ideas to spur a new birth of freedom and the death of liberal fascism! DotNetNuke Powered!Powered by DotNetNuke! View Tim Patterson's profile on LinkedIn
30

I am going to officially go off the reservation on the issue of gay marriage. I will probably lose my membership card in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but given that Conservatives these days have been abandoning their principles faster than Bill Clinton orders the rib special at Cracker Barrel, who cares?

I have a simple solution to the gay marriage conundrum.

Get government out of marriage altogether. Stop issuing marriage licenses. Stop giving tax breaks or incentives to married couples. Treat marriage as a simple social contract. Stop pretending that government has a role in something that is principally a religious or cultural ceremony.

Government long ago stopped really caring about the preservation of marriage. What is the penalty for divorce? Adultery? We have in fact, all but abandoned any pretense that the vows exchanged between two people are actually enforceable.

Several years I went to a wedding for a cousin. It was the standard Methodist wedding ceremony. Standard vows, standard Bible readings., standard invocations. They had dated off an on for at least five or six years, and most of us in attendance had the collective thought “it’s about damn time”.

Thirteen months later, they were divorced. Nice obedience to the vows. Apparently, they didn’t have the same dreams. You mean that they didn’t figure this out in the previous five or six years? (Isn’t that what dating – and the engagement – is all about?). If marriage was so important to the government – where were they in making sure these two people didn’t get married?

So my solution is this: the government should get out of marriage altogether. Abandon any pretense of a role it thinks it might have. Stop doing a half-assed job of trying to do a job it doesn’t want to do correctly.

In fact, government does a fair bit of harm to the notion of marriage. Welfare destroyed the black middle class in America because it tore black families apart. No-fault divorce gives carte blanche to the wandering eye. The treatment of a second earner’s income (typically a woman) at the spouse’s tax rate (typically a man) means that every dollar the wife earns is taxed a far higher marginal rate than her husband’s, diminishing the return on working outside of the home—and artificially placing the entire family into a higher tax bracket.

Government treats marriage not as a covenant, but as a contract. And as any lawyer will tell you, contracts were made to be broken. So let’s go the Full Monty and make “marriage” nothing more than a simple contract relationship between two (or more) people.

And get government out of the private lives of law-abiding people.

Post Rating

Comments

# JK
Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:31 PM
Gays can get married in Maryland anytime they want to. Just go to the Episcopal Church and get married. Sign a nuptial agreement, take a honeymoon, buy a house with right of survivorship and put in your contract that Maryland divorce law applies and there you are, Bill and Steve are married. State should only be involved when as a rule and by nature children may be a result. This is what the Court of Appeals said. There should be an incentive for hetero people to have kids, or else we will all be speaking another language very soon.
Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:15 PM
"Treat marriage as a simple social contract. Stop pretending that government has a role in something that is principally a religious or cultural ceremony."

Marriage is a cornerstone to family and society. Marriage should not be belittled as you have done in your post.

Government consists of leaders of the community who oversee the community's health and well being. To think that leadership should not promote healthy marriages between a man and a woman and promote the importance of families is absurd.

"Several years I went to a wedding for a cousin. ...Thirteen months later, they were divorced. Nice obedience to the vows.

...So my solution is this: the government should get out of marriage altogether."

Gunpowder, this line of argument is terrible and I believe I have addressed it before, for you particularly:

The perverters of what is good and reasonable to hold dear in our hearts do not ruin the greater rule that man and woman respectfully together with child is the correction to our rebellious natures.

Your argument and many like it are basically saying that because people can violate a good principle that the principle is somehow diminished as a result. People can choose to violate good principles but they are still accountable to those same good principles and their irreducibility.

"No-fault divorce gives carte blanche to the wandering eye."

Then the solution is not to scrap the institution of marriage and regard it as a useless vestige. The solution to your point is to bring back proof of fault divorce. Just because the court system was turned into a circus because of fault divorce does not mean the requirement was without merit.

Incidentally, Gunpowder, what is going on with your website design? It has gone from bad to better and now worse. I say worse because a man should always learn from his mistakes and not go backwards, as it were.

That "GC" in your header looks like some kind of gang tag on the side of a building.
# Final Frontier
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:37 AM
Gay people cannot get married in MD and still have the same rights as heterosexuals--there are over 1,000 special legal privileges granted to heterosexual married couples that are not given to unmarried heterosexuals or any homosexuals. So that argument is patently dumb. I agree that the gov't should get out of marriage--my tax dollars should be as good as anyone else's, yet I do not get the full use. Heck, even a wife beater gets tax benefits that I do not! As for gov't being concerned about maintaining the sanctity of the family unit, that is ludicrous. No gov't can force people to stay together in a happy union, or raise happy children. That has never happened, and never will. What is gov't to do? Protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have a family, pay my taxes, am nice to old ladies and puppy dogs, and I want to be treated equally. Let churches regulate marriage--get the gov't out!
# swampcritter2
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:33 PM
Isn't a license merely a permit to do that which would otherwise be illegal? The next question is: Why did the State ever consider marriage an illegal act in the first place? Men and women will still couple. Gays will still "poofterize" each other, license or no. To my knowledge it's not illegal to be gay in Md. If you grant marriage licenses to them, does that not make the notion of a marriage license a joke ? So just do away with the whole institution. Isn't that what the goal is anyway?




Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website


ideas to spur a new birth of freedom and the death of liberal fascism!
IMPORTANT NOTICE

As a result of recent legal threats thrown at Maryland Bloggers by certain individuals with little respect for the law or our rights, I have modified the Terms and Conditions of this site.  You should make sure you review them at your earliest convenience.






Disclaimer

The information presented on this site represents the opinion of the poster, and are protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. 

Complaints can be directed to blog@gunpowderchronicle.com.

 



I Recommend...


© 2006-2008 Gunpowder Chronicle and Tim Patterson. All Rights Reserved. | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Login