Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal GMontag's Journal: The Montag Marriage Amendment 23

Journal by GMontag

Okay, I have had enough of this government approved "marriage" nonsense. The President has his silly version and I have mine:

No federal or State institution may use the status of marriage, romantic partnership, civil union, nor co-habitation status in any calculation of taxation.

No federal or State institution may use the status of marriage, romantic partnership, civil union, nor co-habitation status in any calculation of government provided benefits nor in any other status distinction.

No federal or State institution may use the status of marriage, romantic partnership, civil union, nor co-habitation status in any calculation of property division.

This Amendment in no way affects the status of wills, powers of attorney nor any other direction by individuals of how they wish their affairs to be conducted in event of their incapacitation, death nor the arbitrary distribution of property belonging to them to whomever they may designate.

This Amendment in no way affects the wishes of individuals as to who may make their medical decisions as they may so wish to designate.

This Amendment in no way restricts employers from providing any benefit they see fit to anybody nor does this Amendment restrict any private enterprise from providing products that they wish to market, other than otherwise regulated.

There. Now stop trying to expand this marriage nonsense into "new and exciting" areas, the joke has gone quite far enough.

This discussion was created by GMontag (42283) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Montag Marriage Amendment More

The Montag Marriage Amendment

Comments Filter:
  • It's not marriage's fault that laws use it as a convienent default designator.
  • I don't get it either.

    Simplest solution, nix government sanctioned marriage all together. Allow us to assign SS benefits to whoever we want, remove the tax penalties/bonuses based on marriage. Set up something entirely fair to singles AND couples.
    Like cheap power of attorney forms, default wills, etc. Go to the courthouse, fill out a form, pay $20-$50 and boom you get all those "additional" benefits.

    Hey, I can name my dog, my brother, my sister, my mother, my good friend, my wife, whoever/whatever as a
    • Then copy my Amendment and fax it to all of your political overlords!
      • I'm considering it. I already sent something to that effect to my state overlords(no point sending anything like that to the WV US senators).

    • Ok, how do you deal with the issue of children?

      Would men and women who conceive out of wedlock get the exact same treatment and rights as they do when they are married? You have to realize that men who have children outside of marriage are treated differently than one who is.

      • What does the Amendment say to that?

        Exactly nothing, so nothing changes with that situation. I suggest another Amendment or legeslation.

        My prefrence is that marriage not be used as an assumption of paternity, as it is in many States: if your wife conceves ANYBODY'S baby it is your financial responsibility until the State law says you are done.

        As for people who have children out of wedlock, they should deal with the children just as if they have gotten divorced, in my opinion.
      • Not really, in my state, if you have a Y chromosome, you're screwed. Regardless of whether you were married or not.

        The woman gets the kid unless she's one HELL of a screwup. You pay out the nose for child support, the state will not pay to disprove paternity and just try suing for custody in a lot of places, just try. But that's a rant for another time. There are a LOT of inequalities in that system.

        I don't see how being married in any way conveys additional rights to the man in a custody battle. Nor

        • Yeah, I wasn't really sure how marriage changed father's rights in the various cases. I've just heard children used as an argument as to why the government needs to be involved in marriage and I was wondering if anyone had any idea why :-)

          There are some benefits to marriage that I like and would hate to see go. Like in the state where I live, when you get married, you both immediately own everything together unless otherwise worked out. Those are the kinds of things that would be a pain to get worked

          • Well you could fix that in a variety of ways, either have a series of easy to get low-fee contracts(not needing the intervention of a lawyer, just signy signy down at city hall) that assign various rights to someone, or just lump everything like that that goes along with marriage right now(apart from the ritual) into a single agreement.

            Boom, contract law covers it.

            Marriage becomes whatever your religion says it is. No seperate but equal arguments, and everything's nice and fair. Nobody really loses anyt
          • Like in the state where I live, when you get married, you both immediately own everything together unless otherwise worked out.

            Yea, great theory.

            Reality is different. First, no pre-marriage agreement ever survives contact with a judge. If you married someone who has nothing then they get half of your stuff, or more and you get what is left over.

            Yea, beautiful deal.
  • Thumbs up.
  • Seems rather drastic along the "well I'll just take my bat and ball and go home" solution.

