I had the pleasure of speaking on behalf of the Commonwealth Coalition this afternoon at a gathering on the Eastern Shore. It was a wonderful opportunity to discuss the impact of the so-called Marriage Amendment with a group of interested individuals. Every one in the room pledged to Vote NO on Ballot Issue #1.
One of the things I used as part of my conversation was this New York Times article (registration required), which appeared on the front page of today’s Pilot. Although it carried a different headline, the message was clear:
Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.
Households are not declining, but married couples are. This is why defeating the amendment is so critical: the amendment’s reach to all unmarried couples.
And as I pointed out to the assembled group, the issue of the amendment is not a partisan one. As if on cue, David at Equality Loudon points us to several posts by Republicans who are against the amendment. One of them is this piece, from the Washington Post. Referring to the amendment, the author says:
The election presents the commonwealth’s long-neglected moderate and libertarian Republican voters with a rare opportunity to challenge the party’s religious extremists without supporting a Democrat.
Read the articles, read the entire amendment, and then Vote NO on November 7.
Volunteer and contribute today.
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian:
The marriage penalty in the income tax was fixed, in both Virginia law and Federal law. The only loss I know of is Social Security, when a widow has been living off her spouse’s Social Security credits, not her own. The fix there is, obviously, personal accounts. In any event, the problem is in the Social Security law, not the proposed amendment.
Jack – who said anything about the marriage penalty? That wasn’t what I meant when I said tax liabilities and debts. Marrying someone with outstanding tax liabilities and other debts is often an issue. Bad credit is often another one.
Social Security is just one of the retirement and other benefits lost when a widow or widower remarries. The same is true for military retirement and health benefits.
You can have your beef with Social Security all you want, but seniors don’t have (and neither does anyone else at this point) personal accounts. These are the rules we have, not the rules we wish we had.
Bottom line is that people make decisions not to marry for a number of reasons. And in America, they should have that choice. Government’s role should not be to force people to make decisions that are otherwise bad for them.
As for the military retirement, which my mother is on, the military payment to former spouses continues even if they remarry. At least that was the case in 2003, because there was Senate testimony on the subject then, and the issue was that that money was being deducted from the retiree’s benefit, even if the former spouse remarried. Has that law changed?
In the case of Social Security, the benefit is based on the idea that the widow needs to maintain her own household. If she remarries, that is not the case anymore. By cohabitating, which is illegal in VA, people are gaming the Social Security system to get benefits to which they are not entitled. Doesn’t the government have some interest there?
One’s credit rating is one’s own, and is not affected by the credit rating of the spouse when people get married.
People do have the choice to get married or not. The bottom line is that choices have consequences.
I have been reading Title 38. After age 57, the remarriage of a military wodow (or widower) loses no benefits. Some benefits are lost if the person remarries between the ages of 55 and 57; all are lost if remarried before 55. Before that age, living together as husband and wife also disqualifies one from benefits, so having a marriage certificate is irrelevant.
My point was that it is irrelavent to reference the reduction of married couples in America to make an arguement to vote NO to the amendmendant. I don’t think this reduction is because of government policies. Please explain the environment that African American children are facing by not having a father figure in their lives (70%). Also, I do not think that there are enough gay and lesbian couples raising children to qualify as experts on the benefits of having or not having a mother and a father in the same household. The majority of people in this country have been raised by a mother and a father and it is a proven tool in fostering a positive environment for their children. I refer back to the African American communities, where crime and poverty are at an all time high. A majority of African American children are raised by a single mother or grandmother with no father influence. Don’t blame the government for that fact.
Jeff – when I have time, I intend to write a piece on the demise of the black family. For right now, please be aware that it was the government – Johnson’s “War of Poverty” – that caused the break up of the black family. There are those who think that it was intentional. I happen to think it was an unintended consequence.
Jack – I have clients who made the decision not to marry based on those decisions. The bottom line remains the same: should government intrude into the personal decisions or are we, as adults, able to make our own decisions? I think the latter. This nanny state stuff needs to stop.
Vivian – That may have been the case years ago. However, people need to be accountable for their own actions. In today’s society, I do not see a link between the demise of the black family and the government other than the Welfare System and Affirmative Action which in my opinion are failures and hinder black families.
Vivian — It’s a bit disingenuous to complain about the nanny state when the main issue, Social Security benefits, is the very cornerstone of the nanny state.
I do hope you advise your clients of the VA law against cohabitation.