I now pronounce you…spousal units?

Via Instapundit, news that Glenn Beck isn’t worried that gay marriage could destroy the country.

(Thanks to Rotten Tomatoes)

Okay, I’ll wade in.  I can’t approve of gay marriage, because I’m a Christian who actually knows a bit of Scripture.  But this post should tell you what I think about legislating religion.

So let’s explore things, W.O.R.M-style.  First, there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage.  Of course, there’s also no Constitutional right to heterosexual marriage.  I’m pretty sure we’ll get an Amendment if anyone seriously tries to ban man/woman unions, but until then it’s not an enumerated right.

And if the Feds can ban polygamy without an Amendment…

…why can’t they ban gay marriage?  (hat-tip Starpulse)

And I’d like proponents of gay marriage to consider this question:  will you use force to compel the Amish…

…to accept homosexual unions? (thanks to moviescreenshots)

No?  Then you agree that communities should have great lattitude in banning behavior, so long as individuals are also free to abandon that community.  Are you sure you want to force all states into gay marriage, including those where more than two out of three people strongly disapprove? 

Do you want to maximize liberty?  No, of course not.  You’ve got better things to do.  But I don’t.  And obviously we should revisit the Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause.  Get the freakin’ Fed out of social contracts entirely.  Mississippi wants to ban gay marriage?  So what?  So what if California or Massachusetts responds by banning straight marriage?  And let poor Utah have its polyamorous unions.  (No offense, Utah, but you are the stereotype).

And if you absolutely, positively can’t stand a state’s position?  Here’s an idea: don’t visit that state.  Punish them by withholding your wallet, or with your rapier wit, or…y’know, you should stick with the wallet thing.

Your position differs from the W.O.R.M.’s?  I welcome duels with everyone who feels their love of liberty exceeds my own.  Please team up first, as kicking all your asses simultaneously will save me a lot of time.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to I now pronounce you…spousal units?

  1. D.D. says:

    Equal opportunity to marriage is a lot like equal opportunity to subsidies. Because, say, farmers are given subsidies, an increasing number of professions demand to be given the same, citing (rightfully so) equality.

    Similarly married people enjoy certain state instituted advantages compared to single people, the most notable that comes to mind being, lower taxes, that is, tax subsidies. So, given a fixed government size, single people are penalized with more taxes so that married people can be given a tax subsidy. Understandably non-heterosexual people want to be given the same subsidies and if equality were the only issue, they ought to be given the subsidy too.

    But wouldn’t perhaps be better if all subsidies were eliminated? So that nobody is forced to subsidize somebody else?

    If I were single (homo or hetero-sexual) I might be particularly unhappy that yet another group has been added to the list of folks that single people must subsidize based solely on marital status.

    Certainly, if you would like the state to get out of the business of picking your wallet based on marital status, then, including gays in the group of people whose relationship is now also regulated by the state, might be a step in the wrong direction.

    Personally, I’m not sure what I consider more important. That gays be included in the marital status subsidy, or that single people are not discriminated any more than they already are?

    Please understand that this is by no means a moral judgment on homosexuality, any more than criticizing farm subsidies is a moral judgment of the farming profession itself.

    P.S. Interestingly, I am married so I’m given a subsidy so long as we are not a dual income family. If we do become a dual income family, the second income gets taxed at around 50% (Federal + State marginal tax here in California, loss of deductions, loss of student financial aid for children, etc.).
    So, in summary, the state says: “We encourage you to get married but not to be a dual income couple”. Am I the only one who finds it ridiculous that the collective should place such marital status incentives and disincentives on individuals ?

  2. wormme says:

    Excellent, excellent points. You try to consider everyone’s point of view BEFORE passing judgement? Weirdo.

    The Fed’s favorite fig leaf to excuse their actions is the Commerce Clause. But they also justify themselves under the “general welfare” statement. Thing is, if you single out groups, by definition that’s not “general welfare”.

    Plus it really steams me the way they use the tax code for social engineering. It’s for raising revenue. Let the states do that stuff, or not. That way you get experimentation AND control groups. Without which, experimentation is a joke.

  3. D.D. says:

    There is though something in the state defined marriage debates that is bound to amuse me sooner or later:

    The main justification traditionally given for not allowing blood related relatives to intermarry has been the high probability of genetic defects in offsprings arising from such a marriage. But presumably, this would no longer be the case in homosexual marriages. So why should cousins of the same sex be forbidden from marrying? Seems arbitrary. Or sisters for that matter. What about an adult son who wants to marry his father (after he divorces his mother, of course, since, presumably, polygamy is still prosecuted) or a mother and adult daughter consenting to marriage?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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