The Marriage Equality Thread

[WorkerCaste]

Originally Posted by Jan

I can't help but be excited at this news:

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naa...rriage-equalit

That is good news since a lot of the opposition to gay marriage has come from the African-American community. Maybe the NAACP support will cause some people to re-evaluate that position.

[Ubik]

Ahhh, I see.

I truly think it's a good result. I did share the 'grumpy cat' version of the picture. And, yes, you are right there is little you can do but show support in this way. I hope the verdict is in favour of equality for same sex marriage. We made significant headway here in the UK this year, hopefully it will become a reality in the USA too!

[Dr Maturin]

Supporting something, either by your actions or by wearing flair, doesn't make you a hero, either. I get so disgusted when people think they are the apex of human thought when they support "controversial" issues.

We're not burning anyone at the stake for being anything or believing anything. It's not as if a SCOTUS decision will suddenly make specific people any freer than they were before. If you let yourself be bound by what the government approves (in this case marriage), then are you really being freed from anything but your own shackles?

[Ubik]

Admittely, I'm not the biggest fan of marriage full stop. It's a religious / state institution and I see no need for it to sanctify a relationship.

However, it's hard to ignore the financial and legal benefits that come with your partnership being officially recognised by the state. This does / would make a big difference to gay couples wanting to tie the knot.

[Jan]

Originally Posted by Dr Maturin

Supporting something, either by your actions or by wearing flair, doesn't make you a hero, either.

Nor did anyone here imly that it did.

It's not as if a SCOTUS decision will suddenly make specific people any freer than they were before. If you let yourself be bound by what the government approves (in this case marriage), then are you really being freed from anything but your own shackles?

So all those benefits that rest entirely upon marital status are all a myth, huh? Frankly, I find the freedom to designate who can make decisions for me when I'm incapacitated, the freedom to bequeath what I want to whom I want, the freedom to take FMLA leave to care for a family member *extremely* important and they *do* rest in government recognition.

Jan

[Ubik]

Originally Posted by Jan

So all those benefits that rest entirely upon marital status are all a myth, huh? Frankly, I find the freedom to designate who can make decisions for me when I'm incapacitated, the freedom to bequeath what I want to whom I want, the freedom to take FMLA leave to care for a family member *extremely* important and they *do* rest in government recognition.

Jan

My point exactly.

[Dr Maturin]

Yet there are definite financial penalties for being married, too.

[Jan]

Really? That involve the federal government?

I loved this particular exchange that I just found:

http://www.upworthy.com/a-supreme-co...nt-in-1-minute

Jan

[David Panzer]

And there are financial penalties for being single as well.

1) An employee that is married averages about 27% more in pay than single employees, though the single employee is asked to work on weekends and holidays more often than the married employee,

2) The aforementioned FMLA,

and 3) Married couples can either file tax returns jointly or separately, 51% of married couples can get $1300 in a bonus if there's an income disparity (one partner makes more than the other), and married soldiers get an extra $250 a month.

[WorkerCaste]

Originally Posted by David Panzer

And there are financial penalties for being single as well.

1) An employee that is married averages about 27% more in pay than single employees, though the single employee is asked to work on weekends and holidays more often than the married employee,

These may be unfair, but they are not a matter of law, they are up to the employers. The problem with DOMA is that there are more than 1000 regulatory and legal benefits that one kind of married couple gets and the other doesn't. Also, in more than 3 decades in the work place, pay discrimenation based on marital status hasn't been noticible around me, so I find the 27% questionable if it's comparing apples to apples. If it is taking into account that unmarried people tend to be younger and less experienced, I might see it. I think the average age to marry in the US is 29 for men and 27 for women. The time right out of school is when you make very little money. Also, more and more, in the lower income brackets that age is getting higher. Middle to upper class tend to marry younger.

I do agree, though, that single people will get asked to work holidays and so forth, although it is more often about dependants than marital status. A single parents with kids will often get breaks and scheduling even though not married.

