, There are over a thousand federal benefits, rights, and protections afforded to married people that are not afforded to unmarried people. Gay marriage movement was fighting for these rights. I've seen the benefits argument invoked on these boards a number of times in support of gay marriage. Do they not exist anymore?

CMGragain

"I don't know contract law very well so I am not sure what one would need to do to make the contract legally binding. You might be right, maybe there is no need to get it registered and just signing it and filing it in a safe place would do the trick. "

Yeah.  Right.  Tell that to Mrs. Maria Fitzherbert, who married the Prince of Wales in 1785, but it was not legally recorded.

kkitkat79

Teddy917 said:

I don't know contract law very well so I am not sure what one would need to do to make the contract legally binding. You might be right, maybe there is no need to get it registered and just signing it and filing it in a safe place would do the trick. 

If nobody but the couple is involved, why would you need it to be legally binding?

So that you can sue when your spouse decides to violate a part of the contract you both agreed to.

ShesSoCold

OP, since you don't seem to understand what marriage even is, let me explain. When two people get married, they are typically considered one unit. Therefore they get government benefits (or penalties) based on them as a one. Individual income becomes joint. If I make $25,000 and my husband makes $750,000, WE (AS ONE) make $775,000. How, exactly, do you propose that this "discrimination" be fixed? Allow people to file taxes with whomever they want? Allow people to collect SS when their mailman dies? Your argument does not make any sense at all.

Teddy917

kkitkat79 said:

Teddy917 said:

kkitkat79 said:

I don't know contract law very well so I am not sure what one would need to do to make the contract legally binding. You might be right, maybe there is no need to get it registered and just signing it and filing it in a safe place would do the trick. 

If nobody but the couple is involved, why would you need it to be legally binding?


So that you can sue when your spouse decides to violate a part of the contract you both agreed to.

Could you please provide an example?

ChemFanatic25

jenna8984 said:

I really didn't want to comment on this thread because it's a fucking rabbithole of nonsense. But I must be like the 5th person to ask- what benefits? You just keep saying married people get federal benefits- I have not seen a single one. The IRS actually imposes a tax PENALTY not a benefit. If two people are not married and make $89,000 each they are taxed at 25%. But when those people get married, they are taxed at 28%. Man, I bet all the unmarried people are real pissed off that they are missing out on that action!

I don't know about your state, but when I signed my marriage license this did not happen....

Quick question about this (I have no opinion on OP's question) but can't you file separately even if you're married? So I am independent while single based on my situation (I know it changes in each situation). I have a job, I pay for my own insurance, taxes, etc. They are still going to take the same amount out of my paycheck whether I am married or not, right? Sorry, I don't completely understand the tax thing in regards to marriage and am just looking for clarification.

Teddy917

ChemFanatic25 said:

jenna8984 said:

I really didn't want to comment on this thread because it's a fucking rabbithole of nonsense. But I must be like the 5th person to ask- what benefits? You just keep saying married people get federal benefits- I have not seen a single one. The IRS actually imposes a tax PENALTY not a benefit. If two people are not married and make $89,000 each they are taxed at 25%. But when those people get married, they are taxed at 28%. Man, I bet all the unmarried people are real pissed off that they are missing out on that action!

I don't know about your state, but when I signed my marriage license this did not happen....

Quick question about this (I have no opinion on OP's question) but can't you file separately even if you're married? So I am independent while single based on my situation (I know it changes in each situation). I have a job, I pay for my own insurance, taxes, etc. They are still going to take the same amount out of my paycheck whether I am married or not, right? Sorry, I don't completely understand the tax thing in regards to marriage and am just looking for clarification.

If you don't file jointly then they take out the same regardless of being married.

anjemon

kkitkat79 said:

@anjemon, I am not saying the privatizing marriage will extend benefits to singles. I am saying that privatizing marriage will take way some public benefits that are now only available to married people. There will be less benefits for everyone instead of more benefits for a special group.

You raise a fair point. A marriage contract is a complex one, it governs a lot of aspects of our lives. And it is possible that because of this complexity privatizing marriage completely is not a realistic proposition. But I think we should at least be honest about it. We either think that marriage is a special thing that benefits society and that it is why we should keep encouraging it. I wish someone would explain to me why they think marriage benefits society, no takers so far. Or we think that it is not fair, but it is what it is and some level of unnecessary discrimination is just a part of life.

@STARMOON44, you are right, it is definitely not as simple as I wrote. I can accept an argument that we need to keep marriage public as an additional service to the poor. I think it is debatable, but it is a different debate.   

But I don't really think there are any "special benefits" to take away that will make it less "discriminatory" to single people. Single people currently have the right to find any person and join with them in a civil union. All the "benefits" are about regarding the two people as legally tied together.

