Skip to comments.If marriage is a right, then the government needs to start hooking people up
Posted on 03/27/2013 8:34:29 AM PDT by smoothsailing
March 27, 2013
By DAN CALABRESE - The Office of the Public Spouse.
I can't totally take credit for this one because it came about in a discussion between Rob and me yesterday. Those discussions, if you were to read them, would often present a rather disturbing look inside our two brains.
Anyway, we both agree that gay marriage cannot be an equal rights issue for the simple reason that no one has a right to get married. Marriage is a union freely entered into between two parties. Gay or straight, no one can be married unless another person freely agrees to enter into the union with them. That means, by definition, marriage is not a right because a right is something that cannot be denied to you.
Otherwise all these single people who are looking but coming up empty could claim that their rights were being violated, and could petition the government for redress of their grievance. And the government would have to provide redress - if marriage were a right.
How would that work? Well, it was decided in Gideon v. Wainright (as highlighted in the book Gideon's Trumpet by Anthony Lewis, who just died a couple of days ago), that defendants in criminal cases have the right to an attorney. And if they lack the means or the methods by which to get their own, the government will provide one for them.
Same diff, right? Some might say the options available to you in the Office of the Public Defender are not as desirable as the lawyers you could get on your own if you had the money, but it's something. You rely on the government to provide you with what you need, you take what you can get.
So if marriage is a right, then the government will have to start hooking some people up via the Office of the Public Spouse. Now Rob and I think some guidelines are in order here. This is the government, after all. If you snare a mate via the Office of the Public Spouse:
1. No one gets a spouse that's too good looking. That's not fair to those who married homely people of their own volition.
2. No discrimination based on sex. That means you don't get to specify that your spouse must be male or must be female. You take what you can get. "You mean you're providing me with a dude to marry?" "What are you, a hater?"
3. No one brings up Ephesians 5:22. Ever. This is not some theocracy. Take that backwards, preachy crap to church and leave us out of it.
4. No vows, other than promising to avoid judgmentalism, to respect differentness and to be accepting of all choices, blah blah blah . . .
5. Everyone joins the government employee union. Not just the public spouses. You too. Solidarity!
The more I think about it, the more I think this really needs to happen. I will not rest until marriage is equal because government sees to it. Of course, I'm already happily married and my wife is a knockout. But I'm just looking out for you.
Exactly. A “right” can’t be infringed.
like my brother says, you go to a church to get married and the state to get divorced, doesn’t make sense. So guess what? Those of you who weren’t divorced by the church are still married in the spiritual world to your first spouse from the church, better get back home
Nationalize match.com and charge a penalty tax on any single adult that doesn’t sign up!
I was wondering that when Justice Kennedy went on his tangent about those poor 40,000 children who are being discriminated against because there gay parents can’t marry. Wow! I never new the government cared so much about the sanctity of marriage, perhaps they should force all those single welfare mothers to get married or lose their children since marriage is so vital to a child.
Welfare Queens are married to the Federal Government.
Isn’t that enough?
If it is a right, does that mean the Mormons can reinstate polygamy? If sex makes no difference, neither should numbers! Didn’t the government make outlawing it a provision for statehood?
One of many frightening things is that Bloomberg is likely to start “helping” people in NY to choose the right spouse, since our ruling class can make better decisions than the little people would make on their own. Is that substantively different from Bloomie choosing whether we smoke, what we eat and with how much salt, if and how we are permitted to defend our homes, or how much soda we drink?
If we continue going the way we are, we will get to where we're headed, and when we get there, where will we be ?
Extending this (perhaps bong induced) argument to right of peaceable assembly, I don’t have a right to it because I can’t force people to assemble with me, therefore it is not a right because I can’t engage in it by myself, and by some twisted definition that means it is infringed. If it were a right, the government would be obliged to round up people and contain them with me on my whim.
I would like to apply this logic to the second ammendment though. Government issued guns for everyone!
Oh good Lord, don’t give them any ideas. The feds would love the opportunity to assign spouses to us all as a means of redistributing the wealth.