    There are some definite reasons for government recognizing partnerships. First (and most important to me) is immigration. My wife wouldn't be here if not for a B-1 (fiance) visa and would have had to left if not for us getting hitched. Second, insurance. If the working partner's insurance doesn't cover the other member of the relationship it's tough to have someone at home raising the little rug-rat. Third, defau
    • OMG, those are the worst defenses ever.

      Immigration? That is abused like mad now and it never should have been a reason to grant immigration status. Simple sponsorship is the same thing.

      Insurance? You really must be kidding! Just because EVERY insurance company does not offer insurance, or EVERY employer does not get a carrier that covers partners of EVERY stripe does not make a defense for marriage as an insurance item at all. Plety of firms do not insure anybody but the employee, married or not. Pl
      • Well, you see the situation works out quite well for me as it is.

        Immigration sponsorship? What's that? We got turned down when we tried to get her a tourist visa. The only way she was getting into the country was with the fiance visa.

        As for insurance, insurance companies are going to take the cheapest way out possible. You can't really blame them as they are for-profit businesses. Sure there are companies with bad insurance policies, I happen to be lucky and work for a company with excellent insuranc
        • I don't have a problem with marriage being used to group family units for insurance. That is not the issue. If you are married, you get tax cuts and special treatment from the government. For instance, last year when Bush did the Tax Credit for Families I didn't see shit because I am one of the Evil Rich Single White Honkey Devils. I tried to explain to my co-workers that I was miffed because they all got 300-600 checks and I got jack. Their response was along the lines of, "but you don't know what kid
          • Those "burdens on society" are gonna be making the FICA payments for us when we retire. (If it survived until then.)

            There are both benefits and penalties for marriage, the main one was how a second worker could push the family into a new (and exciting) higher tax bracket with only minimal income depending on how the main earner did.

            I shoveled an awful lot of money into the system myself until I was 31 and got married. I'm probably not going to see much of that money back out, but I guess I can live with
            • Those "burdens on society" are gonna be making the FICA payments for us when we retire. (If it survived until then.) I will never ever qualify for those benefits I have been paying for my entire life. There are both benefits and penalties for marriage, the main one was how a second worker could push the family into a new (and exciting) higher tax bracket with only minimal income depending on how the main earner did. Point taken, but usually this is not much of an issue. If the married couple is with ou
            • Please, ignore the above post, I meant to hit preview not submit 8-(

              Those "burdens on society" are gonna be making the FICA payments for us when we retire. (If it survived until then.)

              I will never ever qualify for those benefits I have been paying for my entire life.

              There are both benefits and penalties for marriage, the main one was how a second worker could push the family into a new (and exciting) higher tax bracket with only minimal income depending on how the main earner did.

              Point
          • Well, my personal position is not that they should pay *more* taxes, it is just that the same taxes should be paid on all income. That is, as long as we are talking about an income tax.

            As far as the schools go, they are generally paid (in the USA) through property taxes. Something else that I find incredibly unfair is that residential property is frequently taxed while at the same time the owners are prevented from most uses that would generate income from the property. All local issues of course, but p
        • My position is that marriage has been abused for a host of government entitlement programs and that abuse should be eliminated, not that marriage or any other sort of social coupling be eliminated.

          I am against endowing special class status to any adult on tha basis of a lifestyle choice. You seem quite happy that you benifit from a special class status, so I will dismiss with any suspicion that I had that you were discussing this objectively.

          However, I'd also question why you are tackling this issue at
          • OK, maybe we're shining a new light on an old issue. Or you're dusting off an old position in light of new developments.

            I'm not trying to be really confrontational, more trying to get information on the formation of your position and relay information on mine.

            I do fully admit that I have a selfish stake in this at least I'm not being delusional about it. :-D

            Unfortunately it looks like some grand-standing mayors are trying to decide the issue for us.

            I hope that Newsome gets arrested and fined all of the
  • Sounds good to me. Send it to the states for ratification.

  • WOW (Score:2)

    by mpost4 ( 115369 ) *
    that is good, if you can get it passed around I would support it.

    Go for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

May all your PUSHes be POPped.

Close