Singles and Marriage Equality

[roddma]

I know the news has focused on SCOTUS landmark decision on marriage, but now let's give singles some attention.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.

I strongly disagree with this. Plenty of people from all walks of life make sacrifices and give love to many others. Marriage is great and wonderful, but I was single once and can tell the difference over the years in how I'm viewed now vs single. SInglism is sadly a huge problem. I thought FMLA was for anyone, though. Equality shouldnt be just marriage equality.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/20 ... story.html

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I know the news has focused on SCOTUS landmark decision on marriage, but now let's give singles some attention.

I strongly disagree with this. Plenty of people from all walks of life make sacrifices and give love to many others. Marriage is great and wonderful, but I was single once and can tell the difference over the years in how I'm viewed now vs single. SInglism is sadly a huge problem. I thought FMLA was for anyone, though. Equality shouldnt be just marriage equality.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/20 ... story.html

I think you're looking too far into this. He did say "no union," not "nothing." A single person isn't a union of people.

As for "something greater than they once were," I don't think it's saying that you're not worth anything if you're single. As a single person with no prospect of marriage at this point in my life, I don't feel he said anything against single people with that statement. I also do think that you become something greater when you're committed to someone else because it forces you to acknowledge your shortcomings, accept theirs, and find compromises; things you don't necessarily have to deal with when you're single. Hell, I have a roommate and I know that I don't have to do really do any of those things when it comes to her unless I want to because my only commitment to her is that I'll pay for my half of the rent and utilities. If we're having issues and I don't want to deal with it, I can just avoid her. Can't do that with someone you're actually in a relationship with. At least, not if you want the relationship to last.

[roddma]

It just sounds too Fundie-ish for my taste. None of us are greater because we conform to what society says is normal. Marriage doesnt mean grown up nor makes anyone less selfish as we have witnessed with the Gosselins and many Fundies followed on here etc. Many people love their single life and freedom and still reach out to others and admit faults. Some them end up caregivers for elderly parents /relatives because no one else has time. I just feel what this guy said short changes them. Marriage is great but it shouldnt be so elevated.

[lilwriter85]

I can understand some of the points brought up in that article. I have single friends and relatives that are gay, straight, and bi who have discussed their frustrations on certain things that have to do with career, job, and sometimes just social interactions with friends and family.

A lesbian friend of mine is going through some issues now. She is on the fence about marriage. She travels a lot for her job and admits she has FWB relationships with a few women. She gets pressure from married lesbian friends and also from some of her relatives. She is even considering the possibility of being a single mom through adoptions or AI. She still worries about single parent stigma and possible legal issues attached to that.

A single male friend of mine who works in healthcare has openly admitted that he at times resents that married co-workers with or without kids are sometimes given preference for holidays off.

I have to give them credit for venting their frustrations and at times my male friend feels bad for some of his thoughts.

[roddma]

A single male friend of mine who works in healthcare has openly admitted that he at times resents that married co-workers with or without kids are sometimes given preference for holidays off.

That is a common beef among single people and couples with no kids and it causes a lot of tension in the workplace. There are arguments here that our maternity leave isnt up to par with other countries, some of which offer a year paid maternity leave. America is a country founded on choices and free will and furthermore we have a population of 300 million while the UK has 30 million if I am right. Besides, maternity leave ASSUMES all women will have kids or want to have kids.

Family friendly policies arent so friendly to everyone. It is obvious society prefers married / partnered people. Then you have to consider weddings are an almost 1 billion dollar year industry.

[polecat]

I can understand some of the points brought up in that article. I have single friends and relatives that are gay, straight, and bi who have discussed their frustrations on certain things that have to do with career, job, and sometimes just social interactions with friends and family.

A lesbian friend of mine is going through some issues now. She is on the fence about marriage. She travels a lot for her job and admits she has FWB relationships with a few women. She gets pressure from married lesbian friends and also from some of her relatives. She is even considering the possibility of being a single mom through adoptions or AI. She still worries about single parent stigma and possible legal issues attached to that.

