Posted on 05/03/2009 2:36:49 PM PDT by DrGop0821
Rep. Eric Cantor and Gov. Mitt Romney appeared on CNN "State of The Union".
Both express concern over the "federalist" view of allowing individual state's to decide their own laws regarding same-sex marriage.
Obviously, most conservatives are against same-sex marriage. Yet the two make the case that decisions on marriage in any given state do, in fact, have "federal implications".
What happens with the tax code (joint filing), spousal benefits from employer health-care, status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; and any other in a long list of marital benefits if different states have different laws?
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativexpress.blogspot.com ...
That was why DOMA was passed. Social Security, Medicare, federal pensions, etc. would all be affected if same-sex marriage would be approved by the USG.
I think this was addressed by the Defense of Marriage Act. Obviously, it’s a valid concern.
DrGop0821, shilling your blog, and only your blog, since Feb 18, 2009.
Personally I find it pretty alarming that so many conservatives cite a laundry list of unconstitutional federal programs as reasons they support the current scheme of government-licensed, government-regulated, one-man-one-woman marriage.
Get government out of marriage! And not just the federal government.
Getting government out of marriage is the last thing the gay marriage lobby wants of course.
We now have several living generations who believe that a legal decision automatically equates to societal acceptance and it’s no different with the gay marriage debate.
Removing government from the equation frightens them but what they really fear is being ignored.
Now we have an equally weak national GOP, and look, it's Mr.MRSA himself. It's not enough he 'took over' and buried a state GOP, now he wants to do the Federal GOP.
He's a zombie, a Republican Un-Dead.
To advance the discussion, I'm not sure what the logical conclusion of your position is, or perhaps I don't fully understand your position.
Government, at least on some level - county, state, or federal - has to recognize the legal implications of the marriage contract. Or, are you suggesting that no government entity, at any level, make any distinction between a married couple and an "unmarried couple"?
What about adoption laws, state and federal tax laws to include not just income but also inheritance tax laws and community property laws? There's also end-of-life decisions that fall exclusively to the purview of the spouse, and no other. Would you change those laws as well?
I don't know if that entirely accurate, or reflective of the ENTIRE gay community's position.
I'm certainly not an authority, but I read that there were quite a few prominent members of the gay community that weren't terribly excited about the language of California's Prop 8. Elton John comes to mind. He has said that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gay people should have civil unions. Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference, but John recognizes that marriage is something that has a religious and traditional component that many people would find offensive to extend to the gays.
I agree with your point about other gay activist using the gay marriage issue, not to advance "marriage equality" per se, but to advance a larger and broader gay agenda. Forcing religions or faith-based charities to accept gays and to drop positions that the gay lobby sees as hateful, would be a great example how the gay lobby is twisting the arm of religious institution through gay-friendly legislation at the state level.
The reason for the problem is that the Federal Gov has exceded its constitutional authority, and the federal income tax.
I would prefer that the states had the choice to do what they want, and then observe the results upon each state. The only federal issue would then be gays in the military.
Exactly. Government should recognize actual contracts that free citizens enter into according to terms negotiated by themselves.
What about adoption laws, state and federal tax laws to include not just income but also inheritance tax laws and community property laws? There's also end-of-life decisions that fall exclusively to the purview of the spouse, and no other. Would you change those laws as well?
Of course. Why should government be using tax laws and inheritance laws as social engineering tools? And was it really so wonderful that Michael Schiavo had that government-issued license that gave him power to veto the end-of-life choices of ALL of Terri's blood relatives? Community property laws? Sounds great until you're the wife who works to put her husband through medical school, then follows him to the non-community property state where the federal-government mandated National Resident Matching System assigns him, and finds out three years later, when he decides to dump you and run off with a cute young nurse, that with NO NOTICE TO YOU (and no real choice to you, even if you happened to be aware of the difference in state laws), the government has changed the terms of your original marriage, and you now have no rights to the proceeds of the medical degree you bought for your exiting hubby. And say you've stayed with your wife for the sake of the children, even though she's been a shopaholic and treated you like dirt and raised the children to be like her, and you come down with terminal cancer and would like to leave the proceeds of your life insurance policy to your sibling who's been providing round the clock care to your elderly parent with Alzheimer's for the past five years. Should you be forced to give the government a big chunk in taxes for the "privilege" of making that estate choice with your own money?
