Why do Democrats like marriage penalties so much?: Now the marriage penalty in Obamacare

For decades we had a severe marriage penalty in the income tax system.  With that largely solved, now we have a marriage penalty for high income earners in Obamacare.  From The Atlantic:

The first time I heard Nona Willis Aronowitz talk about getting divorced to save money on health insurance I thought she couldn't really be serious. We were at Monte's, an old Italian place in South Brooklyn, having dinner with a group of New York women writers in late July. 

"Don't do it!" I urged her, certain, having watched my friends over the years, that no matter how casually she or her husband might treat the piece of paper that says they are married, getting unhitched would inevitably change their relationship as profoundly as getting hitched in the first place. 

But with the arrival of the Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges, the question for Nona and her husband Aaron Cassara moved from the realm of casual conversation to a real financial conundrum. . . . 

Any married couple that earns more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level—that is $62,040—for a family of two earns too much for subsidies under Obamacare. "If you're over 400 percent of poverty, you're never eligible for premium" support, explains Gary Claxton, director of the Health Care Marketplace Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

But if that same couple lived together unmarried, they could earn up to $45,960 each—$91,920 total—and still be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges in New York state, where insurance is comparatively expensive and the state exchange was set up in such a way as to not provide lower rates for younger people. (Subsidy eligibility is calculated using a complicated formula involving income in relation to the poverty line, family size, and the price of plans offered through a state's marketplace.) . . . .

Copy of the amazing Ninth Circuit decision on Prop 8

As I expected, the very left wing and frequently overturned Judge Reinhardt argues that there is no rational reason to have marriage between a man and a woman. Whatever one thinks about homosexual marriage, this is not the way to get the political outcomes that one wants. A copy of the decision is available here.

The dissent points out that under the level of scrutiny involved for this case the government "has no obligation to provide evidence to sustain the rationality of statutory classification," that the measure at issue "is not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data," and that states "may use their police power to regulate the 'morals' of their population" (pp. 11-12). If anything, the dissent doesn't go far enough in that it would seem to only allow states to withhold the word "marriage," not any of the rights that come with it, from homosexual marriage.

The majority here also doesn't explain why any type of a marriage between consenting adults shouldn't be allowed.

If judges can go this far in arbitrarily judging whether legislation is rational or not, there is nothing that judges can't redo in terms of their own political preferences.

The "Marriage Killer"?: Nagging?

Is nagging the cause of the problem or is there something that causes the nagging? Do guys ignore requests because they don't care or do women nag because they want a certain level of control? From the WSJ:

Nagging can become a prime contributor to divorce when couples start fighting about the nagging rather than talking about the issue at the root of the nagging, says Howard Markman, professor of psychology at the University of Denver and co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies. For 30 years, Dr. Markman has researched conflict and communication in relationships and offered relationship counseling and marriage seminars. He says that while all couples deal with nagging at some point, those who learn to reduce this type of negative communication will substantially increase their odds of staying together and keeping love alive. Couples who don't learn often fall out of love and split up.

Research that Dr. Markman published in 2010 in the Journal of Family Psychology indicates that couples who became unhappy five years into their marriage had a roughly 20% increase in negative communication patterns consistent with nagging, and a 12% decrease in positive communication. "Nagging is an enemy of love, if allowed to persist," Dr. Markman says.

The good news: Couples can learn to stop nagging. Early in their marriage, Ms. Pfeiffer, now 62, repeatedly reminded her husband about household tasks and became more demanding when he ignored her. "If I was asking him to take care of something that mattered to me and he was blowing me off, that made me feel like I didn't matter," she says. . . .

Some recent Washington Times pieces

Here are a few recent editorials that I wrote for the Washington Times:

Guns and the Virginia election: Shannon's mudslinging doesn't stick to Cuccinelli

Tow-the-line flu: Government sends mixed signals about 'national emergency'

Attacking the Defense of Marriage Act: Obama appointees question the value of holy matrimony

Cass Sunstein proposes getting rid of term marriage in law

So the push to allow civil unions for homosexuals would put them on the same level as heterosexuals. My question for Cass would be this: Why limit civil unions to two people?

The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.

Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.

Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.

"Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," wrote Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler in their 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness."

In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein explains his approach would ensure that "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." . . .

p. 225: "what is the balance sheet for official marriage? Its benefits are surprisingly low; in many ways it is an anachronism. The most that can be said is that official marriage might contribute to a kind of commitment that benefits both couples and children. On the cost side, official marriage does not do a great deal of harm. But it does produce unnecessary polarization . . . . the most obvious difficulty is that religious organizations insist that they should be permitted to define marriage as they like, while same-sex couples insist that they should be able to make long-term commitments without having a second-class status as a matter of law."

Note also: “The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

Last Friday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a lecture at the University of Maine where he told students of President Obama's intent to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.