A single male friend of mine who works in healthcare has openly admitted that he at times resents that married co-workers with or without kids are sometimes given preference for holidays off.

I have to give them credit for venting their frustrations and at times my male friend feels bad for some of his thoughts.

I'm self-employed, so have minimal vacation time anyway (If I don't work, I don't get paid, lol). But my husband's company goes by seniority. The workers who've been there longest always have priority regardless of marital or parent status. I am a married parent, and afaic, giving parents and married people priority over single people and childfree/childless people for vacation days is a form of discrimination. How could it be argued as anything else?

[clueliss]

I am single and 51. no kids.

the workplace annoys me. I am not the one fielding cell phone calls in the middle of work conversations (at critical points often) from spouses or children. I am not the one leaving early or coming in late due to children's activities. Granted, I now am dealing with parenting my parent but since I placed her in skilled nursing a few weeks ago those issues should lessen sometime in the next couple of months.

Yes, I resent that moments. In part I resent those moments because my mother - a single parent for 7 years between the divorce of my father and her reamarriage was not afforded those luxuries back in the 70's without it hurting her bottom line pay. (likewise even today for those with an hourly paycheck). But I also resent those moments because I chose a lifestyle that fits me. I try to keep focus at work on work.

But there is more. There are tose moments at church (which I have stopped attending) when you tell someone that your are single over 40 and have no children. They don't realize it but there is that moment of silent. This look that washes over them even for mere seconds because you can just tell that they are trying to fit you into a box and they struggle with where you belong because frankly, in Evangelical Christian world many don't know what to do with you.

And I'm not going to go down the path of tax laws that at times reward marriage - and head of household (hello, I am a head of household, my household is one unless you count the cat).

While I know that I am no less a person because I am single. There is a difference in the way you are treated. It is subtle. The difference becomes more apparent as you age.

Oh and now I am facing how to handle issues later in life as I get older. Issues such as who will do for me what I am doing for my mother who has dementia. I pray that I do not get dementia. However I must look at a family history of it. I have to think now at age 51 of what might happen 10, 15, 20 or more years down the road. And do it alone. (and in my case, I have no nieces or nephews to designate as my sister has chosen a similar lifestyle).

[roddma]

But there is more. There are tose moments at church (which I have stopped attending) when you tell someone that your are single over 40 and have no children. They don't realize it but there is that moment of silent. This look that washes over them even for mere seconds because you can just tell that they are trying to fit you into a box and they struggle with where you belong because frankly, in Evangelical Christian world many don't know what to do with you.

These attitudes spill into the secular world as well. It's ashame they even exist in 21st century America. I think it is why I stopped going to church. everything is family oriented and I feel out of place..I always hated do you have a BF questions like it is the only thing. Here's an interesting piece on being single in church-I didnt think it necessary to break link.No 3 especially is true./

http://sarahthebarge.com/2015/01/7-reas ... he-church/

[DowntownAbbey]

These attitudes spill into the secular world as well. It's ashame they even exist in 21st century America. I think it is why I stopped going to church. everything is family oriented and I feel out of place..I always hated do you have a BF questions like it is the only thing. Here's an interesting piece on being single in church-I didnt think it necessary to break link.No 3 especially is true./

http://sarahthebarge.com/2015/01/7-reas ... he-church/

I stopped attending church before I actually reached a point where this really affected me, but my home church was decidedly centered around a married/single divide for Sunday School. Sunday School classes were all co-ed through the college/career class which was the group for anyone ages 18-26. But once you turned 26, you were divided into classes based off of your marital status. There were two singles classes, one male one female, for any unmarried person 26 and older or there were multiple married couples classes, one for newlyweds and the rest divided by age.

This conflict did cause issues for some young single women I knew. Some opted to become children's Sunday School teachers rather than attend an odd mix aged singles class that, iirc, did have at least one married woman in the class and was taught by the pastor's wife. Others ended up leaving the church for others that offered co-ed, similar age classes or were generally less divided along gender/martial lines.

