🚀 go-pugleaf

Karen Kimball (karenk@hprnd.rose.hp.com) wrote:
: Mike Powell (mikep@sr.hp.com) wrote:
: : Karen Kimball (karenk@hprnd.rose.hp.com) wrote:
: : : 	Part of that societal baggage is the tax penalty for being
: : : married.

: : 	I don't think so... witness the recent passage (in the House)
: : 	of legal changes to erase this.  What we saw was clearly a
: : 	legal screw-up by idiot politicians from years past who totally
: : 	failed to recognize how easy it is to damage an institution
: : 	such a marriage.  Things are slowly being corrected.



: 	Sorry, but a measly average $145 per couple doesn't begin to
: undo the marriage penalty.

	Actually, it _does_ begin exactly that.... but certainly $145
	is not enough... there should be no marriage penalty at all.
	It is totally stupid, so I think we are in general agreement here.

: 	Additional deductions for children do not help couples without
: children and are not restricted to married couples.

	Full agreement.  There should be no rewards for having kids.

: 	Our taxes increased by about $4000 combined federal/state when
: we got married. THAT magnitude of marriage penalty hasn't begun to
: be addressed. 

	And it needs to be.  We agree on this...

: 	(below was your comment with regard to my note that gay
: marriages, not domestic partnerships, were the real solution to what
: people attempt with these 'domestic partnership' laws)	

: : 	I don't think so... the real solution is to erase the marriage
: : 	penalty, and to take _major_ steps in reversing the _valuation_
: : 	of single parents.  Currently, we reward people who have children
: : 	but fail to establish a permanent relationship/comittment with
: : 	the other parent.  The damage from this foolishness is
: : 	staggering... and has put the face of children on poverty.

: : 	It has been the careless progressive attitude that has devalued
: : 	comittment to stable, long-term relationships, even when children
: : 	are involved (where it counts the most).  It is one thing to
: : 	make adjustments to an institution, and another to be carelessly
: : 	destructive.  We have consistantly moved marriage away from
: : 	a social contract of moral responsibility, toward nothing more
: : 	than the pro's and con's of legal definition.


: 	But I don't see how gay marriages have anything to do with this--
: we are not talking about people who would be in heterosexual marriages
: otherwise (hey, they aren't now).

	It is perhaps beyond the scope of this thread to expand fully
	on this subject, but suffice it to say that marriage... around
	the world and throughout history... has an amazing degree of
	fundimental consistancy. This is true despite the fact that no
	single entity "owns" or "promotes" marriage.  The reason for
	this is because the basic concept of marriage stems _fully_
	from the basic realities of our biology.  All of humanity has
	been under pressures to form arrangements that we call 'marriage'.
	The details differ, but the basics, by a pragmatic imposition,
	are all the same. BUT *same-sex* marriage _totally_ severs itself
	from the fundimental pressures which gave birth to traditions/
	structures of marriage.  This changes marriage on it's most
	fundimental level... creating a major devaluation away from it's
	primary benefit to humanity, and moving toward a valuation of
	the details of transient legal issues.

	This is bad news.

	Again, this is certainly too big a topic to sit on this thread,
	but I hope you appreciate the condensed version.

: 	I do agree that marriage, and commitment to _stay_ married,
: needs to regain value in our society, and that the lack of same is
: a major contributor to a lot of our social ills.

	Indeed.

	Take care,

	-Mike-