Thursday, May 10, 2012

Tempest in a SC Teapot

If the real rationale behind the "same sex marriage" (SSM) movement is to glean the same protection under law that married couples have, I suggest that a "boiler plate" law be passed by each state.  This law would state that any adult human signatory  to a "partnership" be given the same rights with respect to hospital visitation, inheritance, community property, and child care given to married couples under state law..  This of course would be backstopped by federal tax law regarding the "marriage penalty"  and inheritance taxes- which would apply equally to said unions or partnerships or whatever you wish to call them.  There would be no religious "blessing" of the union recognized or needed, just a filing of the proper paperwork (no more marriage license for anyone) at the designated archive or online.  Not even the DMV-type hassle.
The only reason I can see for the LGBT groups to insist on alleged "SSM rights" is to force churches and "religious groups" to sanction these secular couplings against their stated doctrine and legally dictate their dogma.  This is usually known as the tyranny of the minority.  I understand that destroying religion appears to be the purpose of the exercise, as the socialists/radicals seek to undermine the fabric of society, but their stated purpose can be granted without forcing any  group to sanction any pairing in violation of the 1st Amendment.  There should be no reason any "holy man" can certify any contract between willing partners - it is strictly a civil matter.
I don't care what two or more consenting adults do with each other "as long as they don't scare the horses".  I care not if you insert Tab A into Slot Q while yodeling "Live long and prosper!" as one or several of you swing from the ceiling., if that is what makes you and yours happy.  But I do not think that requiring shamans to bless your practices by law is constitutional.  Freedom to bless - fine.  Not the government's bailiwick.  Required to?  Not on my watch.  Too many restrictions on freedom already.
Don't get me started on Hopey McChange....  And his little dog Joey.

What do you think?

No comments: