See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
I guess in a way I am a gay rights activist. Maybe not so much a gay rights activist as I am an anti-government intrusion activist. I don't think the government should be passing out marriage licenses to gay couples but then again I don't think the government has the right to pass out any marriage licenses.
So maybe Proposition 8, the California Referendum banning Gay Marriage is a good start. Now let's do it for the rest of us.
Why is our government in the business of condoning who can and cannot get married?
Where is that in our Federal or State Constitutions that the government has a say in who gets married? Why on earth do I have to have a License to do so?
At least when I got a driver's license they made sure I knew how to drive.
I've had two marriage licenses and I am still learning how to be married- and if licenses are designed to protect citizens from dangerous behavior, I had no right to the first one.
But I resent the fact that the government requires a license to legally recognize the religious or secular union between two people! At least don't call it a license. Professionals and drivers need licenses to ensure the public safety, if they screw up, their license is revoked. Scott Peterson killed his wife and I bet he can get his marriage license reinstated. Call it what it is-
It's just a tax.
As a society we have added some religious baggage to the "sanctity of marriage" but since we have separation of Church and State in the United States that shouldn't enter into someone's right to get married. So it must be something else. Our government would never restrict the rights of it's citizens based on a Puritanical moral call- of course not.
No, Prop 8 is a matter of unfair taxation.
I am calling for a nationwide referendum on Prop 9- The repeal of everyone's right to receive a Marriage License from the government. If you believe in God then your vows are with your spouse and God. If you don't, your vows are between the you and your spouse. I don't remember anywhere in my vows where I promised to keep my license in good standing with the State of North Carolina.
I cannot see where the government has the right to impose a tax on people's desire to marry. But if they do Gays and Lesbians should have the same right to pay the tax as we do.
I know the arguments against Gay Marriage- that marriage is between a man and a woman- that's a religious stance and the last time I checked this land was founded on the foundation of religious freedom which should include the right to not be bound by the religious ideology of the majority.
I will use the same argument in my defense of polygamy- if I man wants to subject himself to the "harmony" of having multiple wives... God bless him.
Hey, that's just more Marriage Licenses the government can sell him.
The Founding Fathers created a government that allowed for very little intrusion of that government into the lives of its citizens. 232 years later we are going out of our way to hold referendums with confusing wording to deny the right to certain groups of people to pay a tax that the rest of us shouldn't have to pay in the first place. Jefferson would be puking in a corner if he could see this.
I say Prop 8 is a good start. Let's just finish it by NOT allowing the government to recognize any of our marriages. Adhering to a moral ceremony should not be grounds for special treatment or extra tax to any citizen by a free government.
more music charts
I would like to thank my friend Gene for the above graph, it says a lot.
Posts
3 comments:
Yours is a fresh take on ( gay ) marriage that I haven't seen before... Yes, marriage boils down to tax incentives and legal rights, so that 2 people can be motivated enough ( by the law ) to get into this type of contract. I would guess that historically this was necessary at some point so as to stimulate and promote population growth. But in a world already over populated this no longer makes sense. So we either get rid of government-sanctioned marriages or make it available to everybody, regardless of whatever. Infertile couples, gay couples, interracial couples ? Oops, I forgot that already became legal last century. I would even go further and say that if two eternal bachelor brothers or sisters want to get into a marriage contract , or two friends ? Why not? The point is, two people that made a commitment to live and depend on each for ( hopefully ) the rest of their lives should also have access to the same tax breaks , rights and of course, obligations available to traditional man/woman couples. Is 'Marriage' a word already loaded with tradition and history, fine, let's get rid of it from the legal point of view ( couples could still get married in their churches, cults, etc ) and come up with an new completely fresh word. And yes, like you , I would even make the case for polygamy, make it a tiered tax break as the more wifes/spouses you have , the less tax break you receive, assuming that we all believe that the 'optimal' number in this type of contract is 2.
Or the third option and as a response to the argument from the religious fundamentalists about the protection of family and the sanctity of marriage, the laws should be changed to reflect that:
1. Make divorce illegal, once you're married , you're married
2. Review marriage licenses every 5 years, if no kids have been added to the family unity ( either by procreation or adoption ) the marriage license should be revoked.
Anyway, these are just my own thoughts, I don't have a gay agenda. Heck , I don't even own a regular agenda.
Those are some great points. However, there really aren't tax "breaks" for married couples in the US. you are actually taxed MORE for the privilege of being legally married. I guess it is a case of dual incomes and joint expenses should mean more disposable income for taxes. Unfortunate how it doesn't work that way. But the rights of survivorship and joint custody of accounts and such that come from being married should absolutely be created some other way to keep the government from facilitating what is seen as moral union.
I don't even know where to start. You are very insightful and hold a lot of the true republican views concerning the interference of government and the people. Too bad the party has stopped upholding those values. When I used to say I was republican (I was really too young to have any clue what I was talking about), I would use my party values to explain my reasons for being for gay marriage or being pro choice, similarly. However, when I think about gay marriage, I tend to get a little emotional and I think most people get the same way, whichever way they feel, which is why it's difficult to integrate logic in that argument. I have 2 lesbian friends, they have 2 kids, live together, and are in a very committed, loving relationship. I simply do not understand why our government should be able to stop them from having their lives "legally bound" together, and be able to take part in eachother's benefits package. I could write forever on this subject, you really have opened up a can of worms (that's great!), but for the people who really, truly, will be affected by gay marriage being legal or banned, they are not looking at the logic, they're looking at the fact that they can't be married to someone they love.
Post a Comment