Dear Editor:
If two persons are living together as man and significant other, but without the benefit of marriage, they are entitled each to file a Form 1040 (IRS’ cutesy-poo income tax form). In this way they are able to avoid the so-called marriage penalty.
If two persons are living together as man and wife and following their religious beliefs through being married by clergy in a rite, they are often penalized by federal income tax rules.
The US Constitution, although it does not specifically call for the separation of church from state, contains the following language in Agreement 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Since the Constitution, we are told by Thomas Jefferson, calls for the separation of church and state, it is not the business of government to discriminate either for or against this ritualistic form of coupling. While there are many work-related fringe benefits while being coupled, again this is not the business of government.
We know that a significant portion of our Congers (the houses of Senate and Representatives) want to rid the system of this onerous provision. But zippergate survivor Bill Clinton promises to veto the enabling legislation because it also contains a provision to amend the discriminatory estate tax legislation. Thus, a lower-income taxpayer is shafted because the higher-income taxpayer, with a large estate, will also benefit.
I suggest that we forget the marriage question in filing our Form 1040, when it is in our favor to do so; recognize it when it is in our favor so to do. This can be accomplished simply by the appropriate declaration on Form 1040 regardless of the sex of the filers. Is this against the law? Well, the legitimate enabling legislation and by extension, the taxpayer, is being held hostage, wouldn’t you do whatever is necessary if you were kidnapped to escape?
I rest my case.
Frank X. Landrigan