Why does the government give benefits to Married couples period?

[kerrywins]

why?

[kerrywins]

1. someone has to know this

why give special benefits to married couples?

[democratreformed]

8. What special benefits???

I missed mine.

[Kazak]

11. Yeah...

I'm still waiting for mine too!

[comsymp]

23. Nah, you just take 'em for granted

without even realizing that others don't have 'em.

See some of the ones enumerated farther down the thread.

[Walt Starr]

2. It is in the interest of the government to encourage procreation in

monogamous relationships.

Monogamous relationships stop venereal disease and procreation insures a future tax base.

[kerrywins]

3. so thats the main reason?

[Walt Starr]

5. that's the only reason

Period. Nothing more. That's it, and to tell the truth, it's a biggie!

[kerrywins]

6. i see.

thanks for the reply...

[Bucky]

27. There's more reasons. Here's why marriage is an economic bargain

Married people live longer than non-married people. Married people are less likely to commit crimes. Married people are more likely to buy homes. Married people have fewer accidents and thus help to keep insurance rates lower. They are more likely to be able to pay for their own medical bills. They are more likely to stay employed and thus still manage to pay more taxes per capita than non-married people.

In every measureable statistic, married people give the nation and its government more and require fewer of the nation's public services than non-married people. Marriage isn't just a custom; it makes damn good public policy to promote marriage.

By opposing gay marriage, Rick Santorum is trying to destroy America by calcifying a large segment of the population into a permanently unmarried class. Why do they hate America?

and why must attractive people suffer?

[wickerwoman]

33. The average married person is older than the average single person.

And therefore, on average is more responsible about things like paying bills, driving recklessly and commiting crimes. How many of the married people commited crimes, had accidents and didn't pay their bills when they were younger but, apparently, get a clean slate the second they tie the knot.

And living longer doesn't benefit the government. It just means more medicare and SS to dole out.

So as a responsible, committedly single person beyond the hellion years, I get screwed for no reason.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

9. But monogamous relationships outside a marriage contract...

.. provide the same benefits you espouse.

So back to the first question............

[sandnsea]

4. Single earner families

The idea probably started because the husband was supporting the wife and it was obvious two people living on $10,000 shouldn't have to pay as much tax as one person living on $10,000. That was just the order of things.

[gratuitous]

7. Because it's in society's interests

Remember, the government in the United States and its authority are supposed to be drawn from the people, not bestowed upon us by a deity with a cock-eyed sense of humor.

As such, we the people have decided that the nuclear family is deserving of society's support in the form of tax deductions for children, spousal immunity from coerced testimony in a criminal case, and other benefits conferred by law. These statutory benefits have been developed and granted to married persons over time usually with the intent of strengthening the bond of marriage and helping families stay together.

Naturally, any of these benefits can be overturned at any time the majority of society wishes to do so, but the overwhelming popularity of deductions for children, automatic inheritance for spouses of intestate decedents, and all the others means they won't be taken away any time soon.

[meti57b]

10. it's for "pain and suffering".

[RodneyCK2]

12. Glad this question was asked.

I never thought it was fair across the board.

[mermaid]

13. Social Engineering

a tool to try to get everyone to conform to the way they think society ought to be...and to punsih those who do not conform. Simple.

[kerrywins]

15. so...would you get rid of the benefits?

?

[mermaid]

17. If The Benefits Will Be Specifically Denied To Someone, Based On

their sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, color or creed, yes.
If the benefits are freely accessible to all people, fine. If you are using the benefits as a tool of social engineering, to try to coerce people to conform in order to get the proverbial carrot-on-a-stick, then, yes, get rid of the benefits.

Not fair that same-sex couples cannot have the same benefits as hetro couples.

Maybe that is unpopular...well, I don't care! I am sick and tired of other people's "morality" being forced on us, and rammed down our throats by these means.

Social engineering is wrong. Besides, society got along just fine for millions of years without social engineering...and I thnk it will still get along just fine withut social engineering!

If I were a gay man (I'm not, by the way) I'd be outraged that MY tax dollars are used to give benefits to some couples, and that I was not allowe, by law, to enjoy those same benefits with whomever I chose to be MY life partner.

Incidentally, I am a transgender woman (post-operative now, fully female) and I have not a dog in this fight since I have no desire to marry ANYONE. However, I'll not stand by while some try to garner votes with fundamentalist whackos by playing political football with the Constitution!