2) The aforementioned FMLA,

I'm not sure of your point on this one. Single people can take advanatge of FMLA. You can take it to care for a sick parent or dependent. The list of "family" includes spouse, but a single person doesn't have one of those, so it's all in line.

and 3) Married couples can either file tax returns jointly or separately, 51% of married couples can get $1300 in a bonus if there's an income disparity (one partner makes more than the other),

Well, the tax laws have lots of flaws because rules keep getting added to in order to address one thing or another. Most of the differences between filling as Single versus Married have their origins in the concept of money per person. The basic theory is a person making $100,000 is a lot better off than a couple making $100,000. If you file as married you add it together. "Married but filing as Single" means you each file for your own income and exceptions. At different gross incomes, exception types/amounts, and ratios between taxpayers, you can either do better or worse than someone who is single. There is also the "Marriage Penalty" that couples get hit with when they make roughly the same amount, so taxes are a really mixed bag with no big benefit one way or the other. It all depends on your specific circumstances.

and married soldiers get an extra $250 a month.

Actually, that's not about being married. That's about housing and dependent support(BAH and BAS). If you live off base, you get BAH. It's true that you will be allowed to live off base sooner if you are married (based on rank for single soldiers), but that seems pretty fair. Married couples do need a little more privacy. Also, the military recognizes (although not often enough imho) that the military life has adverse impacts on spouses as well as the soldiers themselves. If they didn't take this into account, the armed services wouldn't be able to attract married people and the pool of candidates would be much reduced. BAS is also based on dependents, not marital status, iinm.

[Jan]

Originally Posted by WorkerCaste

I'm not sure of your point on this one. Single people can take advanatge of FMLA. You can take it to care for a sick parent or dependent. The list of "family" includes spouse, but a single person doesn't have one of those, so it's all in line.

The point about FMLA is that gay couples cannot take family leave for each other. I've read of at least one case where leave was denied to a couple legally married in their state who were denied leave because FMLA is a federal law that doesn't recognize their marriage.

As for it being a financial penalty as stated, that's incorrect because FMLA is for unpaid leave.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

Originally Posted by Jan

The point about FMLA is that gay couples cannot take family leave for each other. I've read of at least one case where leave was denied to a couple legally married in their state who were denied leave because FMLA is a federal law that doesn't recognize their marriage.

As for it being a financial penalty as stated, that's incorrect because FMLA is for unpaid leave.

Jan

The point with regard to DOMA I got, it was David Panzer's point on FMLA being a penalty for single people, so we're in agreement there. Actually, Jan, I think you and I are in agreement on this issue pretty much across the board.

[David Panzer]

I didn't know FMLA covered single workers as well. My mistake

[Chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Jan

The point about FMLA is that gay couples cannot take family leave for each other. I've read of at least one case where leave was denied to a couple legally married in their state who were denied leave because FMLA is a federal law that doesn't recognize their marriage.

As for it being a financial penalty as stated, that's incorrect because FMLA is for unpaid leave.

I log in to post a great quote... and y'all are using that vulgar four-letter F-acronym.

Yes, the four-letter-F law is for "unpaid leave", however it requires continued medical coverage, which can be a major financial benefit... if the law is followed/honored.

In the case of either a single or married person who gets sick themself, and has to take time off, continued medical coverage, until recently, could be the difference between life and death.
Until recently, termination of coverage for a sick person, could prevent the sick person from getting new coverage ("pre-existing condition").

This cost also provided some bad employers with a perceived reason to terminate such employees.

While the idea was well intentioned, the actual use/abuse, in the real world, particularly in small businesses, is that the fracking F*** law can be worse than useless, regardless of who (single/married) tries to exercise that "right".

Jan, in the scenario you refer to, the employer could have granted the leave (with or without continued medical coverage).
They did not because they chose to be unethical.

You can't force employers to be ethical.
They either do the right thing because it is the right thing, or they do whatever they think they can get away with.

Personally, I think a better approach would be to set the standards, then make it easy for abused employees to publish their experiences (including all documents), without having to worry about any legal consequences (e.g. waive confidentiality).

[Chipmunk]

Geekiest quote of the week:
"You don't have to beta test rights."
by John Stewart, on The Daily Show (2013-Mar-28)