1
   

Do you have to get legally married to have a wedding?

 
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 05:28 am
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041004-1.html

Quote:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 4, 2004

Tax Relief Fact Sheet
Fact Sheet: President Bush Signs Tax Relief Bill Benefiting Millions of American Families

Today's Presidential Action

President Bush today signed into law H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, which extends key parts of his tax relief plan set to expire next year . Due to the President's actions today, a family of four with an income of $40,000 will save more than $900 on their taxes next year. Overall, 94 million Americans will have a lower tax bill next year, including 70 million women and 38 million families with children. This legislation:

Extends the full marriage penalty relief to couples who are unfairly taxed just because they are married;
Lessens the tax burden of lower-income Americans by ensuring the full benefits of the 10% percent tax bracket;
Helps working moms and dads by ensuring that the full $1,000 per child tax credit is available through 2010;
Supports military men and women living in combat zones by providing nearly $200 million of assistance in the form of higher child credit refunds and earned income tax credits;
Protects middle-class taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax by exempting from it the first $58,000 of a married couple's income. Without this AMT relief, taxpayers would be saddled with an extra $23 billion AMT levy through 2005; and
S implifies the tax code for families who qualify for the child tax credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the dependent care credit, the dependent exemption for children, and those who file as the head-of-household.

If Congress had not acted when it did, failure to extend these tax cuts permanently would have raised taxes on American taxpayers in future years:

In 2005, the $1,000 child credit would have fallen to $700;
A family of four earning $40,000 would have seen their tax burden increase by $913 next year; and
In 2005, 94 million taxpayers would have faced, on average, a tax increase of $538;


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR01308:@@@X

Apparently, Bush signed the law in October, to continue the tax relief, and to recind the marriage penalty.
0 Replies
 
Lady J
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 02:34 pm
paintthesky,

I apologize if I came across so very negative. I truly must have mis-interpreted your post in trying to figure out what it was you were truly asking for and about.

As others mentioned, you definitely can have a "commitment celebration" or a "celebration of your union", but neither would be an actual marriage.

You did make a comment about wanting a marriage for your families. Don't do it for them. Whatever you two decide, do it only for yourselves.

Peace and best wishes....
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 08:13 am
Many homosexual couples do this now. I now of one that clergy actually performed the ceremony. However, I am sure you will get flack from many people. Like they just want wedding presents, or what are they thinking, etc. Personally I say do what you feel comfortable with-just be aware that you will get flack from people with nothing else better to do than judging other people. You may get a better reception from others if you have a party and call it something else (similar like our joining as a couple or other corny title).

It is true that couples that are not married, but live together, pay less in taxes than married couples. It is referred to as the marriage penalty. I have even heard many financial planners/tax experts recommend that if you are planning a December marriage to wait until January since your change in tax status is not pro-rated.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:58 pm
Depending on what jurisdiction you're in, the wedding ceremony itself may or may not be legal. Wedding usually refers strictly to the religious service, which is not legally binding in many jurisdictions. It is the decision of individual parishes and congregations whether they wish to offer religious commitment ceremonies to gay/lesbian couples.

So, the options are endless.

Married in a church, but not legally married.
Married in a civil service, but not joined in a religious commitment service.
Married in a church in a jurisdiction that gives civil standing to religious services.
...
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 07:56 pm
I think I misunderstood the original question, as I was slow to consider that it related to gays/lesbians being barred from "marriages"/civil unions in many places.

My own view is that a civil union is a marriage. And if one's government in power doesn't allow that, then a personal ceremony suffices, to me, and I'd call it a wedding.

My own wedding ceremony at the start of my own marriage was a civil ceremony. I never ever though of myself as not being married, or not having had a wedding. And that was a long time ago.

I have some friends who got married recently, unofficially. One of them is in his eighties, she is in her seventies. They didn't want to deal with losing some financial benefits re her health and did not, therefore, make it a civil marriage but a religious one.
Whether this is wise or not, I don't know, especially given the extensive list earlier in this thread, but it is not really my business, and they are happy and committed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

A good cry on the train - Discussion by Joe Nation
I want to run away. I can't do this anymore. Help? - Question by unknownpersonuser
Please help, should I call CPS?? - Question by butterflyring
I Don't Know What To Do or Think Anymore - Question by RunningInPlace
Flirting? I Say Yes... - Question by LST1969
My wife constantly makes the same point. - Question by alwayscloudy
Cellphone number - Question by Smiley12
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2025 at 04:28:46