This wasn't the reason I left that church or stopped going to church in general, but it was a factor. To me, it felt as though I was going pigeon holed into a specific class based on my gender appearance and martial status, neither of which I view as a defining factors in my life. I'd rather be in a class with people of similar age or at a similar life stage.

This isn't to say that I think single gender or married/singles only classes are inherently bad, but that those should not be the only options.

[clueliss]

Ah small groups and sunday school classes. I joined the singles small group for a while. I was the youngest person in the group and the only person who had never been married. Group talk often consisted of various members whining about the sermon focusing on marriage and how Pastor should be more considerate. Or other divorce related topics.

And yes, I was one that served in Children's Ministries. (the kids don't care and after they go into school you can actually gain a bit of cred with them because you aren't carrying a 'mom card' so they seemed to feel free to ask me questions they wouldn't ask members of the 'mom club' without fear that said weird question (especially prone to say 3rd -5th grade girls I had) would get back to Mom).

Women's ministries (Beth Moore studies) was a bit easier to blend into the background and limit what I shared without feeling weird. I ultimately found a small group with friends that were married but understood and it is easier to deal with say 5 women than an entire class. And I knew them at that point so they really were friends.

When I moved I found a church that satisfied my geeky nature and a class that had a vast age range (no really we had teens to senior citizens in the class) where the focus was on deep Bible study rather than marriage and family issues.

I've since dropped church entirely and while I miss the community I do not miss organized religion.

Work is a whole other hot point with me right now.

[2xx1xy1JD]

My unsentimental notion is that marriage is a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities.

Being married doesn't necessarily mean that two people will be committed, loving, sacrificial, etc. It does mean that they will have certain rights and obligations, whether or not they are actually committed, loving, sacrificial, etc.

I'm against treating anyone like shit. That said, there are some valid public policy reasons for why marriage, and benefits/obligations associated with marriage (or in some cases, marriage-like relationships) exist. In general, the family unit does a better job than the state in assuring the well-being of its members (although there are obviously tons of exceptions). Generally speaking, spouses will support each other economically as needed, and they will be there to assist in cases of disability. Aging married couples have a support system that most aging singles do not, and its also true that a spouse who is put in a caregiver role has additional responsibilities that a single person generally wouldn't have (of course, either married or single people may find themselves caring for aging or disabled parents). It makes some social policy sense to encourage people to enter into these sort of relationships, where they do agree to support one another through tough times, since that can ultimately benefit them and reduce the burden on the rest of society. Support can also be non-physical and non-economic - the state doesn't do a very good job, for example, of providing love or meeting emotional needs.

While it may benefit society, or the family unit as a whole, for one member to sacrifice themselves for the others, it sucks if that family member is left unprotected. That's the purpose behind spousal benefits.

As far as workplaces are concerned - there are millions of workplaces, and experiences vary greatly. In general, I've found that there is accommodation for family needs in the short-term. If someone needs to pick up a sick child from daycare, or if someone's mother lands in hospital with a broken hip, or if someone has an emergency with a spouse, people who aren't assholes will have some understanding. In the long-term, however, when it comes to making plans for staff, there is a sense of who is reliably available and who is not. If there is a job that requires long or irregular hours, there is a sense of who can do that and who can't. There is a reason why "mommy track" jobs exist. In my field, it is extremely common to see some areas (like any type of government work, esp. in areas like child protection) totally dominated by women, while other areas (like major partnerships at big law firms) are still dominated by men. Flexibility of schedule is a major factor, as is availability of leave and benefits. My husband sees the same thing in medicine - women are more likely to stay in lower-paying salaried clinic or academic positions, which are perceived as being more family-friendly.

[Eponine]

My unsentimental notion is that marriage is a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities.

Being married doesn't necessarily mean that two people will be committed, loving, sacrificial, etc. It does mean that they will have certain rights and obligations, whether or not they are actually committed, loving, sacrificial, etc.

