The government should not prevent those who want to join the institution like me from getting in.From my point of view, one of the problems that would arise from allowing same sex marriages, is that there are many who would 'marry' simply to reap the many benefits. For example, I could then marry my same sex best friend. Although the union would be a completely non-traditional marriage, we would reap all the legislated benefits of marriage. I have never heard this issue addressed by anyone in the gay community. Should any same-sex couple be allowed to marry? What is to prevent it? Who is to say that my 'committed relationship' with my best friend is any less a marriage that yours, or Dick and Jane's down the street. From a traditional standpoint, 'marriage' would no longer be in any sense the traditional marriage, it would be reduced to a union undertaken for financial benefit by many. It really irks me that my income prohibits me from contributing to a Roth, but if I were married, not only could I contribute to one for me, but also one for my spouse. That's $10K, each and every year, plus earnings, compounded, of additional future tax-free benefits that I am being denied, simply because I'm not married. And the same is true of the deductibility of TIRA contributions, and many other tax and financial benefits (i.e. the amount and eligibility of tax rebates, etc.). There is absolutely no reason for these disparities in tax/financial legislation to continue. IMO, if the gay community would approach the disparities from this angle, instead of the 'we want in' marriage angle, there might be a better chance for change.2old
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra