The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Why should the Gays have All the Civil Unions?
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2961		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Müs [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:27 am ]
Post subject:  Why should the Gays have All the Civil Unions?
Austrians seek right to partnership created for gays

A heterosexual Austrian couple have embarked on a court battle to have their relationship legally recognised as a "registered partnership" - a new form of civil union for same-sex couples.

Half-married: Frederic Morel and Delphine Rorive in half a wedding outfit
Helga Ratzenboeck and Martin Seydl say they don't want a traditional marriage and insist that the law should be blind to gender and sexuality.
Meanwhile, the kind of pared-down marriage they want is proving a huge hit with straight couples in France, where 95% of couples taking up the pacte civil de solidarite (Pacs) in 2009 were heterosexual.
As the number of straight French couples opting for Pacs has grown, the number of marriages has shrunk, to the point that there are now two couples entering into a Pacs for every three getting married.
'A little bit equal'
In both Austria and France, some gay couples are fighting for the right to full marriage. Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway are currently the only European countries allowing same-sex marriages.

Should we want to get divorced it would be easier, which is good, because marriage is heavily criticised for being too strict
Joerg Epper Kaiser
But legal battles for the right to registered partnership, like Ms Ratzenboeck and Mr Seydl's, are rarer.
"The couple involved already have grown up children and are not interested in adopting," says their lawyer, Helmut Graupner.
"They are more interested in a more loose, modern form of partnership with a shorter time period for divorce and lower maintenance obligations afterwards."
Mr Graupner is also representing two Austrian same-sex couples, one gay and other lesbian, wanting a traditional marriage.
He has an argument that applies to both sets of clients: "You can't be a little bit equal, in the same way as you can't be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant. You can only be equal or unequal."
The Constitutional Court turned down the idea of marriage for gay couples in 2003, on the grounds that the purpose of marriage was reproduction.
But Mr Graupner, who points out that infertile people are allowed to marry, thinks there is now a chance the court will change its mind.
"There are some younger judges and younger judges are normally more open on this question," he says.
Sexual fidelity
Austria is the eighth EU country to have introduced partnerships for same-sex couples. They are very similar, but not the same as marriage. The others are Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary and Slovenia.

REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS
Introduced in Austria on 1 January 2010
270 partnerships concluded by end of April
185 (69%) involving men, 85 (31%) involving women
Source: Interior Ministry
Austria's "registered partnerships" do not bring adoption rights or access to fertility treatment, but despite more than 70 differences, gay and lesbian groups tended to see their introduction on 1 January as significant progress for a conservative, Catholic country.
Some, like Kurt Krickler of Viennese gay rights group HOSI, were pleasantly surprised at how far the partnerships went. Particularly surprising, he says, is that that it offers non-Austrian partners a right to work in Austria, where fears about immigration run very high.
Supporters cite a number of reasons why registered partnerships are better than marriages. Dissolving a marriage can take up to six years, while for registered partnerships it takes three at most. The law also puts more emphasis on openness and honesty than on strict sexual fidelity.

We just wanted to pay less taxes
Delphine Rorive
"Should we want to get divorced it would be easier, which is good, because marriage is heavily criticised for being too strict," says Joerg Eipper Kaiser, a 34-year-old museum worker in Austria's second city of Graz. Joerg, who was one of the first people to enter into a registered partnership, says his only complaint is that he is not allowed, under the law, to hyphenate his last two names.
Fancy dress
France's Pacs has some similarities. There are tax advantages and, for many straight couples, it seems like a low-risk stepping stone to marriage.
Delphine Rorive a 31-year-old management consultant "Pacsed" her boyfriend Frederic Morel, 29, in July last year.
"We just wanted to pay less taxes," she says.
"To us, it was only an administrative process. We had an appointment at the court at 0800 one morning, just the two of us, and 15 minutes later we were outside, Pacsed and ready to go to work, which we did.
"Soon after we decided to organise a fancy-dress party to celebrate. We invited all of our friends but no family, otherwise it would have been too much like a wedding.
"My boyfriend and I dressed as 'half-married' people, with our top halves in wedding outfits and the bottom half casual," says Ms Rorive.
And what of the future? "To me, it doesn't replace marriage. I'd still like to get married one day."
Author:  Aizle [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:37 am ]
Post subject: 
I hope they win.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon May 17, 2010 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why should the Gays have All the Civil Unions?
Müs wrote:
Austrians seek right to partnership created for gays]The Constitutional Court turned down the idea of marriage for gay couples in 2003, on the grounds that the purpose of marriage was reproduction.
But Mr Graupner, who points out that infertile people are allowed to marry, thinks there is now a chance the court will change its mind.
We just wanted to pay less taxes
Delphine Rorive
France's Pacs has some similarities. There are tax advantages and, for many straight couples, it seems like a low-risk stepping stone to marriage.
Delphine Rorive a 31-year-old management consultant "Pacsed" her boyfriend Frederic Morel, 29, in July last year.
"We just wanted to pay less taxes," she says.

If this gets overturned, I hope their country starts looking at abolishing the tax benefits for both. The primary reason for the benefits was to promote reproductive families. If the decision gets overturned (especially based on the "marriage isn't about reproduction" thing the lawyer seems to be pursuing), then it's time to pursue that vestigial relic in the tax code. And then, I hope the US follows suit.
Author:  Lydiaa [ Mon May 17, 2010 6:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
alternatively they could just let everyone get married as they wish under the same rule...

KISS
Author:  Rorinthas [ Mon May 17, 2010 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Keeping it simple would be the federal and maybe even state governments not caring about who is and isn't married and treating all individuals the same in the eyes of getting from and being taxed by the government.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Rorinthas wrote:
Keeping it simple would be the federal and maybe even state governments not caring about who is and isn't married and treating all individuals the same in the eyes of getting from and being taxed by the government.

Ding ding ding!

Leave marriage to the churches (or temples, or mosques), and **** the tax breaks universally. Then, nobody would care what government thought!
Author:  Lenas [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
So... no tax breaks until married couple (anyone) is responsible for a child, adopted or otherwise?
Author:  Lydiaa [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Maybe thats the trick, it's the kids who get the tax breaks, and parents must fight to keep them around to receive it!

Im sure that'll do wonders on adoption rates...
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue May 18, 2010 5:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Well in my perfect government ideal we have this thing called a flat tax anyway.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue May 18, 2010 6:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Rorinthas wrote:
Well in my perfect government ideal we have this thing called a flat tax anyway.

Fair Tax, but yes.

Lenas, if we insist on offering tax breaks for kids (despite already distributing much of the cost of children across the rest of society already, via public education and increasing student aid for post-secondary education), then that's the way I'd do it. Get rid of the marriage tax advantages, and instead increase the dependent deductions for working incomes.
Author:  Hopwin [ Tue May 18, 2010 11:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Who gets to claim the kids?
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am ]
Post subject: 
Nobody because there are no deductions just a flat percentage of your gross income.
Author:  Hopwin [ Tue May 18, 2010 11:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Rorinthas wrote:
Nobody because there are no deductions just a flat percentage of your gross income.

But if marriage isn't recognized then you would file separately. So which return reflects the kids or do both adjust their gross income? Do you get to deduct your kids if you are a deadbeat? How's that work under the current system anyway?
Author:  Lenas [ Tue May 18, 2010 11:41 am ]
Post subject: 
The idea was hinging on the assumption that everyone could be recognized as "married." I don't see a return being a problem when it's a percentage based on your gross income. Deadbeat parents = less income = less tax break = less reason to have kids? Don't make enough and the kids are hungry? Off to social services, hopefully to be adopted (with incentive!) by a more supportive family.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue May 18, 2010 12:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have no idea how the curent system works as far as deadbeats and a deduction. No one would claim the children on the taxes because there would be no reason too do so. Everyone just pays X percent off your gross pay. No adjustments deductions exclusions or transfusions allowed.
Author:  DFK! [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rori wrote:
I have no idea how the curent system works as far as deadbeats and a deduction. No one would claim the children on the taxes because there would be no reason too do so. Everyone just pays X percent off your gross pay. No adjustments deductions exclusions or transfusions allowed.


Or we could stop taxing income at all, based upon its disincentive affect on achievement, unjust and corrupt application, tendency to destroy wealth, and foundation in communist thought.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Thu May 20, 2010 9:17 am ]
Post subject: 
Baby steps, D, baby steps. We got to ween them off slowly.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Thu May 20, 2010 12:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Civil unions should be offered to any 2 consenting adults, whether they are a "couple" or not. The government should regulate this as a contract, not regulate couplehood.
Author:  Hopwin [ Thu May 20, 2010 12:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
My company offers benefits to "life-partners" regardless of whether they are same sex or opposite sex. The qualification is that you have to live together for 6 months.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Thu May 20, 2010 12:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Hopwin wrote:
My company offers benefits to "life-partners" regardless of whether they are same sex or opposite sex. The qualification is that you have to live together for 6 months.

Sweet! DFK!, his fiance, and I are all life-partners, and two of us can drop our health insurance premiums...
Author:  Hopwin [ Thu May 20, 2010 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
My company offers benefits to "life-partners" regardless of whether they are same sex or opposite sex. The qualification is that you have to live together for 6 months.

Sweet! DFK!, his fiance, and I are all life-partners, and two of us can drop our health insurance premiums...

You wouldn't catch any flak from my company over it. Poly-whatever-you-call-it is fine.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Thu May 20, 2010 2:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
And as a private company that us their decision to make.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/