When we talk about people "marrying for the benefits" we are largely talking about the ability to put each other on their financial and insurance information. Which isn't government at all, it's private insurance companies and financial institutions who give those abilities to married couples. And military couples who marry "for the benefits" seem to be largely marrying so they will be moved together and can receive the larger monetary stipulation. And that is government, but the military so it would have to be changed there in addition to how you legally consider marriage.

And lastly, I don't think the "benefits" that the gay marriage movement were referring to were largely monetary or applicable to singles. They want to be considered equal. They want to be able to be able to visit their partner in the hospital without hassle, they don't want to have to fight someone's family for their property after their partner dies and the house was in his name, they want to be able to be on the same insurance policy. 

I guess I don't see marriage as giving some "special people" benefits. I see it as a way for the government to recognize two people who have joined their lives together in a legal contract and acknowledge them as a pair instead of two singles. Making marriage a private institution will not make any of that go away, it will just put more hoops in there for people to jump through. The government will still have to recognize the contract some how for the many different groups (banks, insurance companies, hospitals) to recognize it.Or you have the most ridiculous contract ever where it states what exactly the hospital, insurance company, and bank must do.

Cookie Pusher

anjemon said:

kkitkat79 said:

@anjemon, I am not saying the privatizing marriage will extend benefits to singles. I am saying that privatizing marriage will take way some public benefits that are now only available to married people. There will be less benefits for everyone instead of more benefits for a special group.

You raise a fair point. A marriage contract is a complex one, it governs a lot of aspects of our lives. And it is possible that because of this complexity privatizing marriage completely is not a realistic proposition. But I think we should at least be honest about it. We either think that marriage is a special thing that benefits society and that it is why we should keep encouraging it. I wish someone would explain to me why they think marriage benefits society, no takers so far. Or we think that it is not fair, but it is what it is and some level of unnecessary discrimination is just a part of life.

@STARMOON44, you are right, it is definitely not as simple as I wrote. I can accept an argument that we need to keep marriage public as an additional service to the poor. I think it is debatable, but it is a different debate.   

But I don't really think there are any "special benefits" to take away that will make it less "discriminatory" to single people. Single people currently have the right to find any person and join with them in a civil union. All the "benefits" are about regarding the two people as legally tied together.

When we talk about people "marrying for the benefits" we are largely talking about the ability to put each other on their financial and insurance information. Which isn't government at all, it's private insurance companies and financial institutions who give those abilities to married couples. And military couples who marry "for the benefits" seem to be largely marrying so they will be moved together and can receive the larger monetary stipulation. And that is government, but the military so it would have to be changed there in addition to how you legally consider marriage.

And lastly, I don't think the "benefits" that the gay marriage movement were referring to were largely monetary or applicable to singles. They want to be considered equal. They want to be able to be able to visit their partner in the hospital without hassle, they don't want to have to fight someone's family for their property after their partner dies and the house was in his name, they want to be able to be on the same insurance policy. 

I guess I don't see marriage as giving some "special people" benefits. I see it as a way for the government to recognize two people who have joined their lives together in a legal contract and acknowledge them as a pair instead of two singles. Making marriage a private institution will not make any of that go away, it will just put more hoops in there for people to jump through. The government will still have to recognize the contract some how for the many different groups (banks, insurance companies, hospitals) to recognize it.Or you have the most ridiculous contract ever where it states what exactly the hospital, insurance company, and bank must do.

Viczaesar

kkitkat79 said:

@anjemon, I am not saying the privatizing marriage will extend benefits to singles. I am saying that privatizing marriage will take way some public benefits that are now only available to married people. There will be less benefits for everyone instead of more benefits for a special group.

You raise a fair point. A marriage contract is a complex one, it governs a lot of aspects of our lives. And it is possible that because of this complexity privatizing marriage completely is not a realistic proposition. But I think we should at least be honest about it. We either think that marriage is a special thing that benefits society and that it is why we should keep encouraging it. I wish someone would explain to me why they think marriage benefits society, no takers so far. Or we think that it is not fair, but it is what it is and some level of unnecessary discrimination is just a part of life.

@STARMOON44, you are right, it is definitely not as simple as I wrote. I can accept an argument that we need to keep marriage public as an additional service to the poor. I think it is debatable, but it is a different debate.   

I'm a single.  There are no legal benefits of marriage that I feel are missing in my life.

kkitkat79

Question for everyone. I have two best friends. We are all single. The three of us have no romantic feelings for each other, but we are very very good friends. We decided that we want to get the same recognition from the government as married people do and get the same benefits, rights, and protections that they do. We go to the marriage license office and apply for a licence. Should we be able to get it? If not, why not?