I repeat, it's really scary how much social conservatives rely on the "need" to perpetuate all sorts of unconstitutional freedom-infringing schemes to justify the party line on government recognition of marriage. Free adult citizens should be free to manage their own lives as they see fit. If one-man-one-woman marriage is really such a wonderful thing, it should be able succeed on its own, and not need to be propped up by government regulation/licensing and government social engineering schemes. People for whom marriage is part of their religious beliefs should be free to draw up their marriage contract in accordance with the teachings of their religion, not have a government-designed contract forced on them as their only option.
Indeed, but it seems to be the last thing 99% of conservatives want too. They should think about why they're so eager to agree with the gay marriage lobbby that marriage has to be defined and recognized by government.
It is a little late to unring that bell.
The you don’t think we can send 50% (probably more) of our Federal Employees home tomorrow and tell them to find real jobs?
I think you raise some great points. I would add to your list, that "palimony" brought to the table a completely different set of problems. A person perhaps deliberately didn't enter into a marriage agreement because they didn't want the baggage, or the benefits that come with it. But, then some years later the relationship ends and they get stuck with a district court judgment that says their girl/boyfriend is entitled to half their property and a monthly stipend. Not very fair, IHMO.
On the other hand, there are social benefits to marriage that cannot be denied. Children do better when there's a nuclear family present. Perhaps the people, as manifest through government policy and laws are correct to encourage the continuation of the traditional marriage contract. It's a complicated issue and one that I frequently find myself torn.
But there is no inherent connection between government-recognized marriage, and a "nuclear family" being present for children. Many children have parents who are government-married, even though their father (and occasionally mother) doesn't live them, and in some cases the children haven't seen the nonresident parent in years. In poor families, this sort of situation is likely to go on indefinitely once it gets started, simply because the mother never has a few hundred dollars to spare on something as non-urgent as undoing the formality of government-marriage (which soemtimes results in a rude shock to the children years down the road, when they're adults, and their mother dies, and her small estate automatically goes to her government-husband, tax-free). And of course, starting out with government-married parents doesn't mean the parents will stay government-married (or any other kind of married).
In Sweden more than half of children are born to unmarried cohabiting parents, and in a large percentage of these families, the arrangement is permanent; some get government-married a few years down the road, but many don't bother.
Where you see strong statistical correlations between government-married status of parents and children growing up in a two-parent home, it's just that -- correlation, not causation; it's just a cultural phenomemon that people who predisposed to form and maintain stable families get government-married. But very few of those would manage their marriage differently if it wasn't government recognized/licensed. A large percentage of stable families with government-married parents hold religious beliefs that teach that marriage should be permanent, and the decisions they make regarding their marriage are driven by their religious convictions, and not by the government recognition program. If the government stopped recognizing marriages, these couples would still get married in their churches, synagogues, or mosques, and would still consider themselves married and be considered by their social community to be married. And non-religious people who simply believe that permanent marriage is the ideal foundation for society would also continue to get married in privately officiated ceremonies, and stay married at the same rate as if the marriage had been government-recognized (excepting the previously noted phenomenon in which low-income people are more likely to stay government-married even long after the actual marriage has ended, due to lack of funds for legal costs).
Frankly, I think religious groups should be taking the lead in ending government recognition/regulation/licensing of marriage. When you hear a member of the clergy saying "By the power vested in me by the state of ____, I pronounce you man and wife", that should be a loud red flag that there's a problem here. No religious official should need permission from the government to perform a religious ceremony, and they would do well to drive home the point by refusing to report marriages they have performed, refusing to sign any government documents concerning marriages they have performed, and refusing to inquire of couples requesting marriage whether those couples have acquired the government-mandated license. It wasn't all that long ago that many US states had miscegenation laws on the books, preventing mixed-race couples from obtaining marriage licenses, and thus making it illegal for a member of the clergy to marry them, even if the beliefs of the religious denomination endorsed mixed-race marriages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.