[phicou]

A friend of mine just mentioned this to me tonight. The costs can be really insidious in unexpected ways.

My state is now offering insurance benefits to domestic partners, but the amount that the state covers for insurance (for example) is now taxable income. That means paying taxes on several thousand dollars that they never actually see.

However you feel about religious issues, or how "marriage" should be defined, It's kind of absurd that a certain segment of state employees doing equal work get shorted on benefits for their household.

[MartinCron]

"However you feel about religious issues, or how "marriage" should be defined"

I've started thinking that marriage should be defined in strictly religious terms. That is, get the state out of the business altogether and have civil union experience be the same for all couples. What you do in church is up to you.

I mean, you wouldn't expect to go to the government for a baptism license?

[jetsnoc]

Yes, and then of course stick to making no laws respecting religion meaning every couple with a civil union enjoys the same tax benefits.

Many would vomit at this idea because they would fear that you are "taking something away from them." Of course, ironically, the marriage they feared would be taken from them is of course the same right they are denying me.

[yummyfajitas]

A better idea would be to eliminate the tax benefits of marriage. Every tax benefit given to straight couples is paid for by single people and possibly gays (depending on the future legality of gay marriage).

This is regressive taxation. Married people are better off than the single; they have lower living expenses and are presumably happier. Marriage subsidies are taxing the poor to pay the rich.