Do Single People Deserve equal protection that Married couples have?

[milhouse24]

One money saving feature of "marriage benefits" is that inheritance is given to spouses tax-free or at a reduced tax.  (according to the Windsor case).  So a SS or Male-Female couple can inherit the deceased assets without paying a high tax penalty. 

But a Single Mother cannot give her inheritance to her biological (or adopted) son or daughter at a reduced tax rate. 

I feel that this is a punishment to single people (whether divorced or widowed) that punishes single people and their biological offspring, when it comes to inheritance tax. 

Why should a Same Sex couple without the "procreation theory" of marriage, get a reduced tax rate on inheritance, when a Single Mother cannot get a reduced tax rate of inheritance to her biological children???

I understand and accept that Marriage laws and Marriage benefits no longer abide by "procreation theory" but why should those people who have chosen to procreate and have children be punished. 

I would rather just have "marriage licenses be outlawed for everyone" rather than have discrimination of Singles (which make up over 50% of the United States). 

We want to give "marriage benefits" to SS couples.  But we should also give "benefits" to Singles who are being punished for being widowed, divorced, or having children out of wedlock. 

I just think that "Marriage licenses are just pointless and over" because someone is being discriminated and financially punished by the government for "not being married."  That is plain wrong and unjust.

[milhouse24]

Well, the theory is that it won't be too long before the spouse dies anyway and the money is inherited by the children and be taxed.  Of course, if it disturbs you excessively that spousal inheritance is treated differently than inheritance by children, we could just repeal the death tax.

why can't the death tax be repealed?  If its discriminator against single Americans, then it should be repealed or at least challenged by some lawyer.

[milhouse24]

Well, the theory is that it won't be too long before the spouse dies anyway and the money is inherited by the children and be taxed.  Of course, if it disturbs you excessively that spousal inheritance is treated differently than inheritance by children, we could just repeal the death tax.

Yeah, because the rate of the Walton family fortune's inheritance is somehow fundamentally intertwined with a single mother trying to leave something for her children.

Well, if you follow the NFL, most owners are unable to pass the ownership onto their children because of the high inheritance tax.  The redskins were sold after JKC died.  Al Davis died and his son is saving money to pay for the inheritance tax when his mom dies, so he can try to keep the team. 

Besides, why shouldn't the children be taken care of after their parents die, instead of being taxed into poverty.  Remember, spousal inheritance is "TAX FREE" - that is saving potentially "hundreds of thousands of dollars"

[milhouse24]

What you are really asking is about how other family relations besides marriage are treated, not about being single vs. married.

Well, if procreation has nothing to do with marriage, would it be possible for blood relatives to obtain marriage licenses so that they can get "tax-free inheritances" 

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?  The tax-free inheritance would save thousands of dollars, that I think every American deserves to keep.  The law is unconstitutional if it discriminates to un-married Americans.  Each American should be able to designate one person to give a tax-free inheritance.

[milhouse24]

To trigger the estate tax, you need to be transferring assets worth over $5.34 million (in 2014). Repealing it is a pretty killer tax cut exclusively for the rich. Not a huge priority for me.

Doesn't the estate tax apply when you want to give your inheritance to non-spouses?  such as giving your inheritance to your biological children.

For example, a single (or widowed) father or single mother would have to pay the estate tax on the inhertitance passed to their children. 

Its odd, that the government is punishing the children, who may need that inheritance money for their parents. 

But the government is rewarding SS spouses who can't biologically have shared children.  These so-called marriage laws and benefits are discriminatory to any one not married or divorced. 

[milhouse24]

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?

MARRIED PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE SEX

SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!
Straight married couples have sex and create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but don't create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but can't create babies

Gay married couples can have sex but can't have babies as a result of sex

------

Would you like it a pop up book, or book with lift up flaps to help explain it better. I'll pay the shipping charge?

The government can't force married couples to have sex.  
Before viagra, there were plenty of senior citizens who re-married later in life and did not have sex.  
I doubt that anna nicole smith ever had sex with her geriatric husband.  