Bloomie is an evil little half pint piece of squishy bovine feces with a Bon-Aparte complex, only worse...Napoleon had more stature than Bloomie by 7 inches...
Try to marry your mother or someone that is already married and you will find out if it is a “right”.
I’m poor so I get a rich wife. Maybe they’ll hook me up with Michelle Obama which won’t be as bad as it sounds since she’s always on vacation.
Don’t forget, gender is not a factor. Perhaps your rich wife will be Michael Moore!
At this point, I don’t think the issue to be decided is whether it’s a right or not.
Many states allow gays to marry and they are treated equally to opposite sex spouses in regards to state law.
At issue now is the legality of the federal government treating state recognized married couples (irregardless of their make up) unequally in regards to federal law.
The first dam to break was at the state level. The water is over that dam and flowing downstream to the Uncle Sam dam.
So true-—and their is no “Right” to sodomize others.....in fact, since it is a Vice and causes all sorts of health issues (and huge costs to society) and is closely related to child sexual abuse (all homosexual cultures had pederasty because it is a fixation in childhood), there should have laws preventing it.
True-—homosexuality is caused by child abuse so it is “sad” that people grow up and have this worldview which causes them to have emotions of desire when seeing others of their own sex.The object of lust is learned-—like baby rapers in Africa. You aren’t born with a desire to rape babies. It is absurd. It is learned by culture and environment. Relationships between your mother and father and you in formative years (0-7) determine how you perceive yourself, your sex and everyone around you. If you have no father-—you are stunted in your undererstanding of maleness and stunted in understanding what is normal behavior between men and women. (Your ideas will come from TV or other artificial sources and TV forces perversions and Vice). Children learn in the first five years of life—what “normal” is. if they have abusive parents-—then they learn to “fear” that person—and they transfer that “fear” to all men or all women.
How you treat little kids—determines their self-worth—how they “think” of themselves-—and if men reject their daughters or make fun of them physically-—they will grow up to hate men. it is a lot more nuanced than that-—since Natural Laws do aim sex in its mature form at the “other”—but fixation will prevent maturity and a flourishing of that person. Perversion will occur in abusive homes or ones that lack proper role models with the man/woman model so no sexism (like in homosexual Afghanistan where men hate women and prefer little boys and teach them to hate women) will occur.
.....but this cycle has to end—We need JUST LAWS which promote the Natural method (God’s Laws and Laws of Nature) and best scenario for children to grow up loving both male and female and so they have a natural sexual identity formation (not artificial or perverted one)-—otherwise, we will become a society of complete vice, where people use other human beings as a “means to an end” (commodifying human beings—selling babies) which is intrinsically EVIL and unconstitutional.
It is one of those “weird” rights that only exist if someone else lets you have it.
I used a somewhat similar argument regarding whether we should expect teens to be abstinent. I’ll get into the argument, and let the other side state categorically 4 or 5 times that it is insane to think that any teenager could reasonably expected NOT to have sex before they were 18, that it was just too much to ask, that it wasn’t normal, that it was imposing my religious beliefs, and that I was out of touch.
Then, I’d say something like, “OK, suppose I accept your hypothesis. What shall we do with the ugly fat guy with acne who smells bad?”. They’ll say “what do you mean?” And I’ll say, “well, you said we can’t expect ANY teen to go without sex, so what about UglyFatSmellyGuy?” And they’ll say “of course, him too”. And I’ll say “what if no woman will get near him — should we allow him to just pick one at random and rape her, or do we need to provide him a free hooker with his condom”?
Then they will complain that clearly they meant that no teen could be expected to not have sex IF they had a willing partner; and of course they thought people who couldn’t hook up should be abstinent.
And then I’d say “I guess ugly fat guys are just a lot better at self-control than you good-looking people, after all.”
(and be quick about it!)
BTW, I’d love to see us go back to punishing people for divorce, in exchange for getting a government license. If government has a purpose in getting opposite-sex couples to commit to long-term relationships, and there are benefits that accrue for that, then if the couple reneges on their deal, they should have to return at least a portion of whatever government benefits they received.