I'm against treating anyone like shit. That said, there are some valid public policy reasons for why marriage, and benefits/obligations associated with marriage (or in some cases, marriage-like relationships) exist. In general, the family unit does a better job than the state in assuring the well-being of its members (although there are obviously tons of exceptions). Generally speaking, spouses will support each other economically as needed, and they will be there to assist in cases of disability. Aging married couples have a support system that most aging singles do not, and its also true that a spouse who is put in a caregiver role has additional responsibilities that a single person generally wouldn't have (of course, either married or single people may find themselves caring for aging or disabled parents). It makes some social policy sense to encourage people to enter into these sort of relationships, where they do agree to support one another through tough times, since that can ultimately benefit them and reduce the burden on the rest of society. Support can also be non-physical and non-economic - the state doesn't do a very good job, for example, of providing love or meeting emotional needs.

While it may benefit society, or the family unit as a whole, for one member to sacrifice themselves for the others, it sucks if that family member is left unprotected. That's the purpose behind spousal benefits.

As far as workplaces are concerned - there are millions of workplaces, and experiences vary greatly. In general, I've found that there is accommodation for family needs in the short-term. If someone needs to pick up a sick child from daycare, or if someone's mother lands in hospital with a broken hip, or if someone has an emergency with a spouse, people who aren't assholes will have some understanding. In the long-term, however, when it comes to making plans for staff, there is a sense of who is reliably available and who is not. If there is a job that requires long or irregular hours, there is a sense of who can do that and who can't. There is a reason why "mommy track" jobs exist. In my field, it is extremely common to see some areas (like any type of government work, esp. in areas like child protection) totally dominated by women, while other areas (like major partnerships at big law firms) are still dominated by men. Flexibility of schedule is a major factor, as is availability of leave and benefits. My husband sees the same thing in medicine - women are more likely to stay in lower-paying salaried clinic or academic positions, which are perceived as being more family-friendly.

Marriage IS bundle of legal rights and responsibilities, but there is no reason that couples who aren't legally married shouldn't be able to have those, too. My partner and I live together, support each other economically, take care of each other, etc, but we have absolutely no interest in ever getting married. Although our relationship is equally as strong and loving as any married couples, we're looked down upon because we choose not to get married. I'm not allowed to put him on my health insurance simply because we don't have that legal contract in place - and we have seriously considered doing it just so that I can put him on it. It feels pretty gross that I would consider something against my convictions just because the way the society is set up forces me to conform to support my partner. There's no reason committed couples should have to have to be married to get those benefits, and as you said, it's in society's favor for people to have those relationships, so why make it harder on those couple who don't want to marry?

This is completely aside from all the assumptions made about single people (which are horrible and incredibly stupid) but it's another perspective on the marriage issue - not every couple has to, or wants to, get married, even though it's the accepted "next step" in life.

[Firiel]

Marriage IS bundle of legal rights and responsibilities, but there is no reason that couples who aren't legally married shouldn't be able to have those, too. My partner and I live together, support each other economically, take care of each other, etc, but we have absolutely no interest in ever getting married. Although our relationship is equally as strong and loving as any married couples, we're looked down upon because we choose not to get married. I'm not allowed to put him on my health insurance simply because we don't have that legal contract in place - and we have seriously considered doing it just so that I can put him on it. It feels pretty gross that I would consider something against my convictions just because the way the society is set up forces me to conform to support my partner. There's no reason committed couples should have to have to be married to get those benefits, and as you said, it's in society's favor for people to have those relationships, so why make it harder on those couple who don't want to marry?

This is completely aside from all the assumptions made about single people (which are horrible and incredibly stupid) but it's another perspective on the marriage issue - not every couple has to, or wants to, get married, even though it's the accepted "next step" in life.

This is a great point, but I'm personally not sure how I feel about how I worry it would play out. (Eponine, note that the following isn't directed at you or your relationship-- I do understand and respect that couples can be loving and committed without a legal marriage contract.) Would allowing just any other person to be on your insurance increase things like fraud? Would there be a huge spike in administrative costs when people put their short-term significant others on their insurance only to have to remove them in three months after a break up? How do you track and monitor those support systems if it's not tied to a legal contract? Would it be better to have some sort of "civil union" thing for couples of all orientations as an alternative to marriage? But then, wouldn't that hold the same issue for people who don't believe in marriage because it is essentially the same thing?