Besides, what is your definition of sex? At one point in time, there were laws against sodomy. 

Does a marriage need to be consummated to be legal?

Who is making the laws on what is sexually legal and what is sexually illegal?

[milhouse24]

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?

MARRIED PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE SEX

SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!
Straight married couples have sex and create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but don't create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but can't create babies

Gay married couples can have sex but can't have babies as a result of sex

------

Would you like it a pop up book, or book with lift up flaps to help explain it better. I'll pay the shipping charge?

I don't know why my previsous post on Sex was removed.  But by allowing gay marriage and same-sex couples, this changes the "definition of sex" - for example, a lesbian couple has sex by fingering.  In Male-Female couples, that would be considered foreplay and not "actualy sex" 

The government has changed the definition of "sex" or "sexual intercourse" and now as it stands according to the law, there really doesn't have to be any sex or sexual contact to be in a "marriage" - after all, a platonic relationship can exist between 2 males or 2 females; but they can still be "in love"

Isn't marriage just an "expression of love" and not of "sexual monogamy"

Many couples have open marriages or are swingers.  The government does not prosecute people for having extramarital affairs anymore.  It is also acceptable for people to be bisexual and have both male and female lovers at the same time. 

So your idea that "sex has to come with a automatically marriage license" is idiotic.

[milhouse24]

To trigger the estate tax, you need to be transferring assets worth over $5.34 million (in 2014). Repealing it is a pretty killer tax cut exclusively for the rich. Not a huge priority for me.

Doesn't the estate tax apply when you want to give your inheritance to non-spouses?  such as giving your inheritance to your biological children.

For example, a single (or widowed) father or single mother would have to pay the estate tax on the inhertitance passed to their children. 

Its odd, that the government is punishing the children, who may need that inheritance money for their parents. 

But the government is rewarding SS spouses who can't biologically have shared children.  These so-called marriage laws and benefits are discriminatory to any one not married or divorced. 

Same-sex couples often have children these days, you know.

But government decided long ago to provide financial incentives to "married couples" and to alleviate the financial burden that it costs to have biological children.  The spousal tax ememption was provided to allow for the surviving spouse to take care of those children after death. 

But in present day society, single mother are being unfairly punished and discriminated against because the inheritance to their children will be taxed.  Essentially, the tax-free exemption has proven to be discriminatory and punishes children, which it was actually meant to protect. 

If the government is going to give tax-free exemptions to SS couples that don't have any biological children together, then it would be discriminatory to not allow Single People and Single mothers the same opportunity for "tax free exemptions".  Often times, single mothers are divorced or their ex-boyfriends won't marry them, yet the government has decided to financially punish these women and their children.  But the government has given financial incentives to SS couples, who don't have the burden of raising biological children.  Sure, many SS couples adopt, but adoption is usually a choice based on a couples financial ability to adopt and pay for those children. 

[milhouse24]

I am unconvinced the state should be involved in either creating incentives or deterrents to being married. Government ought to interact with citizens on an individual-by-individual basis rather than having special rules for households of varying populations or couples of certain types.

This is the correct answer. The government should get out of the marriage business.

Should it also get out of the inheritance, child custody, and spousal abuse intervention businesses?  Or do you just mean that the package of rights, privileges, and responsibilities that legally are a part of civil marriage should have a name other than marriage?

The government should get out of the marriage licensing business, especially if the benefits associated with that license discriminate against Singles and other groups.  But most "single women" will still want some sort of "protection" against "dishonest men."  Marriage is primarily a civil matter, since it really is a "financial contract" between the 2 individual spouses - that promises financial support during and after the marriage partnership.  But the Government has created so many "financial incentives to married couples" that it has thrust itself into a situation, that did not require government intervention when the Roman Catholic Empire ruled Europe.  There are many tribal cultures that don't require "marriage or monogamy" if the tribe or groups of women help raise the children.

The "procreation activists" can utilize "Common Law marriage" rules to regulate those couples who produce biological children, and assign parental rules and financial obligations.