this has officially become a pissing match. we're saying the same damn thing.
"some couples win, some have the penalty. "
yes, that was my point. and it's not something you appeared to understand until i pointed it out in a separate comment. some gay couples are better off being taxed as individuals, some are not. if you're desparate to have gay couples treated the same as hetero couples for tax purposes, great, but I have a feeling many gay couples would appreciate maintaining the status quo.
"I only pointed out that denying gay couples the right to equal status under the rules is, well, unequal treatment. And your statement is totally disingenuous. "
No, you didn't "only" point this out in your last post. You see how the second sentence belies the first? You also accused me of not arguing in good faith because. God only knows why, but it's probably because I'm reaching a conclusion contrary to yours.
And if your "only" point was that treatment of people differently is unequal treatment, then congratulations on such a fresh new idea.
2009-01-29 02:49:29
Bob,
you wrote:
Just because some married couples pay more because of that quirk, does not mean all suffer.
* * *
Show me where I said ALL married couples suffer from the marriage penalty. As I stated in my comment, it is "not necessarily" the case that married couples attain "improved tax status."
2009-01-28 19:03:33
We already decide that schools can’t segregate on the basis of racial discrimination. I don’t think this is materially different.
* * * *
The material difference is that this is a PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS school. The latimes article you cited does a great job of explaining the legal basis for allowing a religious institution to limit its membership as it sees fit.
Also, check out the Kamehameha schools decision out of the 9th Circuit, which ruled that private schools may discriminate on the basis of race under certain circumstances.
2009-01-28 17:26:58
I'm so vain, I probably think this post is about me. but yes, this is the sort of detail i asked for in comments to one ofyour earlier posts on this issue.
that said, most of the rights you've enumerated (if they can be appropriately described as "rights", at all) are not fundamental, at least legally speaking. that is to say, they are not implicit to the concept of ordered liberty in a civilized society. the rights to which you refer are not analagous to the right to vote, co-habitate, use contraception, etc.
Let's unpack these rights:
1) access spouses medical insurance- having health insurance is, of course, vitally important, but gays in civil unions still have access to their own health insurance through their employer. if they are unemployed , they can get medicaid.
2) improved tax status- not necessarily so. just wiki marriage penalty.
3) guarantees to their spouses property in the probation of a will- already available. just draft a will. same goes for life insurance... just add a beneficiary.
4) improved claims to custody of a spouse’s children in the event of death-- you may have a point here. but this is more of a case for amending state law to recognize gay adoption.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
this has officially become a pissing match. we're saying the same damn thing.
"some couples win, some have the penalty. "
yes, that was my point. and it's not something you appeared to understand until i pointed it out in a separate comment. some gay couples are better off being taxed as individuals, some are not. if you're desparate to have gay couples treated the same as hetero couples for tax purposes, great, but I have a feeling many gay couples would appreciate maintaining the status quo.
"I only pointed out that denying gay couples the right to equal status under the rules is, well, unequal treatment. And your statement is totally disingenuous. "
No, you didn't "only" point this out in your last post. You see how the second sentence belies the first? You also accused me of not arguing in good faith because. God only knows why, but it's probably because I'm reaching a conclusion contrary to yours.
And if your "only" point was that treatment of people differently is unequal treatment, then congratulations on such a fresh new idea.
Bob,
you wrote:
Just because some married couples pay more because of that quirk, does not mean all suffer.
* * *
Show me where I said ALL married couples suffer from the marriage penalty. As I stated in my comment, it is "not necessarily" the case that married couples attain "improved tax status."
We already decide that schools can’t segregate on the basis of racial discrimination. I don’t think this is materially different.
* * * *
The material difference is that this is a PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS school. The latimes article you cited does a great job of explaining the legal basis for allowing a religious institution to limit its membership as it sees fit.
Also, check out the Kamehameha schools decision out of the 9th Circuit, which ruled that private schools may discriminate on the basis of race under certain circumstances.
I'm so vain, I probably think this post is about me. but yes, this is the sort of detail i asked for in comments to one ofyour earlier posts on this issue.
that said, most of the rights you've enumerated (if they can be appropriately described as "rights", at all) are not fundamental, at least legally speaking. that is to say, they are not implicit to the concept of ordered liberty in a civilized society. the rights to which you refer are not analagous to the right to vote, co-habitate, use contraception, etc.
Let's unpack these rights:
1) access spouses medical insurance- having health insurance is, of course, vitally important, but gays in civil unions still have access to their own health insurance through their employer. if they are unemployed , they can get medicaid.
2) improved tax status- not necessarily so. just wiki marriage penalty.
3) guarantees to their spouses property in the probation of a will- already available. just draft a will. same goes for life insurance... just add a beneficiary.
4) improved claims to custody of a spouse’s children in the event of death-- you may have a point here. but this is more of a case for amending state law to recognize gay adoption.