[comsymp]

20. Well said!

I had planned to post a reply, calling it social engineering, myself- since your follow-up was so accurate, there's no need.

[mermaid]

25. Thanks

I stand with my GLBT brothers and sisters on this...even though, as I stated, I have absolutely no desire whatsoever, to get married, myself...to ANYONE...period!

Fact is...if you are silent, in the face of atrocity, then you become part of the atrocity. I'll not become a part of this one.

I can only hope my GLB brothers and sisters will REMEMBER how many of their T brothers and sisters STOOD WITH THEM in their battle...and will likewise stand with us T's in OUR battles (most notably ENDA) rather than using us T's as bargaining chips, as has been done in the past by largely GLB organizations like HRC. ("oh, Mr. Congresscritter, give US our rights, and we'll dump the queens and sell THEM down the river...")

Yeah, I'm STILL bitter about the way HRC and other mainly GLB organizations have done over the T community. But I still stand against wrongful discrimination in spite of my bitterness.

[comsymp]

26. Re: T's as bargaining chips

Cheney that~

Up or down, we go together. Since many of us are, unfortunately, not always attuned to T issues, please take it upon yourself to keep us posted.

Solidarnosk, my sister.

[mermaid]

28. I Like Your Attitude

If only those who made official policy at HRC had the same attitude!!

Well, what is there to say regarding T-inclusion in ENDA? Just like you, we need jobs, and a livlihood to support ourselves. Un and under-employment is rampant in the T community thanks, in large measure, to the fact that in most places it is still legal to discriminate against us.

Recently (1 month and one week ago) it officially became illegal, in my home city of Austin, Texas...to discriminate based on gender identity in housing, public accomodations, and employment. On the other hand, it HAS BEEN illegal to discriminate in housing, public accomodations, and employment, based on SEXUAL ORIENTATION...in Austin, Texas...for the past TWENTY-NINE YEARS!!!

Do you now see why we T's are so adamant on being included NOW...and not "to be returned for later, after we get ours?" We don't want to wait another 29 years! We CAN'T AFFORD to wait another 29 years!!

And I'll argue we T's need the protections even more than GLB people do. It is far less easy for us to hide who we are. No one ought to HAVE to hide...but the fact is...for GLB people, hiding IS an option. We T's don't have that luxury.

I don't care if you have a perfect feminine voice, stature, demeanor...look like Christie Brinkley...fact is..one pre-employment background check will let an employer know all about your past if you are T...no matter how passable you are!

First, many employers check credit reports. Don't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on when you get a report back that shows Joe Smith, with Social Security number 999-99-9999 is on the same report with JOAN Smith, Social 999-99-9999...especially if you;re less than passable to begin with, and therefore, the interviewer was suspicious.

Second, many employers conduct criminal background checks. To assist in this process, we are COMPELLED to give all former names under which we have worked or gone to school. don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out when Joan Smith lists Joe Smith as a former name.

See, THERE ARE RECORDS OF US BEING TRANSGENDER!! No one keeps any record of you being gay! They don;t HAVE to find out. You CAN hide....you CAN keep it secret. Not that you ought to have to...but at least it is an option for you. For us, THAT OPTION DOES NOT EXIST!!

When you couple that with the fact that it is still, in most places, legal to discriminate against us...well, it it is quite clear to anyone who cares why un and under-employment are so rampant in my T community.

We are far more vulnerable, and more subject to discrimination, than you are. I therefore maintain that WE need the rights even more than you do. However, I would nt advocate giving us our rights and selling you down the river to get them. Yet, this is what your GLB leadership has done with the T community for the past 4 decades!

Let's face it. Read your history! Who was given over to the cops at Stonewall? The queens!! They were handed to the cops while the good 'ol gay boys went out the back door! Who gave you Stonewall in the first place?? The queens!! It all started when Sylvia Rivera, God rest her soul...threw a high-heeled shoe at a cop!!

any questions you have, specifically, I am glad to answer them. but you must understand I come from a very different perspective than you do. I harbor years of resentment over the systematic mistreatment of my people at the hands of your leaders.

[comsymp]

29. It's all about the attitude

:evilgrin:

But, y'know, after reading that post I'm beginning to feel like a couple of the str8 guys in this thread. I honestly don't think I "got it" regarding the separation between LG & T... have always been aware of a little separation with the B's, but... It's easy to overlook advantages you enjoy that someone else doesn't, just because their situation isn't on your radar. Employment history, etc., makes perfect sense- it's just easy for us to forget since we're not in the same position. Not attempting to justify, by any means. Just realizing and kinda stream-of-consciousnessing....

