Gay Marriage Takes On the Supreme Court and Alfred E. Neumann…

Supreme CourtThe Supremes have taken on the gay marriage argument; Gay Marriage at the Supreme Court will explain for you. Maybe the Court will present the facts of the subject, unlike everybody so far. Or not. In case the Court isn’t forthcoming, here they are:

Since U.S. marriage is a private contract between adults, where does the government get the authority to license it? You can’t have a legal marriage without government permission, right? The government awarded itself that power and the voters have accepted it because it is argued, the procreation of the species is a public matter and requires government regulation to enforce rules needed to protect it. So, you can go get a marriage license or remain single in the U.S.

Next, government extended the argument by providing subsidies for married couples’ children, since children are an expensive, aggravating, long term responsibility but government will soon lack anyone to govern without them. Widows and kids get Social Security goodies, your income taxes reward having kids and being married, etc. Women didn’t work as they do now, keeping them at home to raise kids was thought important and so government helped. Government subsidized marriage to encourage reproduction.  What else do you need marriage for, anyway? That’s the only public interest; otherwise, it’s just another private contract.

So, the unspoken fact in the gay marriage argument is what it’s really about. It sounds crass and selfish if you admit you want ‘your fair share’ of the attached goodies, but that’s the only real incentive. When you can’t biologically contribute the procreation that is the original raison d’e’tre for the goodies, you have to finesse the scenario–spin the story–to something else: ‘basic fairness’ for this case. To do that, you have to dump the original quid pro quo for subsidizing, i.e. kids. And the Lefty politicians and their servile media have duly buried that out of sight and hearing, in pursuit of their dual goals: Legitimizing homosexuality and deconstructing Judeo-Christian marriage. Those are the facts.

There are some equally invisible financial facts, too. Legalizing gay marriage automatically makes the survivor of a gay couple into a Social Security widow(er) eligible for that benefit. Eligible for other spousal benefits that have been added over the decades, too. And the present benefits are already financially unsustainable, are they not? So, the morning after homosexual ‘marriage’ becomes legal, who’s going to pay for those new beneficiaries? Nobody seems to be considering that…Alfred E. Neumann is in charge, as seems usual in these sorts of matters.

Note please, that I’m not anti-homosexual in outlook. I figure where others seek sex is their business, not mine. I feel the same about who they may marry, as a matter of a private contract. But, when it becomes a public contract enforced and subsidized by government using my money, I take an interest. I think I’m entitled to be interested in how the government uses my money, right? And if it takes my money to encourage procreation as it has in this case, I don’t think it should go on to subsidize gay marriage with it. If the view has changed so that subsidizing procreation is now seen as wrong, those subsidies should be removed, not extended at greater cost to more people who don’t meet the original criteria. If you’ve taken my money under one justification, then abandoned that, you should return my money, not look for a new excuse to keep it or as in this case, take even more.

That’s what I think, but I’m not wearing a black robe. What will the Supremes say? Dunno. But they ok’d government taking control of the marriage contract a long time ago, and setting up the rules. Those rules pleased the churches who set the patterns for most voters for a long time. The government is now attacking those churches on several fronts: birth control, abortion and yes, gay marriage. The churches’ members voted for Obama against their own clergy. The Court just ok’d Obamacare. It hasn’t tried to shoot down a hot social ‘progress’ agenda since 1937, when Franklin Roosevelt frightened it into accepting his agenda by moving to appoint additional judges. So I think that, we may not know how the Court will decide, but we know how to bet… but I’ve been wrong before, though not so frequently as my wife likes to claim.

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Christianity, Culture, Domestic Policy, Fiscal/Financial Responsibility, Gay Marriage, Jews, Law, Politics, Progressives, Religion, Social Security and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Gay Marriage Takes On the Supreme Court and Alfred E. Neumann…

  1. I probably share your underpinning religious-based beliefs regarding marriage. However, that institution has generally devolved into a matter of legal definition rather than a lifetime contract between two people. I speak from empirical observation … knowing only a few couples who have stuck it out and are not working on the third or fourth attempt.

    Heterosexuals have set a very poor example both for themselves and their children about the “death do us part” thing. I suspect that homosexuals fare no better in this regard. And if my assumption about the current state of marriage is correct, which it is to say that is a matter of legality rather than committment, I don’t know why our homosexual couple-citizens do not deserve the same protections under the law.

    It seems to me that was something Jefferson wrote about in “The Declaration of Independence.”

  2. --Rick says:

    “When you can’t biologically contribute the procreation that is the original raison d’e’tre for the goodies, you have to finesse the scenario–spin the story–to something else: ‘basic fairness’ for this case.”

    Does you quote above also apply to infertile, heterosexual couples or couples who marry with the understanding that they will not procreate for a host of reasons – such as not passing on a genetic defect that ultimately produces great suffering that only progresses as one gets closer to death, like ALS? Do people have to be bribed by government to marry? If so, that may explain why half of heterosexual marriages fail, but I don’t think that getting goodies was the reason for wanting a lifetime union. I think, even in failed marriages, that love brought people together who for whatever reason could not stay together. Humans are all frail, especially in holding to a philosophy be it a religious one or one of enlightenment.

    All persons have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and if they so choose, the right to suffer or bask in the institution of marriage. How much longer do we treat gays like the new slaves by classifying them as something less than human in order to oppress them and suborn their rights to a state lower than that which we enjoy? Maybe they are the new Chinese, good enough to come here without being enslaved, but not good enough for citizenship; especially if the person in question was a female.

    How does one advance a pro-liberty agenda by using religion to influence the law to suppress the rights and liberties of those who are unlike the majority? Wasn’t protecting the minority the driving force behind both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution? And what minority is smaller or more valued in every other way throughout our society than the individual?

    Your use of the phrase raison d’être implies that unless one is able and/or willing to procreate, then one has no reason to exist. Is that really how you feel more than 200 years after the age of enlightenment? Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. or “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery” ~ Thomas Jefferson in both instances. If a person is expected to contribute to a society that would deny him or her the basic right to love and to spend his or her mortal time here with a partner of his or her choice, while also insisting that they be silenced and excluded from the basic rights afforded to society as lived by the majority; how is that not quiet servitude?

  3. jackcurtis says:

    I agree with JWDR on the realities. My beef here is being forced to pay for others’ benefits under false pretenses. Instead, the now unfair benefits should be canceled. I understand that isn’t how politicians do things…But that would be honest.

    Wasn’t my idea to justify subsidies to marrieds for having kids; that was the deal. The issue of marrieds who can’t have kids wasn’t addressed since it wasn’t predictable. Many of the benefits were contingent upon the kids’ arrival, which took care of that issue. The ones granted solely for marriage (e.g. Social Security widow(er) benefits) seem a false premise for gay marriage; if depriving gays of that is unfair, isn’t it equally unfair to deprive the remaining singles? Once you remove the kids from the picture, seems to me that fairness ends up with all or none….

  4. James Teague says:

    Didn’t people want the government to get out of their bedroom. Get out all the way then. Let the churches get back to their beliefs and their ceremonies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s