🚀 go-pugleaf

Karen Kimball (karenk@hprnd.rose.hp.com) wrote:
: bearpaw (bearpaw@world.std.com) wrote:
: : mikep@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:

: : >	This certainly seems to imply that 'domestic partnership' and
: : >	similar efforts do indeed devalue marrage... (which is what
: : >	bothered Wilson the most, leading to the veto domestic partners
: : >	bill in CA.)  For if most registrants are opposite-sex, then
: : >	why don't they simply get married?  And if they are not willing
: : >	to get married, then why should society recognize their
: : >	relationship?

: : Perhaps they dislike some of the societal baggage that comes with being 
: : married.  Maybe they don't want to take advantage of something that's
: : available to different-gendered couples but not same-gendered couples.


: 	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.

: 	Since married people have to deal with that, I am NOT in favor
: of people who have the _opportunity_ to get married getting all of the
: health care, etc. benefits that help balance this penalty out.

	See above... this should become a non-issue.

: 	The real solution to this is to legalize gay marriages. No-one's
: brave enough to stand behind that in the open, so we get this waffling
: situation that effectively cheats those couples who _can_ and do get 
: married. 

	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.

	-Mike-