Via AmericaBlog, financial adviser Suze Orman gives her wish for Valentine's Day -- that all Americans, gay and straight, can make the most out the money they earn by enjoying the financial benefits of marriage. Watch:
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't like this woman's advice because I don't think she says anything that a person with an ounce of intelligence can't find out. Everytime I see this woman I change the channel.
Suze Orman obviously does give advice that anyone can FIND OUT ....but those who need simple solutions often times dont know HOW TO FIND OUT...so for that reason, Im a fan of Suze Orman.
Fine, change the channel.
A lot of people lack the resources, for whatever reason, to make good financial decisions.
She provides a great service to our country.
Helloooo. Compared to most of the pablum in the media, that's why she stand out. Common sense. Someone has to say it on tv or else we can't think.
Hear that, Pie?
Sometimes (if not allways) I too feel that way.
Sometimes (if not always) I too feel that way.
I think the govt should get out of marriage all together..
Great idea! Truly.
I would support this as it would call for a radical change in our society. Just to name a very few of the benefits:
Men would no longer earn 20 percent more than women or keep their jobs longer because of the assumption that they had families to support. Health care would have to become universal in order to support women and the time they need to take off during pregnancy and early childcare as well as men who were contributing to the support of children. Childcare would also need to be regulated and universalized in order to support two working parents. A couple with children would have to share joint custody in the event of a split and that would mostly likely lead to more thoughtful parenting as you couldn't just abandon your child (mother or father) as easily to go find yourself or true love or whatever. Because countries need a steady population increase to remain stable and have healthy economies, education would be of national concern in order to educate the populace into responsible independent citizens, not consumers blindly gratifying their delusions of grandeur. Or exercising their god-given right to buy, populate and pollute.
There are many Scandinavian countries and one Asian one that you can find working models for this. Unfortunately it's called democratic
NICE!
Well put, JadeRain.
JadeRain, you are RIGHT-ON. You hit ALL the nails on the head. In my opinion, you should keep-on, keeping-on. Your facts on this subject discussion, tells it like it is, so don't stop. I believe all bloggers, whoever that may be, can learn a lot from your perspective and ideas.
>>Because countries need a steady population increase to remain stable and have healthy economies
Whoops, try that again...
"Because countries need a steady population increase to remain stable and have healthy economies"
A healthy economy is one that does not depend on breeding extra children to pay the debts of its parents. A stable country is one whose own land and natural resources can support its populace. The growth fetish is a sad joke.
If you can afford to get married...
Come on Suzie at least wish for the Nationalization of the Federal Reserve !
Bravo!
This just reinforces my notion that "marriage" in a church is very separate from what "marriage" is as a legal status -- I have often said, if someone wants to see what "marriage" is REALLY about take a look at what people fight about and turn evil over in divorce proceedings.
Marriage as a legal status should not entwine itself with the religious version(s) of marriage.
And anyone who gets cute by talking about "marriage" between family members, or with their pets, or whatever else just misses the point entirely: two consenting GLBT adults should be able to unite and have equal benefits as all others who already can.
See my MDNK post below.
The state has no business being involved with who I sleep with but I would like them to enforce the contracts I enter into
Well stated. I agree completely. Thank you.
That very well expresses my feelings about the "marriage" versus "civil union" argument. In my opinion, a civil union is really what the government recognizes in a legal joining of two adults, even heterosexual. Marriage is a religious term for "joined in God's eyes". These two concepts really do need a divorce.
Superstition is ALREADY divorced from Rationality.
Suze Orman for Commerce Secretary!
She wouldn't do it....it doesn't pay enough.
No preferential treatment should be given to anyone on the basis of marital status. Stop discrimination against asexuals!
What a conundrum for hermaphrodites!
But seriously folks, if two unrelated consenting adults are in a committed long term relaionship, isn't it in society's interest to promote that stable relationship with the benefits of marriage? Gays are not going to find long term stable relationships with straights as partners. That would be bad for society as a whole, would cause a host of bad stuff to happen.
I'm afraid you've missed my point entirely. What if I don't want to get married? The problem is that married people are given preferential treatment.
I have no idea what hermaphrodites have to do with asexuality. Maybe you could explain that one. Not everyone was designed to mate.
I agree with the spirit of your post, but man is it confusing.
Hermaphrodites are not asexual... And if a gay person were to marry a straight person, the only people who would suffer are those two people, assuming they somehow got married against their will.
