Posted on 07/18/2015 6:33:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It will be a disaster because a civilization that cannot distinguish simple truths, such as marriage being between only one man and one woman, from the fictions created by evildoers does not deserve to survive, nor deserves the support of any decent human being.
In terms of tax rates themselves, the "marriage penalty" usually affects a married couple where one spouse has a much higher income than the other, and the income of the second spouse ends up getting taxed in a higher bracket than if they had filed as two single individuals. In this type of arrangement, a married couple would be better off never getting "married" in any legal sense, even if they live their lives in every other respect as husband and wife.
If the second spouse has no reported income at all, then the tax code gives them a big advantage because the sole income-earner can end up in a lower tax bracket than if he or she had filed a separate return as a single person.
This has always been an option in some churches.
At least in some states it is illegal for those already licensed by the state to perform marriages to perform a marriage without the state involved. I never heard of anyone getting in trouble over it, but at least that is the reason given by some for not performing such a marriage when asked to do so.
Freegards
Gays want marriage without consequences... no painful expensive divorce... just a dramatic staged event and everlasting promises and a quick exit 5 months later.
So if you are a minister in some states, you are registered as a person who can perform legal marriage ceremonies?
I take it that at least in some states anyone who performs marriage ceremonies and is also licensed by the state to include the civil part then can’t decide to sometimes leave the state out of it. At least that is the reason commonly given why they can’t do it when asked to perform a ceremony with no state involvement, such as with widows whose benefits would be changed with new marital status.
Freegards
RE: Marriage , the 2(what ever) make a contract and take it a Lawyer ,sign ,pay Lawyer ,done, Married
1) Why limit it to 2?
2) How should a company treat the contract when it come to benefits?
bkmk
Congress periodically tries to “fix” the marriage penalty, but it is surprisingly difficult to do without screwing up other aspects of the tax code. A flat tax with no deductions but with generous personal exemptions would go a long way to getting rid of the penalty with few other complications.
Read what I wrote without the apostive explanation of marriage:
... the Supreme Court abolished marriage...in the view of the government and replaced it...
The is exactly what they did. The government of this country has been stupified to not believe in the existence of marriage. For legal purposes, marriage has been abolished and replaced with something different called by the same name.
The U.S. Government is going to completely debase ‘marriage’ the word anyway as they have set their minds upon defining it exclusively on their employees lose definition of ‘love’ which could equally apply to anything and everything.
The point of returning marriage it’s proper place as it was 100 years ago is so that the church defines it and legitimate churches respect it.
In other-words the institution goes away for non-religious people, replaced with a toy called civil contract with-which they can do whatever they want.
“Furthermore, true privatization would require more than just getting the government out of the marriage licensing and registration business. It would mean giving communities the authority to write their own marriage rules and enforce them on couples. This would mean letting Mormon marriages be governed by the Church of the Latter Day Saints codebook, Muslims by Koranic sharia, Hassids by the Old Testament, and gays by their own church or non-religious equivalent. Inter-faith couples could choose one of their communities — but only if it allowed interfaith marriages. But here’s what they couldn’t get: a civil marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace. Why? Because that option would have to be nixed when state and marriage are completely separated.”
That is precisely what we want and need, yes it is ‘regressive’ but don’t tell the left that while they still support it. People have the right of contract that does not mean we should be blindsided to regard all contracts marriages. That is up to the church. and Yes many good churches will have no divorce and various other rules that members will CHOOSE to embrace before hand.
Theses marriages consistent with the definition practiced for thousands of years will endure while the others will fall apart over time being non-binding in nature.
Basically you would have a basket of contracts no different than already exist in the world. Your church would define the terms it requires to marry and recognize your marriage as exclusive.
All other contracts would just be legal contracts or ‘business’ contracts as some people call them, some of which may actually prohibitive marriage and thus need to be ended prior to joining an actual marriage.
The key here is to stop letting the state define what contracted union is marriage, and allowing the churches to define their own terms, with a separate civil contract which Your church will then pre-fabricate to help enforce the civil side of marriage.
The religious side of marriage is the one called marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.