I hope the above doesn't make me sound like an ass. Those are legitimate questions, not substandard "gotcha" questions. I really am curious. If anyone has thoughts about the answers to these questions, I'd love to hear them.

[2xx1xy1JD]

This is a great point, but I'm personally not sure how I feel about how I worry it would play out. (Eponine, note that the following isn't directed at you or your relationship-- I do understand and respect that couples can be loving and committed without a legal marriage contract.) Would allowing just any other person to be on your insurance increase things like fraud? Would there be a huge spike in administrative costs when people put their short-term significant others on their insurance only to have to remove them in three months after a break up? How do you track and monitor those support systems if it's not tied to a legal contract? Would it be better to have some sort of "civil union" thing for couples of all orientations as an alternative to marriage? But then, wouldn't that hold the same issue for people who don't believe in marriage because it is essentially the same thing?

I hope the above doesn't make me sound like an ass. Those are legitimate questions, not substandard "gotcha" questions. I really am curious. If anyone has thoughts about the answers to these questions, I'd love to hear them.

This is one of those things that varies wildly depending on where you live. There are plenty of places that allow common-law spouses to be included on benefits. The definition of a common-law spouse, of course, changes from place to place, and you can't have coverage for two spouses at the same time (this comes up when clients are separated but not yet divorced, and have a new partner).

At some point, there is also the question of imposing legal rights and obligations on people who have not indicated that they want to be part of that arrangement. Marriage equality cases are about providing gay couples the same range of options as straight couples. If a couple, however, is perfectly free to choose marriage but decides that they don't want to be married, does it always make sense for the state to say, "tough, you are acting as though you are married so we'll impose this set of rules on you even if you avoided getting married specifically because you didn't want this"?

I should also add that there are some circumstances where marriage can deprive someone of certain benefits. A single parent may lose government benefits upon marriage, student loans are sometimes harder to get if you have a working spouse (this happened when we got married), someone who is divorced may lose spousal support/alimony payments, etc. Nobody likes the thought of someone cheating the system, but depriving someone of their source of support as soon as they have a romantic partner spend the night robs them of their independence.

[Eponine]

This is a great point, but I'm personally not sure how I feel about how I worry it would play out. (Eponine, note that the following isn't directed at you or your relationship-- I do understand and respect that couples can be loving and committed without a legal marriage contract.) Would allowing just any other person to be on your insurance increase things like fraud? Would there be a huge spike in administrative costs when people put their short-term significant others on their insurance only to have to remove them in three months after a break up? How do you track and monitor those support systems if it's not tied to a legal contract? Would it be better to have some sort of "civil union" thing for couples of all orientations as an alternative to marriage? But then, wouldn't that hold the same issue for people who don't believe in marriage because it is essentially the same thing?

I hope the above doesn't make me sound like an ass. Those are legitimate questions, not substandard "gotcha" questions. I really am curious. If anyone has thoughts about the answers to these questions, I'd love to hear them.

I actually discussed this with my HR department - what could possibly prove that my partner and I were "enough" like a married couple to get him on my insurance? Things like a joint bank account/both our names on a mortgage or lease were floated (both of which make sense to me) but ultimately the only thing they're going to accept is a marriage certificate. It's a good question though, and I've spent a while thinking about it. Ultimately I think something in the vein of a domestic partnership or a French-style PACS would be better for us, although it's definitely not what we'd want. It's closer to fitting us than marriage, anyway.

When gay marriage wasn't legal in NY my HR department had a provision for domestic partnerships being allowed to share benefits but they actually took it out when gay marriage was legalized because hey, now that everyone can get married that's the only way to prove you're a committed couple!

I should also add that there are some circumstances where marriage can deprive someone of certain benefits. A single parent may lose government benefits upon marriage, student loans are sometimes harder to get if you have a working spouse (this happened when we got married), someone who is divorced may lose spousal support/alimony payments, etc. Nobody likes the thought of someone cheating the system, but depriving someone of their source of support as soon as they have a romantic partner spend the night robs them of their independence.