@Teddy917, For example, you and your spouse agreed that if you break up he/she will pay you $100 every month for 12 months. It is part of your contract and you both signed it. If he/she doesn't pay you should be able to take him/her to court. 

lyndausvi

Teddy917 said:

jenna8984 said:

I really didn't want to comment on this thread because it's a fucking rabbithole of nonsense. But I must be like the 5th person to ask- what benefits? You just keep saying married people get federal benefits- I have not seen a single one. The IRS actually imposes a tax PENALTY not a benefit. If two people are not married and make $89,000 each they are taxed at 25%. But when those people get married, they are taxed at 28%. Man, I bet all the unmarried people are real pissed off that they are missing out on that action!

I don't know about your state, but when I signed my marriage license this did not happen....

Quick question about this (I have no opinion on OP's question) but can't you file separately even if you're married? So I am independent while single based on my situation (I know it changes in each situation). I have a job, I pay for my own insurance, taxes, etc. They are still going to take the same amount out of my paycheck whether I am married or not, right? Sorry, I don't completely understand the tax thing in regards to marriage and am just looking for clarification.

If you don't file jointly then they take out the same regardless of being married.

not exactly.     Withholding and taxed owed are different things.

If you do not change your w-4 when you get married they will just continute taking out the same amount.  However, that does not mean your tax libility at the end of the year remains the same.  Some married couples end up paying more, others less.     

If you change your w-4 to be married sometimes they end up taking less then they should. It's assumed that you are one income.  

When you file married by separate that does not mean your tax liablity remains the same as a single person. If that was the case then most of us would not file jointly.   I ran the numbers for married jointly and married separate.  There was no benefit to doing it married separate for us. Others it might be better, but it's not the same as if you are single.

I suggest using the IRS withholding calculator to run the numbers.   I use it a few times a year to make sure we are in are taking out enough.      I'm a 1099 employee so I have to pay quarterlies.  I also have a summer job that is w-2.  I set my w-2 as single no dependents so they take out more money to help balance out my tax liablity from my 1099 job.    DH takes out more each paycheck too.

hellosweetie1015

This is what kkitkat is doing:

Personally, I would rather see the opposite - I want the church out of the business of legally marrying people. It's worked well in Europe, right? Maybe an excess of PPDs, since the religious ceremony some people want isn't actually the legal wedding, but that ain't no skin off my nose if it means the church has no say in who can legally get married. 

kkitkat79

@Vizsaesar, what if you are single 70 year old living with another single 80 year old. You put your social security benefits together and are able to afford your life. Your friend dies. Your income goes down and you can no longer afford your life. The quality of your life goes down. Still feel there are no benefits of marriage that are missing from your life?

I am sure that does not happen a lot and I am sure there are other remedies. But it is so much easier if the government recognizes you as married. Why should it be? There might be legitimate reasons. No one cares to share them with me.   

[Deleted User]

kkitkat79 said:

Question for everyone. I have two best friends. We are all single. The three of us have no romantic feelings for each other, but we are very very good friends. We decided that we want to get the same recognition from the government as married people do and get the same benefits, rights, and protections that they do. We go to the marriage license office and apply for a licence. Should we be able to get it? If not, why not?

@Teddy917, For example, you and your spouse agreed that if you break up he/she will pay you $100 every month for 12 months. It is part of your contract and you both signed it. If he/she doesn't pay you should be able to take him/her to court. 

What benefits do you want that married people have? The right to each others' insurance/property/etc.? I think it seems very strange that you would want to share that with friends, and if you did, it would need to be legally binding because there are lots of opportunities for fraud, but whatever. 

But the reality is that (at least in the US), there is no infrastructure to support this type of relationship. You would have to completely redo everything.

There are lots of things I want that are not realistically feasible, but I'm not stomping my feet that I can't get them.

TrixieJess

ChemFanatic25 said:

jenna8984 said:

I really didn't want to comment on this thread because it's a fucking rabbithole of nonsense. But I must be like the 5th person to ask- what benefits? You just keep saying married people get federal benefits- I have not seen a single one. The IRS actually imposes a tax PENALTY not a benefit. If two people are not married and make $89,000 each they are taxed at 25%. But when those people get married, they are taxed at 28%. Man, I bet all the unmarried people are real pissed off that they are missing out on that action!

I don't know about your state, but when I signed my marriage license this did not happen....

Quick question about this (I have no opinion on OP's question) but can't you file separately even if you're married? So I am independent while single based on my situation (I know it changes in each situation). I have a job, I pay for my own insurance, taxes, etc. They are still going to take the same amount out of my paycheck whether I am married or not, right? Sorry, I don't completely understand the tax thing in regards to marriage and am just looking for clarification.

You can file taxes separately, but they still take you and your spouse's income into consideration when filing. You have a line where you have to enter your spouse's income and it is added to yours and vice versa. Normally, you have to inform your taxation office of change of marital status right away.