The 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.