This is something I hear a lot, being that I work with student loans. It's kind of true in that yes, when a single parent gets remarried and the spouse has income it will increase the household income and therefore might make the household ineligible for certain types of aid. But at the same time, if a stepparent who makes $100k comes into the picture, the household is simply not in the same circumstance as it was previously - the stepparent's income SHOULD be taken into account because they're contributing to household expenses. The aid (at least the grants) that people might have previously qualified for is meant for the poorest of the poor - not for people with a whole new income supplementing their household. I understand that a lot of new stepparents don't want to be responsible for their stepchild's education, which is fine, but they are still adding money to the household. It's simply not the same situation as a household making only $25k (whether a single parent or two parents).

And actually this is precisely why the FAFSA was changed a couple of years ago to include both parents if a student's parents were unmarried but living together - because regardless of marital status, all income in a household is supposed to be reported.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm not saying you're wrong - just that the rules vary wildly and that lines can get really fuzzy with common-law relationships.

Let's say that you are a student. You have a roommate with a job. At some point, you and the roommate get romantic. At what point does some bureaucrat declare that you have obviously merged your financial lives, and that the roommate should be supporting you? Or at what point does a divorced woman in her late 40s find out that having her new boyfriend stay overnight mean that she can't get student assistance for her daughter (whom the guy has no intention of supporting)?

Now, imagine spiteful exes or neighbors who are only too happy to call snitch lines and report that the slut is having a guy sleep over, so that they can see her lose her benefits. I saw it happen all the time.

If we are talking about a clearly committed relationship with several years of living together - sure, that's pretty similar to marriage. What about the steps along the way?

[Eponine]

I'm not saying you're wrong - just that the rules vary wildly and that lines can get really fuzzy with common-law relationships.

Let's say that you are a student. You have a roommate with a job. At some point, you and the roommate get romantic. At what point does some bureaucrat declare that you have obviously merged your financial lives, and that the roommate should be supporting you? Or at what point does a divorced woman in her late 40s find out that having her new boyfriend stay overnight mean that she can't get student assistance for her daughter (whom the guy has no intention of supporting)?

Now, imagine spiteful exes or neighbors who are only too happy to call snitch lines and report that the slut is having a guy sleep over, so that they can see her lose her benefits. I saw it happen all the time.

If we are talking about a clearly committed relationship with several years of living together - sure, that's pretty similar to marriage. What about the steps along the way?

I agree that it's a fuzzy line, I'm just saying that at least in terms of student stuff it's not set up like that and I don't think it ever could be. There is no mechanism to know whether a single parent has a live-in significant other since it's all reliant on self-identification. There is no tattling that happens in financial aid. It's taken them this long to even acknowledge that biological parents might be living together but not married, and even then it depends on the student or parent(s) putting both parents on the form (and the random times when their names might come up on a tax document or something). So there is no scenario where someone sleeping "overnight" becomes a problem and since there is probably no documentation of that there's no way to put it on student aid-related forms. We have to be able to back up every piece of information with a document or signed statement.

I don't know how other social services work, and I could see how there would be tattling there - but that's not a reason to deny partner benefits to people who aren't married. It just means there needs to be a way around it - even if it means letting people provide other types of documentation to show they're in a committed partner situation (like I said before, something like a mortgage/lease, etc). The onus should always be on the couple to show that they're a unit, so the issue here is expanding the "proof" of that to be something other than marriage papers.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Extending benefits to common-law partners makes sense, and it's pretty much the norm where I live. If someone meets the definition of a common-law spouse, whatever the definition is where they live, I don't consider them to be single.

My point is about extending the definition of spouse in situations where it goes beyond the general legal definition for that jurisdiction. In plain English - treating people as spouses when they hadn't shown any intention to take on the rights and obligations of spouses.

