gut;1413521 wrote:The CA case at least appears to focus on benefits. I'm not sure how you can deny benefits to a protected class - change "gay" to "black" and it seems kind of a no-brainer decision.

Whether there should still be a deduction/benefit for marriage is a completely different discussion - I'm not a big fan of subsidizing DINK's.

ccrunner609;1413532 wrote:this should be left to states

ts1227;1413534 wrote:There should be no financial benefits for marriage anyway.

The entitlements and benefits are really about family, anyway, so my solution would be to eliminate the marriage benefit and maybe increase the child credits. Why should a married couple with no kids receive favorable tax treatment over a single person with no kids? That law was written when married women were not a major participant in the workforce, and as such is grossly outdated.

ts1227;1413655 wrote:But should tax benefits be, essentially, based on morals?

HitsRus;1413651 wrote:The problem is that you take away the "incentive" to create a family, and give benefits to people who raise children out of wedlock.... And then you get into a situation with who gets the 'child credits' if they are not together. I think it's pretty obvious what happens here.

If you want to take away the marraige benefit for Dinks that's one thing....but I think it would be to everyone's benefit if incentives were given and expanded to couples raising children within a cohesive, committed family unit.

HitsRus;1413677 wrote:Moreover, you already have welfare queens that have children just to get more benefits....do you really want to open that can of worms?

Con_Alma;1413656 wrote:Tax legislation has and will continue to mold/shape social actions through financial incentives.

gut;1413723 wrote:Yeah, I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about increasing the deduction for the first 2 or 3 children to offset the loss of filing jointly. You could even go a step further reducing the deduction, but allowing both to claim dependents under the same roof so everything washes out.

Negative tax liabilities are a completely different discussion.

pmoney25;1414091 wrote:Pretty simple. As long as the government is in the marriage business. Which it shouldn't be. But since thats the way it is now, then I'm for Gay Marriage or Civil unions. If churches don't want to marry gays, thats fine also.

If two consenting adults want to spend their lives together, they should be awarded the same privileges as any other couple.

If two consenting adults want to spend their lives together, they should be awarded the same privileges as any other couple.

HitsRus;1413999 wrote:I'm using 'welfare' as an example of what happens when you incentivize having children outside of a committed relationship.

Manhattan Buckeye;1413980 wrote:
The easy answer to this is performing gay acts doesn't generally make one a member of a protected class

gut;1414210 wrote:I'm pretty sure sexual orientation is a protected class - it's why you get a worse sentence for punching a gay dude. You may disagree, but the law is the law.

Manhattan Buckeye;1414225 wrote:Federally? I'm pretty sure it isn't.

gut;1415091 wrote:Well sounds like the SC might punt this, which is probably the correct route. Although one could hope for finality to get this stupid question out of the national debate, but obviously as with abortion that will never happen.

Forget where I heard it, but great point that no one is discriminated against - no one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex. And since you're not dealing with a federally protected class, where's the discrimination?