Marriage Equivalent

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Gorfias:
That sounds good and fair and better than anything we have in the USA. I'm not even certain if I could claim my inlaws as dependents. Never thought about it but I'm sure they'd have been insulted by the idea. But they were. They have since passed and it's a moot point for me, but not others.

You could have providing they met the following criteria:
Not a qualifying child - The dependent cannot be a qualifying child of another taxpayer.

Gross Income - The dependent earns less than the personal exemption amount during the year. For 2011, this meant the dependent earns less than $3,700.

Total Support - You provide more than half of the dependent's total support during the year.

Relationship - You are related to the dependent in certain ways; son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter, great grandson or great granddaughter, stepson or stepdaughter, or adopted child, brother or sister, half-brother or half-sister, step-brother or step-sister, mother or father, grandparent, great-grandparent, stepmother or stepfather, nephew or niece, aunt or uncle, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, father-in-law, or mother-in-law, or
foster child who was placed in your custody by court order or by an authorized government agency.

Joint Return - If the dependent is married, the dependent cannot file a joint return with his or her spouse.

Citizenship - The dependent must be a citizen or resident alien of the United States, Canada, or Mexico.

If you have the relevant documentation to show all this you'd have been able to claim them as dependents.

Yikes, so, I assure you, I'm not even close. Even combined $1K a month from Social Security bats them out of that ballpark but hardly makes them independent. There is my side of the family where a sister is taking care of my mom, also not a dependent legally but certainly not independent. (Anything happens to my sister, and I think I'm up next... again). I'd love it if they could get some official recognition of the relationship. Hard to do without insulting my mom though.

Well, here in the UK, we've had "Civil Partnerships" for same-sex couples since Tony Blair introduced 'em. They possess most of the legal rights of marriage.

Now, all three major parties' leaderships (Labour, the tories and the Lib-Dems) all support introducing gay marriage. Under Cameron's plan, churches will be allowed to do the ceremonies if they so wish (except for the Church of England), though they don't have to if they don't want.

The religious community are still angry. They still believe this is infringing on religious rights. If you ask me, letting the churches make their own decisions is the most pro-religious-freedom thing you could do, since as it was before, churches were banned. Takes a pretty perverse kind of conservative logic to state that the "religious freedom" option would be to prevent churches from making their own choices, but that's the UK tories for you.

Captcha: "Dharma initiative". You're taunting me because I spent so many hours watching Lost, for absolutely no pay-off, aren't you, Escapist?! :(

As others stated that is how it works, in the US at least. However our government chooses to leave it up to states instead of making a decision at the federal level of whether it's discriminatory and leaving it up to the states automatically means about 30 states in the unions will say no to it without even bringing up the discussion of allowing two men or two women get that piece of paper.

Skeleon:
Church ceremonies have no legal effect in Germany, only going to a civil registry office can get you married here.
And despite that we've failed to provide marriage equality as yet.

It seems like that would be the best solution for the US.

Gold:
I think it would be better if gay people could just get married to each other.

BUT THAT WOULD BE WRONG.

If they want to get married under Catholicism, Islam or Judaism[1]? Yeah it would be considered wrong/sinful.

[1] If we are talking about men

Helmholtz Watson:

Skeleon:
Church ceremonies have no legal effect in Germany, only going to a civil registry office can get you married here.
And despite that we've failed to provide marriage equality as yet.

It seems like that would be the best solution for the US.

Gold:
I think it would be better if gay people could just get married to each other.

BUT THAT WOULD BE WRONG.

If they want to get married under Catholicism, Islam or Judaism[1]? Yeah it would be considered wrong/sinful.

Not for all Catholics, Muslims, or Jews.

[1] If we are talking about men

Bashfluff:

Not for all Catholics, Muslims, or Jews.

I wasn't talking the individual people, the the official stances of the religions[1].

[1] inb4 bringing up reconstructionist and reformed Judaism

Hafrael:

Dijkstra:

Why kowtow to the bigots? It's not as if they own the idea of marriage. They don't like it? Too bad for them.

All you'd be doing is changing the word and if someone is so petty they try to claim it for their own, why care about them? If someone wants to hold on to the word marriage because their ego makes them think they own it I don't want them to be happy.

But they cannot claim it as their own, as many non-bigoted institutions also practice marriage. It just means they will not be able to force their bigotry upon other members of the state.