Ahhhhhh now we find out what its all about $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$
I currently share a house with my brother and I want all the financial benefits associated with marriage. Will you stick up for my right to marry my brother Suze?
Marriage has ALWAYS been about resources.
Why was virginity important? So a man could be sure his goods were inherited by his own genetic offspring.
And marriage would assure such a thing? Not on your life.
Yeah, when I read the title of this article I mistakenly thought everyone meant EVERYONE. My bad.
Oh, wait, the title just magically changed from EVERYONE to GAY. Wow that was fast.
You are very smart, but you already know it, don't you...
Not if you and your brother are comitting incest. Incest is still widely regarded by both scientific and theologic scholars as inappropriate for a host of reasons whereas homosexuality has been regarded as a normal variation of human sexuality for decades now if not centuries.
But you still feel good to be able to have a minority to discrimminate against, doesn't it...
Granting the civil right of marriage to heterosexuals, many of whom will never have children and then telling homosexuals they can only marry if they do so with someone whose genitals are different, and that is essentially the ONLY condition, is absurd on its face.
It's about lots of things. Money is one of them. She's focusing on it because it's her job.
These absurd comparisons - marrying my brother, marrying my dog - fails to make any point other than demonstrating your own ignorance and bigotry.
Last time I checked my brother was another human being.
My point is this: how can you be against incestus marriage and be for homosexual marriage?
What is the difference between marrying my brother or marrying anay other guy? Why do you want to limit rights at the same time you are crying out against others limiting your rights?
I say consumers that have dogs and cats as pets should be able to claim them as, at least a portion of, an exemption on their taxes.
Anyone that owns a pet knows how much they cost and how much they 'support' their local veternarian and pet food shops. The pet owner should be allowed to claim an exemption for having one. At least it keeps them off the streets or in dog/cat pounds making tax payers pay for their upkeep.
a bit far. I love my dog but don't see why I should get a break for a lifestyle choice
Children are a lifestyle choice, and people get big breaks for them.
Good idea!
Aren't there some court cases supporting the concept of family pet as family member?
Yep.
I love you Suze.
Some things are more important than money.
If I live with a relative, should I be able to take marriage benefits too?
LOL
Yes, you are right. The right of individuals to enter contracts without regard to sex is more important than money.
Actually Lionsden, I think you should have that option.
Take "marriage" out of the equation entirely. Forget about civil unions.
Let everyone have the right to have a MDNK (Mutually Designated Next of Kin).
Here's how it works:
A couple goes to city hall and registers their status. They get all the legal and financial protection that now appertain to marriage. Dissolving it would be akin to what we now call divorce.
done
here here
If the relative is a dependent, you get tax benefits. Marriage is not about living with someone, it's about a partnership - financial, sexual, emotional, and legal. That's not the same as living with a family member.
And yes, some things are more important than money. Those parts of the marriage equality issue have been debated here too. She's focusing on money because it's her job.
Thank you for articulating so clearly a response to the above comment.
Well said!
That was brave and cool.
It's coming. Lately it's been one step forward, one step back, but there are many one steps forward.
I don't know what upsets people so about this. Gay marriage will stimulate the economy with all the weddings and houses, and (not being cynical) they don't abuse social services (fewer kids) and they'll stimulate the economy again with divorces. Plus the MARRIAGE PENALTY on income tax - worth billions.
Gay marriage benefits everyone and hurts no one. Except insurance companies who probably don't want to cover their families but they will find other ways to rob us more (I just watched Sicko and I'm ready to give up on our bought and paid for Congress).
The only thing that upsets people about this is God, Religion, and the tendency for many to replace logical rational thought with irrational expressions of emotions. EX: Gay marriage? What's next, incest, pedophelia etc?"
There is no logic or ration behind that argument. Or the argument that a person of the cloth (ie "church") would be forced to perform gay marriages, when no one is forcing them to perform heterosexual marriages now.
Suze, that's all well and neat, but when it comes to religious zealots, there is NO changing their mindset. They could give a rats @ss whether or not WE get the most out of OUR money. They would rather keep pumping more of OUR money into the hands of the government so long as it puts more of OUR money into straight people's hands.
This issue has nothing but hatred and big.otry written all over it!
Loading comments…
The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner
First Posted: 02-15-09 11:32 AM | Updated: 03-18-09 05:12 AM