Need a pension? Say, `I do' (Young gals wed old guys, soak SS for a lifetime)

CAROL HAS BEEN my political mobilizer for more than 40 years. In college, I marched on the civil rights picket lines she organized. After graduation, her peace group bused me to Washington every few years for another "Get Out of ___ " demonstration. Then she joined the staff of a global-justice organization that got me to that big WTO protest in Seattle.

But the last time I dropped in at her office, she pulled me into her cubicle and asked if I could help her..[Always a volunteer activist, now she needed a "real" job and insurance.]

"Hey, wait a minute," I said. "You don't need a fundraiser. You need a matchmaker!"

I hadn't thought about matchmaking for the intern on the staff. He was in his 20s and couldn't collect a pension for decades. Besides, he was a darling, and we all hoped he'd find a real sweetheart. But the 92-year-old female volunteer didn't want to be left out. She had health insurance that covered a spouse.

"The poor kid coughs all winter," she pointed out. "Let him get a good checkup for once. Then he could divorce me. I won't contest it."

So we held a triple wedding at City Hall. Afterward, everyone shook hands, and six securely pensioned, insured individuals went home their separate ways.

Could be private insurance with family (dependent) coverage, right?

I don't think so. Not at 92. My 84-year-old mother has private insurance, but if she were to marry, then I'm reasonably sure it would stop because she gets it through my (deceased) father's former employment. If it were from her employment, I'm not sure. But I don't think it would include dependents unless it were a spouse from the time of employment. Most private companies have dropped their coverage and the former employees have gotten their coverage through Medicare. This man deserves a 92-year-old wife.

There are any number of lists out there that list the ways that marriage is subsidized by the state, it varies from state to state.

In regards to homosexual parents, firstly they don't have children, they "get" them. Whether the state should allow them to "get" children is an argument for another thread.

Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not as a matter of the natural course of biology produce children so the state has no interest in promulgating or protecting those types of unions for the sake of the children they might produce.

Remember, the state interest in families is ensuring that parents can rear replacement citizens at little cost to the state.

And yes, one of the main historical reasons people marry are for the economic benefits. There are social benefits also, but guess what? Those all parlay into increased economic benefits.

And everytime marriage is weakened by stupid liberal social policies more of the cost of rearing children is shifted to the state and taxes go up.

Sure it's all dressed up in romantic language, but the bottom line is the bottom line. Monogamous marriage would not have survived as a main cross-cultural model if it didn't have extremely powerful economic and survival advantages.

Liberals are enamored of a "choose your tribe" philosophy that thinks that the ties that bind (marriage, kinship, dna) can all be done away with through tolerance education.

I refer you to "The Gods of The Copybook Headings" by Rudyard Kipling for what happens when leaders think they can change human nature via "social progress".

Keep in mind that my pro-civil union, anti-state marriage views are coupled with being against welfare and any form of state subsidy. Your argument reinforces the very problem - the state should leave families alone, not "invest" in them. Why don't pass laws telling parents what to feed their kids, what books they can and can't read, how much TV they're allowed to watch? After all, it's in our best interest to rear good citizens, right? And the government is great at getting things done the way they say they will, right? Good thing we have the almighty government to protect the children.

As for economic concerns, I don't see how on earth a gay civil union (or marriage for that matter) could possibly shift child rearing responsibility to the state. I don't see how that would cause taxes to increase. I can see a way taxes would DECREASE if we lessened government involvement in marriages, saving lots of money in court costs. In addition, if we allow gay adoption, we'd also see costs go down in maintaining orphanges (not to mention how much better off the children would be). I've heard the argument that children are "best" raised by two heterosexual parents, but even if that's true, I don't see how you could argue that children are better off in an orphanage than with a stable, loving, homosexual couple. But as you said, that's a discussion for another thread.

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.