having a problem and outrage are nowhere close the same thing. the benefit I'm referring to is a stay at home mom's ability to earn 50% of her spouses SS benefit at retirement. The reason behind that benefit is because many mothers stayed at home to raise children, so the thinking was to not penalize them for having kids. A mother who works outside the home would more than likely earn more than 50% of her spouses SS based on her own record, so the 50% benefit wouldn't apply. In the case of sexual marriage, it's way too convenient for two friends to get married and manipulate the system.
So shouldn't a stay at home spouse with adopted kids be able to get that same benefit? That would be the compassionate, Christian thing to do.
A guy and a girl who are friends could just as easily do the same thing. Why has it never concerned you up until now?
the sudden and random concern for marriage fraud
Bigger question: why should two people get more benefits and tax breaks than one person in America? Explain that to me. What makes the union of two Americans more important and valuable than the life of a lonely single American?
Bigotry is what it is.
That's a different issue than gay marriage I don't necessarily disagree with.
the government just needs to offer some incentives in order to encourage more people to get married. marriage is biased especially in the 21st century where most new wives were born in the 80s and raised in an feminist atmosphere, and financial benefits might possibly be the only reason for a smart guy to ever consider getting married at present day imho.
similarly, some employers would like to hire married men rather than singles or celibates you know why? because married men are generally considered to be more "stable", they don't change jobs for fun because they need to bring home stable incomes every month to support their households, which means they're easier to be enslaved and less likely to complain or rebel. The government wants everyone to get married, and bonded to a "traditional" family with multiple kids, so you have to obey and tolerate whatever the employer and the government impose on you. They don't support gay marriage because gay marriage doesn't have such effect. To them gays, getting divorced is just as easy as getting married.
Some employers only promote employees who're "married", and that's one of the reasons (if not all reasons) why you haven't been promoted yet despite your smartness and hardwork.
You don't need to live that way though, my dear bro. You're still single and you have no plan of getting married anytime soon, so what's the point in conforming to a boring lifestyle that you don't like at all? Just quit that and start seeking the life that you really like, and be a badass that you should be.
It's time for us to get united and elect a real representative of all us youngsters, a representative that really comes from us, that is always with us through thick and thin, not someone who supports Obama and earns 7 figures a year by acting like a in front of cameras.
Texas AG Ken Paxton sues to deny gays spousal benefits, because federalism:
- See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/....rHyKlmhQ.dpufTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton is challenging the Obama administration on a new rule that would allow married same-sex couples to be eligible for the Family & Medical Leave Act, even in states that don’t recognize their unions.
In a statement on Wednesday, Paxton said the lawsuit is “about defending the sovereignty of our state,” which has a state cons utional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“The newly revised definition of ‘spouse’ under the FMLA is in direct violation of state and federal laws and the U.S. Cons ution,” Paxton said. “Texans have clearly defined the ins ution of marriage in our state, and attempts by the Obama Administration to disregard the will of our citizens through the use of new federal rules is uncons utional and an affront to the foundations of federalism.”
According to the news statement, Paxton is also advising Texas employers to defy the Obama administration and follow state law, not the federal rule, as it pertains to FMLA.
After the Supreme Court ruled against the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, the Obama administration sought to extend the federal benefits of marriage to the furthest extent possible under the law.
But FMLA by regulation looked to the state of residence, not the state of celebration, to determine whether a couple is married, so for a time married same-sex couples in non-marriage equality states were ineligible for benefits under that law, which enables an individual to take time off from work to care for a spouse.
The new rule, made final by the Labor Department last month and set to take effect March 27, changes the regulatory framework to ensure these benefits are available to married same-sex couples regardless of their state of residence.
I'm so glad that our State resources are being committed to this sort of important litigation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote