Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
There ought to be a good reason that the state is involved in marriage or civil unions at all; otherwise the whole thing ought to be left to individuals to decide the terms of. The well being of children may be the only area in which I think it makes sense to offer a different tax rate, health benefits, automatic assumption of shared property, etc. Otherwise, why should the state be in the business of dictating the terms at all?
|
It's actually cheaper for my husband and me to have two separate individual health insurance plans than to have a single married plan. That particular "benefit" is not as shiny as people want to make it.
Why should the state be involved? Money. That's the bottom line. Married couples consistently show higher rates of income/wealth accumulation, lower healthcare costs, etc. It is to the state's benefit to encourage and recognize legal unions.
Threaded Mode
