Gay marriage question

[Alfred001]

If you're answering, could you please state which country you're talking about as the laws may vary.

 

I'm wondering whether marriage brings any kind of legal benefits such as any kind of tax breaks or anything like that.

 

Are gay people, if they were unable to marry, missing out on any kind of benefits of that sort that marriage brings or is it strictly about the state recognizing them as married?

[Strange]

In the UK there are not (as far as I am aware) any tax benefits. Or maybe there is something to do with inheritance tax.

 

But there important rights related to inheritance and children. So if someone dies intestate, their partner may not be able to inherit if they are not married. Also, a father has no rights to the children if the mother dies and they are not married.

 

But I think the main reason people get married (beyond mere convention) is to make a public declaration of their love.

[DrKrettin]

In the UK I think it has significance for pensions. If one dies, the other in a gay marriage is entitled to a widow(er)'s pension, but not if they weren't married. This might well be true for private and state pensions.

[pzkpfw]

In the event of divorce, the property splitting rules come into effect.

 

There are also lots of little things that married people can do that unmarried people can't. There have been very sad stories of gay couples that have been together for many many years, but due to the lack of that legal "married" distinction, one can't speak for the other in medical situations.

[hypervalent_iodine]

In Australia it isn't yet legal. Besides inheritance and some minor tax things, there are issues around when one gets sick or passes away and the other wishes to see them or make decisions on their behalf. There was a case not long ago in Adelaide where a couple who were legally married where they were from came over on their honeymoon. One of them sadly died falling down some stairs, and the other was then not able to make any decisions regarding his husband because Australia doesn't recognise their marriage. http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-authorities-refuse-to-recognise-samesex-marriage-of-man-who-died-on-honeymoon-20160120-gma1l4.html

[CharonY]

If you're answering, could you please state which country you're talking about as the laws may vary.

 

I'm wondering whether marriage brings any kind of legal benefits such as any kind of tax breaks or anything like that.

 

Are gay people, if they were unable to marry, missing out on any kind of benefits of that sort that marriage brings or is it strictly about the state recognizing them as married?

 

In Germany it is very piecemeal, last time I looked. There is a civil union for same-sex partners, but there were many aspects that were different from regular marriage. Some rights have been amended over the years (such as income splitting sometime around 2010 ish) some remain lacking. Things are still different (afaik) include adoption rights, some weird legal aspects and compensation in certain jobs though much is likely to get amended at some point. So instead of stating it is the same, it is considered different but often after legal battles rights are getting added.

The big issue is that same-sex civil union is not protected by the constitution as regular marriage, meaning there is no constitutional right of having the same legal rights per se.

 

I think in the US, before marriage was allowed, the respective same-sex unions only had very little rights which were specifically enumerated and different on a state-by-state basis.

 

To answer the first part of the question: In Germany as well as US marriages confers a set of rights and responsibilities. Check here for the US. I do not have an English source for the German rights but it is part of the family right and is listed as part of the BGB. But some of the more obvious things include benefits, salary for those working in public service as well as tax rights. I don't think there are specific tax breaks just for marriage but via income splitting you can benefit from getting into different tax brackets and/or one can claim a partner as dependent if their salary is very low.

[iNow]

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), before marriage equality passed in the US there were 1,138 distinct federal laws that pertain to married couples which were not protected/afforded to homosexuals. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States (including basic things like visiting when one is hospitalized, being able to make funeral arrangements, protect the estate, provide for children, etc.):

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

[Daecon]

In Australia it isn't yet legal. Besides inheritance and some minor tax things, there are issues around when one gets sick or passes away and the other wishes to see them or make decisions on their behalf. There was a case not long ago in Adelaide where a couple who were legally married where they were from came over on their honeymoon. One of them sadly died falling down some stairs, and the other was then not able to make any decisions regarding his husband because Australia doesn't recognise their marriage. http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-authorities-refuse-to-recognise-samesex-marriage-of-man-who-died-on-honeymoon-20160120-gma1l4.html

I'm so glad I decided to move to New Zealand instead of Australia...

[Alfred001]

So, if I understand it correctly, most countries have some kind of civil union or something like that that is for gay people, is that right?

 

So, would people who are pro gay marriage find it a satisfactory solution if all of the rights that married people have were extended to civil unions (if gay marriage were not legal in the US and elsewhere)? I guess at that point the only difference would be in what you call the thing, right?

Would pro gay marriage folks be happy with that state of affairs?

[iNow]

No, because inherent in your suggestion is the belief that a loving couple with different plumbing is somehow different from a loving couple with similar plumbing...different enough to warrant different labels... labels where one group is rather obviously being considered somehow "less than" the other.

[zapatos]

So, if I understand it correctly, most countries have some kind of civil union or something like that that is for gay people, is that right?

 

So, would people who are pro gay marriage find it a satisfactory solution if all of the rights that married people have were extended to civil unions (if gay marriage were not legal in the US and elsewhere)? I guess at that point the only difference would be in what you call the thing, right?

 

Would pro gay marriage folks be happy with that state of affairs?

 

This would be no different than Jim Crow laws in the United States. Separate but equal.

 

It would not be acceptable as all citizens must be treated in the same manner, not in a similar manner.

[MigL]

I shared a home with my dad ( now deceased ) for almost 20 yrs after my mother passed away.

I certainly loved my dad, and I know how much he loved me.

 

Just so we can continue this discussion, should we have ALSO been granted the same benefits that marriage brings, such as income splitting, coverage under medical and other benefits packages. etc.