You're right about Stonewall. And, to go one further, it's always been the Queens who've been at the forefront- maybe they felt they had less to lose, maybe more... or maybe they just had more everyday experience in showing guts. I dunno.

(gotta insert one minor rebuttal in here, tho) I support HRC and the good work they do, rather like I supported Clinton. Neither one did as much as they could have, and they both sold out and/or screwed up on many issues that I believe are important. The reason I support(ed) them both is because I believe that, ultimately, they fight on the side of the angels against the bastards. However, they are in no way my "leaders." Minor point but just wanted to get that out of the way.

I think your perspective could be educational for a lotta folks here. I know that I, personally, always lumped us all together but, let's face it, have known many, MANY more LGB's than T's... I'd like to hear what you have to say- a thread, an article, just general discussion like this. If, of course, you're interested in sharing? Admittedly, the benefit would be primarily one way.

[mermaid]

30. Of Course, I'm Happy To Share

but I find specific questions will be far easier for me to deal with. i'm afraid I shot most of my load (if you'll pardon the expression) in that last post.

It is amazing though...you read thru it once and YOU "get it" now...yet we, as a collective community, have been saying the same things to the leaders of HRC for a decade, and they STILL claim to "not get it" and claim that "more education is needed." Can you not see why this is so frustrating to us transgender people? What's not to understand? You are an average guy, you read it thru once, and YOU "get it." so why can't the leaders of HRC "get it" with the same message having been hammered to them for a decade or more now?!?

And I understand and appreciate that you are not rationalizing...you are stating that, accurately...our situation never really occurred to you before...because you never had to deal with it! It is an alien perspective to you, because you never had to deal with it.

But, as alien as my perspective, as a T, may be to you...one read-thru, and YOU "got it!!" So why oh why is it SO HARD for HRC's leaders and policy makers...and why oh why is it SO HARD for our lawmakers in Washington to "get it??" Here you are, just an average gay man...and you "get it." With one read-thru!

And yes, it always has been the queens at the forefront...and we have always been the oes who ultimately benefitted the least from the very struggles we were at the forefront of! Maybe there is something to that...we have had less to lose. After all, we never were able to hide who we were. We faced down naked discrimination. Time and again, we faced it down, and the strong amog us found a way. We always have.

Did you know that fewer than 10 percent of those who seek sex-reassignment surgery...ever realize the eventual goal of that surgery? I am fortunate that I can count myself in that 10 percent. The strong survive...the strong find a way. but, damnitall, I do NOT want those who follow in my footsteps to have it as hard as I did!

I do not want them to have to go thru the hardships I went thru! I went thru them so that those who followed me would not have to! (and for my own benefit, too, I'll be honest on that point!)

When I said "your leaders" I meant, collectively, the GLB community's leaders. I did not mean you, personally. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Again, I would deal much better with specific questions. And I'm always willing to share my experience...and to answer honest, intelligent questions.

Feel free to continue in this thread, or PM me.

[Inland]

14. Not so many benefits---

Except for the tax code and social security, there aren't all that many benefits for married couples. Most of it is just law based on assumptions about what married couples want--that you want your spouse to get your money if you die, that you want your spouse to make your health care decisions, that you and your spouse have joint financial control and intend to share everything, blah blah blah.

For example, the law assumes that unmarried couples do NOT want the other to inherit, but they can always make a will going the other way. The law assumes that married people want the other to inherit, but for the most part, they too can make wills going the other way.

But the tax code is different, and a lot of insurance isn't available for unmarried couples, and you can't get your social security of your unmarried partner. There are probably others.

[Dookus]

16. There are over 1000 benefits

married couples get.

[Inland]

19. Nah.

Most of them aren't benefits. Is it really a benefit to have a law saying that your money goes one way or another if you die? If so, we all have that benefit.

Really only taxes and ssi are true benefits.

[GiovanniC]

21. There Are Quite a Few That are Benefits

Not all are granted by the government, but...

