Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
2. The problem with that is that we have, codified into all sorts of laws at the federal level
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 09:43 PM
Jan 2015

as well as state level, various 'benefits' that accrue to 'married' couples.

I'm fine with getting the state out of the 'marriage' business, but you have to 'divorce' it from 'marriage' altogether if you do.

No more joint tax filings, no special perks that are automatically given to 'married' couples, etc. And if you still want to offer such benefits, you then have to simply offer the same benefits to anyone, married or not. Every 'spousal' benefit has to then be offered to unmarried people, who can name anyone they want to claim such benefits. The state 'condones' and 'approves' of marriage by granting any benefits at all to 'married' couples that are not open to singles as well.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Proposed bill would end m...»Reply #2