 

So we shared a home and had a loving relationship, what other criteria must be met to be a 'citizen treated in the same manner'?

( and lets not get silly and bring up the sex part, everyone knows married people stop having sex )

 

And just so I'm not off-topic, in Canada we have gay marriage with fully equivalent rights, and I have always supported that.

[zapatos]

I shared a home with my dad ( now deceased ) for almost 20 yrs after my mother passed away.

I certainly loved my dad, and I know how much he loved me.

 

Just so we can continue this discussion, should we have ALSO been granted the same benefits that marriage brings, such as income splitting, coverage under medical and other benefits packages. etc.

 

So we shared a home and had a loving relationship, what other criteria must be met to be a 'citizen treated in the same manner'?

( and lets not get silly and bring up the sex part, everyone knows married people stop having sex )

 

And just so I'm not off-topic, in Canada we have gay marriage with fully equivalent rights, and I have always supported that.

 

Were you denied the right to marry? If not, then you are conflating two different issues (IMO). The issue is whether or not you should allow some citizens to marry and not others.

 

If you want benefits equal to those given to all others, I don't think that issue needs to be conflated with whether or not you are allowed to marry.

[MigL]

Co-habitation for a period of time is equivalent to marriage in Canada.

If you live as husband and wife, even if not officially married, you are granted all benefits while living, in 'divorce' and as a survivor.

Being 'married' has little to do with it.

[zapatos]

I don't understand where you are going with this. Are you saying that you living with your father was the equivalent to marriage?

[Strange]

So, if I understand it correctly, most countries have some kind of civil union or something like that that is for gay people, is that right?

 

So, would people who are pro gay marriage find it a satisfactory solution if all of the rights that married people have were extended to civil unions (if gay marriage were not legal in the US and elsewhere)? I guess at that point the only difference would be in what you call the thing, right?

 

Would pro gay marriage folks be happy with that state of affairs?

 

 

I don't think so. In the UK they introduced civil partnerships which are pretty much the same as marriage in all but name (and, maybe, a few details). But many people still wanted a proper wedding. They have now allowed gay marriage. They should have got rid of the civil partnership thing at the same time but didn't, for some reason.

 

Some heterosexual people want the right to have a civil partnership, because "marriage isn't for them". This seems pretty stupid, to me.

[MigL]

There are relationships which are not sexual in nature, Zapatos.

Why aren't equivalent rights accorded to them also ?

[zapatos]

Many laws are enacted to promote behavior. In the US there are tax benefits given to people who have home mortgages in order to promote home sales and the resultant benefits to construction, manufacturing, etc. Giving tax benefits to married couples encourages marriage and the resultant benefits associated with the nuclear family.

Edited February 26, 2017 by zapatos

[Alfred001]

I'd like to hear more answers from pro-gay marriage folks on the matter of would you be ok with a situation where there was absolutely no difference between a marriage and the other thing (whatever its called) in terms of legal rights, the only difference was in the name.

 

No, because inherent in your suggestion is the belief that a loving couple with different plumbing is somehow different from a loving couple with similar plumbing...different enough to warrant different labels... labels where one group is rather obviously being considered somehow "less than" the other.

 

Well, they ARE different. One is hetero, the other isn't. That's not making any kind of value judgment or saying the one group is considered "less than," YOU are attributing that perception.

 

I don't think so. In the UK they introduced civil partnerships which are pretty much the same as marriage in all but name (and, maybe, a few details). But many people still wanted a proper wedding. They have now allowed gay marriage. They should have got rid of the civil partnership thing at the same time but didn't, for some reason.

 

Some heterosexual people want the right to have a civil partnership, because "marriage isn't for them". This seems pretty stupid, to me.

 

What do you mean "proper wedding?"

[Strange]

What do you mean "proper wedding?"

 

 

They wanted a marriage rather than a second-rate thing called a "civil partnership" (which, I think, was just invented to keep the bishops quiet).

 

They wanted complete equality. And why not.

[StringJunky]

 

 

They wanted a marriage rather than a second-rate thing called a "civil partnership" (which, I think, was just invented to keep the bishops quiet).

 

They wanted complete equality. And why not.

I think within the civil areas there absolutely should be equality but within the religious arena that depends on them; it's their club e.g. when you join this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

Edited February 26, 2017 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

I think within the civil areas there absolutely should be equality but within the religious arena that depends on them; it's their club e.g. when you join this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Is anyone suggesting that everyone is entitled to a marriage sanctioned by the Church? Marriage is not the sole purview of religion.

[StringJunky]

 

Is anyone suggesting that everyone is entitled to a marriage sanctioned by the Church? Marriage is not the sole purview of religion.

My error. I was conflating the two. I forget this is an international forum and the bee-in-the-bonnet here is about church-sanctioned marriage atm.

[Strange]

I think within the civil areas there absolutely should be equality but within the religious arena that depends on them; it's their club e.g. when you join this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

 

Quite. But this was about civil marriages versus civil partnerships. Why did they feel the need to appease the church by inventing a different system for homosexual partnerships? Oh yes, because of the bishops in the House of Lords of course. The UK really needs a proper separation of church and state...

[StringJunky]

 

 

Quite. But this was about civil marriages versus civil partnerships. Why did they feel the need to appease the church by inventing a different system for homosexual partnerships? Oh yes, because of the bishops in the House of Lords of course. The UK really needs a proper separation of church and state...

Our Head of State is also the boss of the C of E so it's quite messy and entangled.