Does this cover same-sex couples too?
Can somebody please ask Stephen Harper?
The Conservatives are considering income-splitting as part of a package to ease the burden on "massively overtaxed" Canadians, party leader Stephen Harper says.
The measure would be a boon to single-income families who could reduce taxes by dividing total earnings between spouses. Supporters of the idea say stay-at-home parents would no longer be essentially penalized for caring for young children, and seniors would have the fairer treatment they've sought for years.
posted by GayandRight @ 9:57 PM
6 Comments:
There is no reason why it should not include same sex couples.
I think that people forget that the CPC has always agreed with same sex civil unions (and the financial benefits that come with it). It's simply the word marriage which is in question.
Of course it would. It would apply to common-law spouses too - I think you are getting a little jumpy. Harper is not the Great Satan for allowing discussion on same-sex marriage. Unlike Martin, he sees no need to make this into an issue to push down people's throats. It is not even part of his platform. It is only a clarification that if others want to revisit the question (like the bipartisan effort going on right now - that's right, including Liberals and NDPers!) then all will be free to vote their conscience.
Harper is on record stating that a civil union, or gay marriage, whichever parliment adopts if there is a new motion, would be completely equal in every way, although one would be called something other than marriage. I think that if anyone didn't follow this, the Supreme Court (and Canadians) would rip them a new one.
Harper also said that if Parliament did have a free vote and reinstitute the traditional definition of marriage, the 3000 or so gay marriages that have been performed to date would continue to exist and not be auto-anulled.
So chances are whatever might happen, gay couples would be privy to this tax break.
"Harper is on record stating that a civil union, or gay marriage, whichever parliment adopts if there is a new motion, would be completely equal in every way, although one would be called something other than marriage."
Thst plan would be very-difficut to impossible in order to implement. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to create 'civil unions' registry.
Only the provinces can create such registries and even if they all did (which is a longshot, especially in 'Yosemite Sam' Alberta), it would still not be equal compared to marriage in various ways, such as registered same-sex couples required to file federal taxes seperately and various policies of private sector organizations (bounded by non-dscrimination laws) only recognizing marriage. There are ways to weed out these issues and to make civil unions equal legally to marriage, but not after federal and provincial governments as well as private sector organizations spend a considerable amount of bureaucratic resources; and not to mention the enormous amount of time. Democratic governments are very slow to enact most policies.
Also to mention; the "leave it to the states" has started to produce incompabilties in the US with a couple married from Massachusetts, not being recognized as anything in COnneticut and the various different registry partnerships that are baby steps of different sizes.
So why have two different systems, with the same rights, where one is more inefficient than the other? The "anti inflated government" side of me screams blood at these inane politically correct ideas. For those who are against same-sex marriage, but are for 'seperate but equal' civil unions, they have no concept of effeciency or courage to take a strong stand for equality and family values.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home