Assumption of spouse's pension
Automatic housing lease transfer
Automatic inheritance
Bereavement leave
Burial determination
Child custody
Confidentiality of conversations
Crime victim's recovery benefits
Divorce protections
Domestic violence protection
Exemption from property tax on partner's death
Family leave to care for sick partner
Foster care custody
Immunity from testifying against spouse
Insurance breaks
Joint adoption
Joint bankruptcy
Joint parenting to care for partner
Medical decisions on behalf of partner
Property rights
Reduced rate memberships
Social Security benefits
Spousal immigration rights
Tax advantages
Visitation of partner's children
Visitation of partner in hospital or prison
Wrongful death benefits

[comsymp]

22. So are being able to make life-or-death decisions for your partner,

Protection from having to testify against him/her in court

Citizenship rights for a foreign-born partner

Joint parenting/adoption

Wrongful death benefits to the survivor

Bereavement/sick leave/FMLA

Military dependent benefits (let's not even go there)

... just for starters


For more info:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=1000+benefits+marriage

[mermaid]

24. Yes, It IS a benefit

because, for example, if you want to leave money to your gay life partner, he has to pay an exhorbitant tax on it, and claim it as income. If the life partner had been a legal spouse, there would be no tax.

Many gay-partnership survivors have had to sell the house they lived in with their partner for 20-plus years just to pay these unfair taxes. and that's just for starters.

[Cats Against Frist]

18. It's social engineering

Any laws made on the federal level, such as the DMA and federal tax breaks for married couples are nothing more than big goverment.

I like to use this when combatting a rabid, ignorant GOPper who thinks that their right-wing authoritarian social engineering was "Top Secret Amendment 1, Section b."

Gets 'em everytime.

[saigon68]

31. kick

[CaTeacher]

32. The "benefit" that most of the gay people

I know are interested in is the adoption of children. It is very very hard to adopt children when you are gay and single. It is quite a bit easier for a married couple to adopt.

(This is also the primary reason why most people who are against gay marriage are against it. I just talked to someone this week who is ADAMENTLY against gay marriage--this person doesn't care about anything but the issue of adoption. BTW, this is a very liberal woman with a master's degree in social work. In her social work she has observed that most children who are sexually abused are abused by an adult who is NOT a biological parent. She claims to personally know several gay men who spend quite a bit of money traveling to 3rd world countries where they can enjoy the "company" of very young boys. She is crazy at the thought of these people having an easy time of adopting young children.

Please don't flame me---I had never even thought of this perspective before--but thought it should be shared here...

[HamdenRice]

35. It is a lot easier now ...

Actually it is much easier now for gay couples to adopt children. Florida recently went backwards to make it easier.

Indeed, it is the fact that gay couples can adopt that has made their argument in favor of marriage more persuasive to courts.

I think the main benefits gay couples are seeking are:

1. Federal tax benefits of being able to choose between married filing jointly and married filing separately.

2. Requirement that private entities that give benefits, like insurance and retirement recognize the surviving spouse benefits.

3. Inability of family members to contest any will in favor of the surviving spouse, and inability of deceased spouse to disinherit surviving spouse.

[HamdenRice]

34. Most of you are mostly wrong -- It's California's fault!!

I don't mean to sound presumptuous, but I actually research and teach in this area, and the answer is not what you expect -- in fact, it is very surprising.

In a way, most of the benefits that married people get are really just an artifact of the way federal law has to treat state law and -- get this -- an artifact of the Spanish conquest of Mexico!

The reason most of these tax benefits were enacted is that the states that were once part of Mexico (or in the case of Louisiana, France) have a different system of marriage than the states whose marriage systems can be traced to England. The states with English common law origins have "separate property" marriage systems and the former Spanish and French states have "community property" systems.

Under separate property, husbands and wives were treated as though each person has his own property and income (although husband was granted control over the wife's property). In community property systems, each spouse has 1/2 ownership of the other's income no matter who actually earns it.

When the income tax was first created, the federal tax law had to look to state marriage law and property law as to how to characterize ownership of the income. This was when most wives did not work and were supported by their husbands. Also, at the time there were not options on filing like married filing jointly and married filing separately.

In a community property state, if the husband earned $50,000 and the wife earned nothing, federal income tax had to treat the husband as though his income was $25,000 and wife as though her income was $25,000.

In a separate property state, however, husband was treated as having income of $50,000 and wife as having zero. Hence the tax rate, being graduated, was higher in separate property states than community property states. There was a rush by state legislatures to switch to community property. That's why there are a few non-Spanish origin states with community property.

To equalize the tax burdens, and avoid forcing states to change their marriage systems, Congress began introducing all of these "tax benefits" to married couples in order to treat married couples in Massachusetts and New York the same way it treated married couples in California and New Mexico.

Since then, policy justifications have been added, but surprisingly, the difference between community property and separate property has continued to drive a lot of federal tax policy toward married couples.