tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post4365501698953324464..comments2024-03-17T14:10:05.912-05:00Comments on The Chuck Cowdery Blog: Illinois Legislator Promotes Civil Unions as Social Security Scam.Chuck Cowderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-39945353783582664072008-05-20T23:27:00.000-05:002008-05-20T23:27:00.000-05:00I'm sympathetic to the counter argument, that if i...I'm sympathetic to the counter argument, that if it's legal then there should be no stigma to taking advantage of it. On the other hand, common sense tells us that we really can't have our cake and eat it too.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-27683135234273403652008-05-20T23:26:00.000-05:002008-05-20T23:26:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-15568227301028831222008-05-20T22:16:00.000-05:002008-05-20T22:16:00.000-05:00I agree with you (and my State Supreme Court) that...I agree with you (and my State Supreme Court) that marriage is preferable to civil unions. Actually, I don't think the state should regulate marriage at all, but that's another issue. <BR/><BR/>However, I think it's a bit hyperbolic to label non-married seniors who collect SS as "thieves." <BR/><BR/>The Congress made a decision with regard to how it would allocate SS benefits. That decision was based largely on marriage. If there is a loophole that Congress doesn't like, they should fix it (and I wouldn't necesarilly be opposed to such a fix - again, I don't really see the point of tying benefits to the institution of marriage), but I don't think it's appropriate to blame people for doing something advantageous that the law clearly permits. <BR/><BR/>Our tax law is, of course, filled with such loopholes (intentional and otherwise). Would you characterize people who invest in tax shelters or make other decisions based on tax liablity thieves? If so, nearly everyone who itemizes would fall under that definition and nearly all accountants would be guilty of aiding and abetting.skuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00487419662314518931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-49942753519354168622008-05-20T20:38:00.000-05:002008-05-20T20:38:00.000-05:00I agree it's a scandal that Social Security benefi...I agree it's a scandal that Social Security benefits, paid for by hard-working Americans, are denied to their same-sex partners. I would still consider it a scandal even if they didn't work all that hard.<BR/><BR/>The only practical solution is same-sex marriage. Civil unions don't work. Corrupting them for political expediency sure doesn't make them any better.<BR/><BR/>I don't know the SSA rules intimately (though that day is coming), but I still believe "scam" is an appropriate characterization and should give pause, <I>realpolitik</I> or not. I assume the intention of the SSA rules is to terminate the spousal benefit when, at least in theory, the spousal income is replaced by a new spouse. It's clear that a civil union that is "the legal equivalent of marriage" is the legal equivalent of marriage for that purpose too, so people who continue to claim spousal benefits after they have entered into a relationship they consider to be a marriage are thieves, as they are obtaining something under false pretenses. <BR/><BR/>People who just live together in a committed relationship rather than marry so they can keep getting Social Security are thieves too, by the exact same reasoning.<BR/><BR/>It is corrupt and corrupting, and unworthy of moral people. There is a persuasive argument to be made that SSA shouldn't force people to choose between marriage and benefits, but those are the rules and I don't see how a ruse fixes the real problem.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-20313807409101942902008-05-20T17:59:00.000-05:002008-05-20T17:59:00.000-05:00FYI, the California Domestic Partnership law, whic...FYI, the California Domestic Partnership law, which has been on the books since 1999 and has been amended several times since then such that since around 2005 it has become the legal equivalent of marriage (at least in terms of benefits), also applies to opposite sex couples at least one of whom is over 62 or meeting the benefits criteria of the SSA. <BR/><BR/>To my knoweldge the Feds have not made any attempt to take actions to deny benefits on that basis.<BR/><BR/>The reason these provisions have been included is as a poltical practicality. It has been effective as a means for the advocates of gay and lesbian rights to enlist the substnatial heft of the AARP in their lobbying efforts. I don't really have much problem with that...that's how politics works. <BR/><BR/>I don't really have much sympathy for the argument that this is somehow a Social Security scam. The greater scandal for me is that social security benefits, paid for by hard working Americans, are being denied to their same sex partners.skuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00487419662314518931noreply@blogger.com