Are you entitled to unemployment if you quit your job? Often not; you’re unemployed by choice. But if you quit because you’re moving to go live with your spouse, then that’s not really a matter of choice, it is? So yes you get unemployment. But if you move to be with someone to whom you are NOT married, well then, that IS a matter of choice, and you DON’T get unemployment.

Of course, it’s a matter of choice either way. But judges are uncomfortable making overt social judgments and often prefer to disguise their reasoning in the neutral language of “choice.” And that marital benefits catalog grows and grows….

But being married isn’t all peaches and cream, ya know. The tax deductions for a married couple is less than twice the tax deductions for a single person, creating some disincentive for people to get married. Republicans decry this as a burdensome “marriage penalty.” Yet, curiously, when Republicans created a new Medicare program, the income that a couple can have to qualify for a $600 monthly credit is less than twice the income a single person can have. See
http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareReform/maddc_Facts_3steps.asp
Why don’t the Republicans decry this “marriage penalty?” Oh yeah, those credits only apply to poor people, so I guess it’s nothing to be concerned about.

The earner income tax credit is based on household income, so if two people in a couple each make $6000/year, they receive ~$700 in EITC, but if they are married, they receive $0 in EITC. Again, since it only applies to poor people, you will never hear Republicans complain about this one either.

i only thought about it when i realized, after my ex and i separated, that i would have gotten a bigger exemption on my taxes that following year as a single person than i did as a married person filing separately. it could have been worse, i suppose; i’ve always been eligible for a refund throughout my working life, and haven’t had to worry about owing the irs anything.

i mean, really, though, this is like saying that the EIC’s incentive to have more kids. but i seriously doubt more people are procreating because of a tax benefit. i’d like to think they have better reasons to spawn or not to spawn.

and if my hypothetical boyfriend ever told me he wouldn’t marry me because we’d be screwed on our taxes, i’d probably dump him.

Anyone feel the Victorian age coming on? There’s a chill in the air… Oh no! My knee was showing. I’m such a harlot - tattoo a big fat A over my heart.

Is that clause still in the law? If it is, it would seem that women who were on AFDC can still qualify for the program regardless of whether or not they were married.

This story, as bad as it is, just does not seem right. It also seems counter-productive to not accept that clause.

I am still trying to figure out “mothers . . . who can’t afford the costs associated with obtaining a divorce certificate“. Huh? Does that mean they are still married because they can’t afford a divorce? If so don’t they still qualify? Or does it mean that they can’t afford the $10.00 for a certified copy of the divorce order? If that were the case, as part of the program, the Center should provide funds to get the divorce order.

The second thing followed hot on its heels: having been married doesn’t alter someone’s need for assistance. Nor does it alter the effect assistance would have on their life. This can only be a judgement of how much they *deserve* assistance, which makes me very very grateful I’m living on the opposite side of an ocean from these people.

Oh, and let’s not forget the waiting period. When I was at Legal Aid in Detroit, we did triage: if your husband wasn’t kicking the shit out of you regularly, you were at the back of the line because we were so overwhelmed with divorce cases.