This happened in Ontario, Canada, where a hard-line government tried to kick as many people off benefits as they could. They changed the rules so that single moms who lived with a guy for ANY length of time were deemed to be supported by him - even if it was a casual relationship and he had no intention or legal obligation to support her. There was a LOT of snitching going on. The impact on vulnerable women and children was pretty extreme. Here's the Ontario Court of Appeal case that struck that part of the law down: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2 ... pletePos=1

[Maggie Mae]

It would be nice if FAFSA would STOP TAKING PARENTS INCOME into consideration at all. Not everyone wants to wait until they are 27 to go to college if their parents won't/can't cough up the % they are expected they are "expected" to pay. It's crap. State Universities should be free, minimum wage should be livable without several roommates, and step parent's income has nothing to do with an 18 year old who no longer lives in their house. UGH. I get so irritated by this crap.

[roddma]

It would be nice if FAFSA would STOP TAKING PARENTS INCOME into consideration at all. Not everyone wants to wait until they are 27 to go to college if their parents won't/can't cough up the % they are expected they are "expected" to pay. It's crap. State Universities should be free, minimum wage should be livable without several roommates, and step parent's income has nothing to do with an 18 year old who no longer lives in their house. UGH. I get so irritated by this crap.

And then some, especially GOP, wonder why what they call 'delayed adulthood' exists with kids at home until they are 30, but the idea of free college terrifies them. In the 1970s to early 80s, you could survive on minimum wage jobs at 18, even quit school without many monetary repercussions. Though the world has changed, you should still be able to survive without relying on parents well into adulthood.

[clueliss]

It would be nice if FAFSA would STOP TAKING PARENTS INCOME into consideration at all. Not everyone wants to wait until they are 27 to go to college if their parents won't/can't cough up the % they are expected they are "expected" to pay. It's crap. State Universities should be free, minimum wage should be livable without several roommates, and step parent's income has nothing to do with an 18 year old who no longer lives in their house. UGH. I get so irritated by this crap.

In some cases (Mine for instance) the step parent, who came along when I was 17 and my sister was 15 has nothing to do with it even if you are still at home. Because all that guy did was complain about us. Contribution to education - zilch unless you include a whole lot of fights. (And Daddy Dear wasn't paying child support on top of it and Mom was too nice to have him hauled in)

[WhiteRun]

My parents never bothered getting married (partly to rebel against their parents, partly because they saw no reason in it).

However legally (in Australia at least) they are considered a de-facto couple, having been together for over 40 years. My mum is also my dads full time carer due to a variety of disabilities he has and at least to people who don't ask about their marriage status, they are considered husband and wife. All paper work and financial benefits see my parents as a legal couple.

However it does come with a few on paper problems for my sister and I, our school thought our parents were divorced due to the difference in last names (only in the past few years has our mum started hyphenating her name) and Centrelink sending out paperwork with the wrong last names too.

[Mama Mia]

I actually discussed this with my HR department - what could possibly prove that my partner and I were "enough" like a married couple to get him on my insurance? Things like a joint bank account/both our names on a mortgage or lease were floated (both of which make sense to me) but ultimately the only thing they're going to accept is a marriage certificate. It's a good question though, and I've spent a while thinking about it. Ultimately I think something in the vein of a domestic partnership or a French-style PACS would be better for us, although it's definitely not what we'd want. It's closer to fitting us than marriage, anyway.

When gay marriage wasn't legal in NY my HR department had a provision for domestic partnerships being allowed to share benefits but they actually took it out when gay marriage was legalized because hey, now that everyone can get married that's the only way to prove you're a committed couple!

The most logical way to do this has nothing to do with marital or relationship status. Or setting up complicated guidelines over who counts or doesn't count for employer based medical insurance. The logical solution, that benefits everyone equally, is to get single payer, universal health care.

This is something I hear a lot, being that I work with student loans. It's kind of true in that yes, when a single parent gets remarried and the spouse has income it will increase the household income and therefore might make the household ineligible for certain types of aid. But at the same time, if a stepparent who makes $100k comes into the picture, the household is simply not in the same circumstance as it was previously - the stepparent's income SHOULD be taken into account because they're contributing to household expenses. The aid (at least the grants) that people might have previously qualified for is meant for the poorest of the poor - not for people with a whole new income supplementing their household. I understand that a lot of new stepparents don't want to be responsible for their stepchild's education, which is fine, but they are still adding money to the household. It's simply not the same situation as a household making only $25k (whether a single parent or two parents).