My first husband taught me that sometimes there's a REASON people are single.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!! MONEY is the REAL REASON for all this hubbub!!! MONEY....Who can get the MARRIAGE BENEFIT from the IRS....WHO CAN GET ANOTHER’S SOCIAL SECURITY when they die....WHO HS TO PAY DEATH TAXES.....etc...etc.....take the money out of this and PFFTT...the problem goes away.
“Im poor so I get a rich wife. Maybe theyll hook me up with Michelle Obama which wont be as bad as it sounds since shes always on vacation.”
Hahaha! That one gave me a great laugh and then I realized it was you! Great post FRiend.
There is no marriage benefit from the IRS.
There is a “Marriage Penalty” in the basic tax code, due to the fact that once married, you are treated as a family unit (whether you file jointly, or “married filing separately”). The earnings of the spouses are added together to determine the tax. This means that the entire 2nd spouse’s earnings are taxed at the tax rate as high or higher than the highest of the 1st spouse.
So, two people living together in the same house, sharing expenses, each with an adjusted income of $100,000, would pay $21,454, or $42,908 total on their $200,000.
But if those two were married, and with no separate tax tables, they would pay $200,000*0.33-$15472=$50,528.
With the marriage “relief”, they pay $200,000*0.28-12221=$43779.
Note that is about $800 more than if they filed separately.
Now, if only one spouse works, then the marriage tax rates seem to help — except if you were two single people, and one of you made no money, the one making no money would likely be on assistance, getting food stamps, if they had a small amount of earnings they could actually get the earned income tax credit. So it is quite possible that what they received from the government would make up for the extra tax the earning part of the couple made.
Now, you are correct that social security is one of the big pots. Although if you had similar earnings, it will likely work out that getting your own SS will pay more than getting half of the other earner. Again, if only one earns, you could make out better.
Most companies now offer domestic partner coverage for insurance, and for pensions, so that isn’t really an issue with gay marriage (and I think Obamacare requires it). And I never really considered the death tax thing, although that would only matter if you had more than $5 million, since you can pass that much on tax-free to anybody.
And for most other things, you can legally set up a financial coupling.
I really don’t think it is about money. I think the money is a false reason given to make us think it is “unfair”. I think it is simply that gays want to be fully accepted as normal, they want everyone to be forced not to tolerate them, but to actively support them.
I also think gays do want to own kids (and I mean “own kids” — it isn’t just gays either, there are people who look on kids as another thing to “have”, not as obligations to love and nurture). And it is easier to own kids if you get to steal “marriage”. This is how some lesbian in Vermont got to take custody of some other woman’s child, even though she had no biological attachment to the kid. Because the mother stupidly got “married” in Vermont to this lesbian, and then realised she wasn’t a lesbian, and wanted to get a husband, and then didn’t like what the lesbian was teaching her child.
This is what I think they want. To have ownership of children, and acceptance and support for their lifestyle.
Imagine if addiction to smoking was treated like addiction to same-sex attraction. Both are considered to have genetic components. But if smoking was treated like gays, not only would there be no tax on cigarettes, but people who were mean about smoke would be attacked, bans on smoking would turn into pushes to have buildings designed to help smokers, and we’d be teaching our children to tolerate and support their smoking buddies, rather than turning them off to smoke.
And oddly, smoking probably is less likely to harm your health than active male gay sex. (I am not sure there is a particular medical harm to typical lesbian “sex”).
pretty soon our govenrment will be mandating single peopel enter into gay marriages
Brilliant!!!! Thanks for posting;)
I know a friend who couldn’t get remarried for several years because his separated wife refused to sign off on divorce papers.
She infringed on his right to be married. She’d abandoned the marriage.
So much for “rights”.
You have the right to own more than one car and more than one gun.
People like to talk about all kinds of “basic human rights” now, one female clown whose name I forget actually asked on the boob tube, “How is health care not a basic human right?”
As far as I am able to see, a basic human right is something that can be exercised by the last human left alive on the Earth. If it requires the presence of a second human being to exercise it cannot possibly be a basic human right. To make it simple enough for even a liberal you have a basic human right to masturbate in privacy, you do not have a basic human right to have sex with another person.