What the hell are you on about? They try to claim it as their own anyway. And they try to force it anyway. A name change won't change it, it'll just give a nod to bigotry and let them try to screw up the newly named thing.

I'm shocked there's this much conversation about something that is so clear-cut. As Bentius pointed out, there's no such thing as a "religious marriage" as far as the government is concerned. All the government cares about are the papers you sign after all the fluff is out of the way.

My dad got married to his new wife in a hayfield by a guy he knows from work who happens to be a justice of the peace. Not a religious element was involved in any stage of the process. It was as secular as a fantasy football draft.

The "defense of traditional marriage" angle is just a term bigoted people use because they don't wanna be seen for the homophobes they are. They just don't want gay people to get married because they don't like gay people. That's it. There is no "traditional" marriage; its a myth.

As Seanbaby wrote in an article posted today, if they REALLY cared about "traditional marriage" they'd be fighting divorce, which is EXACTLY THAT every time it happens. Spare me.

dmase:
As others stated that is how it works, in the US at least. However our government chooses to leave it up to states instead of making a decision at the federal level of whether it's discriminatory and leaving it up to the states automatically means about 30 states in the unions will say no to it without even bringing up the discussion of allowing two men or two women get that piece of paper.

Erm... but the federal government did make a decision at the federal level. They passed a law that says that in the eyes of the federal government, same-sex marriages don't exist.

This law could very well turn out to be unconstitutional, but it makes me wonder if the federal government does have the power to do something. A while ago the Obama administration issued guidelines urging immigration enforcement officials to use discretion when it comes to deporting family members of US citizens, including same-sex partners. The guidelines to determine a same-sex relationship are:

(1) are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely; (2) are not in a marital or other domestic relationship with anyone else; and (3) typically maintain a common residence and share financial obligations and assets.

These guidelines are quite similar to how the Australian federal government grants benefits to couples who aren't either married or in a civil union. I'd love to see the US federal government expand this and grant more spousal benefits to unmarried couples fit those guidelines. It's pretty invasive and an unfair burden to put on people to have to prove their relationship without a marriage/civil union certificate, but assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't rule that gay Americans have a right to marry in every state it would at least give same-sex couples in every state some rights without the shitstorm of the federal government issuing their own marriage/civil union/domestic partnership certificates.

Of course, this would just be a solution to offer limited rights to gay couples, you're right that it's impossible to force every state to grant the exact same relationship statuses to all couples whether straight or gay, at least without the Supreme Court forcing it.

ten.to.ten:
snipped

I forgot about DOMA, not sure how.

ten.to.ten:
[quote="Gorfias" post="528.398795.16339997"]The difference between me and you though is that I still want the government to recognise marriages, gay or straight, secular or religious. I don't see why we can't have marriages and civil unions and anything else you can come up with, and have the government recognise all of them equally.

in quebec you have three sorts of partnerhip.

First, you have "De facto spouses". You have been living with your significan other for more than two years ? then you are de facto spouses. It grant you some rights, you can produce only one tax report like a married couple for exemple, and you can produce with a lawyer a conttract to establish how the things you own will be separated if you breakup, but it's not an obligation. and you dont need a judge decision to breakup.

Then you have the civil union, which is exactly the same thing as marriage, but you can breakup in front of a notary. Then we have the marriage, which can only be terminated by a judge in a divorce.

All three unions can be used by same-sex couples, however only the civil union and marriage give the same filiation than blood filiation to the children borned into the union. to be clear, since i'm married, and that my wife gave birth to a child through artificial insemination, i'm legally the mother of my daughter, and have the same exact right and obligation for that child than my wife, who is actually her biological mother.

And the churches have no obligation to married anyone that they dont want to married. No same-sex couple can complain that a caholic church refuse to marry them. It been like that for a while now, and everybody seems fine with that.

cathou:
in quebec you have three sorts of partnerhip.

Everything you've described is pretty much exactly how it works in most Australian states too with de facto relationships, civil partnerships and marriage.

The difference between Canada and Australia is that in Australia, while straight couples can be recognised through de facto, civil partnership or marriage, gay couples only have de facto and civil partnership, which is particularly mean and unfair if you still live in one of the few states that doesn't have a civil partnership system set up.

Similarly, civil partnerships here provide parental assumption so if my partner had a baby I would automatically be considered the father and vice versa, but considering it's not possible for either of us to actually give birth we can't really make use of that benefit.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here