But by your reasoning regarding health care, the same should apply whenever two adults live together. Whether they chose to get married or not. If the unmarried couple can both receive health insurance, it only follows, logically, that that same unmarried couple should have their combined income count when it comes to benefits or financial aid for one of their children. You can't have it both ways.

And actually this is precisely why the FAFSA was changed a couple of years ago to include both parents if a student's parents were unmarried but living together - because regardless of marital status, all income in a household is supposed to be reported

But that's both of the child's biological parents, that has nothing to do with the married or not question, except to acknowledge that it is now common for two biological parents to live together throughout their children's childhoods and beyond, without marrying. As opposed to the previous assumption that the students parents would either be married, single and not living together, or divorced and living apparent

I have a blended family. I've spent time under each of the various tax and benefit categories. For me, being married was a gain for our family as far as insurance, but a loss tax wise. I agree with 2xx regarding the financial investment the state has in a marital relationship as far as care taking. Of course no one can make their spouse stick by the " in sickness" part of their vows ( as I unfortunately discovered ) but, it is , generally, at least some sort of support for people as they age. Just as children often, but not always are. This , to me, is similar to the insurance question. The solution isn't to try to cut any benefits to having a spouse or children, but to broaden government provided supports to anyone who needs them as they age or become disabled

.

[DGayle]

I thought FMLA was for anyone, though. Equality shouldnt be just marriage equality.

First. the FMLA can be used by anyone, not just married people. If you have a sick parent, sick child, sick partner, sick whoever, they don't make you be married to use FMLA. Yes, it can be used if you have a baby, or if you get sick. Being married isn't a part of it!

Second, fuck that article.

"They include material perks — like receiving monetary benefits through tax incentives, spousal Social Security benefits, and estate transfers — as well as privileges of love and loyalty."

What the fuck do you or anyone think should be done about spousal benefits? Nix them for the people who are married because somehow it hurts you personally that a married couple has that? Estate transfers are spouse to spouse, not spouse to parent or spouse to random friend, and is meant to protect a surviving spouse since usually both people are responsible for building up the estate, and it's wrong to possibly force the sale of a home while the surviving spouse is still alive. When that now-single person dies single, there are no estate transfer benefits.

And you're not entitled to the love and loyalty from anybody. That part of the article can fuck off the most. What's the "equality" solution here, to ban relationships because it's not faaair that single people are single? Yes, it sucks a lot being single on Valentine's Day, but that doesn't mean there's an entitlement to the love and loyalty of another person.

That part about landlords preferring married people over a single is also bullshit. What a landlord sees is the higher income and greater chance rent's going to get paid. If the single has more income than the couple, the single's going to look better.

"$484,368 to $1,022,096 — Estimated additional amount a single woman will pay than a married one over 60 years"

Again, sensationalist bullshit. When you've got a partner, there are 2 people paying the bills. Only a fool would think somebody should start getting rent breaks because they're single.

This article also breaks down people into single or married, and leave out cohabitating partners. If you're partnered and want estate transfer benefits and such, then register your partnership via a marriage license. That's really what a license is. It's a record of who is partnered with whom.

There are ways you can get singed by being married, some which are discussed here. There are also scholarships available to not-married people only. I'm not being anybody argue against the perks that come with being not married. If you want the estate transfer, then you better be willing to give up how you can apply for disability or SSI without another person's income being counted against you.

There are perks and minuses on both sides of the coin. If you want to bitch about discrimination against single people because your bills are yours alone and you don't get estate transfers, then start bitching about how married people have a harder time getting financial aid versus unmarried but cohabitating couples (one of my good friends and her boyfriend aren't getting married because they're getting thousands each in college grants that they wouldn't get if they were married, while I qualify for none, even though my household income is less overall than theirs).