True “equality,” when it comes to marriage, can never be anything less than any two (or more) people (or life forms) who claim they wish to be legally joined by marriage, enjoying the tax free benefits of same. What is to stop any two people from declaring their interest in being “joined” for tax (or insurance) purposes to distant enough family members–until such time as that bigotry and inequality is legally banished (allowing marriage between close family members)–two business partners, an adult and a child (likely related)–another bigoted prohibition from ancient days–to whom they could then pass on their accumulated wealth and assets….with significant tax advantages?
It’s actually tax-evasion marriage.
So is same sex marriage just a plot by the uber-wealthy (or the wealthy enough) to pass their wealth to another without doing their “patriotic duty” and paying the Federal ferryman its predetermined and significant cut (by law) of the value of all assets upon death–a taxing feature (not a bug) that the same-sex supporting liberal-progressive-Democrats are also in favor of?
Just as a reminder, to those who ever thought this was marriage thing was ever about love…the state is not in the business of love.
Love, as it turns out, is not a states interest. There is no ministry of love. No state department of love. No state director of love. And no one in their right mind would want the State organizing, defining, taxing or regulating it. Love is not a state’s interest.
And the idea that you “can’t help who you fall in love with” is total rubbish. Of course you can. I haven’t fallen in love with anyone since I got married 18 years ago, unless I count falling more in love with my wife. People fall in and out of love all the time. They can help it. So what the gay marriage lobby really means to suggest by this it that sex is love and that you can’t help who you want to have sex with. But neither of those things is true either.
Sex is not love. People who make that mistake are doomed to various forms of loneliness and misery (or in cases of addiction an emptiness they can never fill until prison). And people who can’t help whom they want to have sex with are typically jailed after as few as one instance where their want was in conflict with someone else “not wanting” or “not wanting as much” whether either of them thinks they are “in love” or not, or whether they can help it or not.
In the mean time legislators and courts have declared that we are no longer permitted (in many places) to discriminate based on the perception of love as defined by the so-called ‘right to marriage’ between two consenting adults. (Two being a feature likely to fall in my lifetime as yet another example of the ancient bigotries of short-sighted conservatives who mistook marriage as a way to encourage men to stick around and keep their own children out of poverty.) And as such, in places where marriage is not defined for the purpose of a man and a woman raising a child, it cannot rightly be defined as anything at all but a lifestyle choice constructed at random by any two people which the state is powerless to question without appearing discriminatory. The lawsuits will eventually prove me right.
The so-called right to marriage will have been reduced by law to an accounting tool for modern-day robber barons, a movement which was, by the way, was spearheaded by uber-wealthy liberal millionaire-progressives. Strange coincidence, that?
And I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Over at American Thinker, Trevor Thomas has put far more thought into at this point than I have.
Liberals have become so consumed with forcing the legitimization of homosexual behavior down the throats (sorry!) of the American people that they have become blind to the unintended consequences of their legal actions. Let me provide you with a delicious scenario: legalized “same-sex” marriage — which is what we really have — renders useless the federal estate tax.
Under current federal tax law, an individual can leave any amount of money to a spouse without generating estate tax. Thus, a small business owner or a farmer, wealthy or not, can “marry” a “partner” for no other reason than simply to avoid having his estate taxed (further) by the federal government.
What’s more, once the redefining of marriage is taken to its logical conclusion — unless, of course, the left wants to “discriminate” and limit the definition of “marriage” — and polygamous and incestuous relationships are given the legal protection of marriage, then a wealthy small business owner or farmer, nearing the end of his life, will be able to “marry” his son or daughter (no matter if either party is already married) for no other reason than to avoid paying additional federal taxes. Thank you, Justice Kennedy!
Trevor reminds us that in Gay nation the Constitution cannot be permitted to define moral choices in any consenting union so you can’t insist gay couples prove they are having gay sex as a per-requisite to the state anointing any particular union. Thomas points out that, based on the same sex rules of conduct, that producing children cannot be a defining characteristic of a marriage either. So short of semantics and accounting gymnastics, what we’ve actually got is a positive side effect (in my mind) of an otherwise ridiculous premise.
The premise is that any two people have the right to call what they’ve got going a marriage so they can share their stuff. But the effect is to legitimize all unions of any sort into a colossal tax dodge that will keep the insanely wealthy from having to redistribute their wealth any further than the most convenient “partner” to whom they may pass it, thanks to the liberal progressive obsession with invading and shattering the moral foundations of family and religion by forcibly changing what a marriage is and then either propagandizing everyone into believing their argument or terrorizing anyone who dare speak out against it.
I have long argued that the state does have a role in protecting contracts of property–of which marriage (however you define it) is, so that legitimate spouses and heirs are not swindled out of their right to shared property. So, while I have ample objections to other aspects of this issue I cannot, in good conscience, object (at least from an accounting and tax standpoint) to the right of any two adults “claiming to be married” just so they can keep the Federal government (and or their home state) from robbing them of half of their accumulated wealth simply because they were successful in life.
In fact, this may well be the single best side-effect of a liberal-progressive policy issue to which I otherwise object, ever.
The leftist 99% share-the -wealth-liberals have either just painted themselves into an ideological corner or this was what the rich bastards funding the pro-same-sex-marriage movement for all these years were actually after all along.
