Aha!

[kengr]

Listening to folks on the news talking about the Massachusetts court decision being a "danger to marriage in this country", I suddenly had a flash of insight. Which lead to the following *evil* thought...

No Special Rights for Heterosexuals!
Support Gay Marriage!

After all "no special rights" has long been a cry of the folks trying to prevent gays from getting various rights the straights have. This time, we ought to take that card away from them.

And best of all, it's even *true*!

Comments

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

I'd like to see government get out of ALL marriage. I believe it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to be involved in such a religious sacrament.

And if it's NOT religious, then anyone ought to be able to make whatever contracts they choose among consenting adults.

Either way, the government doesn't really have a legal leg to stand on. I implore all heterosexuals to stop getting a license for something the government has no right and no need to license!!

[kengr]

Well, the ban on polygamy imposed on the Mormons was already a major violation.

Given the way so many rights have accumulated that are tied to marriage, we are kind of stuck with having a legal contract of some sort. And even with some rules about the form of such contracts.

But the current restrictions are way out of line. And the essentially *religious* nature of many of them is bad.

For that matter, we're seeing yet another example of the poor state of education regsarding how the government of the US is supposed to work.

The whole point of "rights" is that there are things that the majority is *not* allowed to do to minorities.

So the fact that the majority is in favor of something is *not* sufficient reason to make it law. Not if doing so will limit the rights of minorities for reasons that don't involve protecting the rights of the majority.

Thus, laws against murder and theft are ok, but laws saying that minorities can't do things that the majority is allowed to do are not.

But the average person just sees that the court is overturning the "will of the majority".

If I was dictator, one of the first tests for a voter would be asking if he thought that the will of the majority must always be followed. A "yes" answer would be an automatic disqualification.

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

The majority in this country was given very specific, limited powers. It is (in theory, anyway) not possible to convey the authority to your government to do something on your behalf if you do not possess the authority to do it yourself. How can you transfer authority to someone else that you don't have to give?

So, since protecting ourselves and our possessions was deemed legal and acceptable, we can transfer that authority to a police department or military. But since we do not have the authority to take another's possessions and give them to another whom we deem less fortunate, welfare is not right.

Getting back to the subject at hand, no individual has the authority to tell another with whom they may have sexual relations or to whom he may commit, or how. Therefore, since we do not as individuals possess that authority, we cannot transfer that authority to our government.

Alas, you are correct. Citizens of this country believe that the majority rules, no matter what.

<runs off to read more about Missouri banning polygamy in order to be allowed to join the Union after the War of the Northern Agression>

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

Oops. I meant Utah, of course.

[kengr]

But since we do not have the authority to take another's possessions and give them to another whom we deem less fortunate, welfare is not right.

You've conflated two seperate things.

The government has the power to tax. That's explicitly granted in the Consitution, and in later laws. No attempts to challenge that basic fact have ever held up nor are they likely to.

Therefore, the government *does* have the right to collect money from you.

What they *do* with the money is a different matter.

Also, I suspect there are some flaws in your "the individuals can't give the group powers they don't have" argument. Groups *inherently* have properties and abilities not possessed by the individuals making them up.

Whether or not groups of people should use these is another matter.

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

They do have the power to tax, but even that was limited originally. I believe originally the federal government did not have the right to tax individuals, only businesses. This was based on the theory that in the case of invasion it was the businesses who had the most to lose, therefore they should pay for the military.

Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

[kengr]

Nope. They had the power to tax individuals. Do a search on "head tax". Which, BTW was a lot less fair than income tax in that it was levied equally on everyone. That is each person had to pay XX dollars.

The power to tax businesses is not listed, unless you count that as part of levying duties and tariffs. But since those can apply equally well to individuals, and only apply to stuff crossing the national borders....

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

Head tax is LESS fair? How do you figure that? How can it be less fair for each individual to pay an equal share? Don't the poor and the wealthy pay the same for a dozen eggs or a head of lettuce?

I wasn't aware of these things, however, being part of our country's history. I'll go do some reading on it now. Thanks. :-)

[kengr]

Simple. You don't *have* to buy that head of lettuce. You *do* have to pay the head tax.

Therefore, if it's not scaled against your resources somehow, you can be ruined.

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

Everybody has to eat.

I don't think a sliding scale is fair. I've always been in favor of a head tax, I just never knew it was originally the way citizens of this country were taxed.

[kengr]

Yes, everyone has to eat. But they get to shop around, and can (in many places) suplement that by foraging & hunting. They get to choose how much and *what* they buy in the way of food.

With taxes, especially head taxes, you don't to chose.

The trouble with a head tax is that it can't work now.

Divide the federal budget by the population. Then ask how many people could afford that? Even if you pare away the stuff *you* consider worthless, it'd still be more than poor people could pay.

The budget is in the trillions. The population is 300 million. Say the budget is *only* 3 trillion. That'd make the head tax $10,000 *per person*. You've got a husband and 4 or 5 kids (I forget the exact number). Could *you* afford $60,000 a year?

And even if you could, how many other people couldn't afford $10k per person in their household?

Also, consider that your same argument that businesses should pay because they get more from government applies to people with higher incomes. They get more out of having police, fire and various other things. If for no other reason than they've got more to *lose*.

Frankly, I'd like to see the deductions rationalized, and the tax *rate* set to a signle percentage. So everybody gets their income (after deductions that would be far simpler) above some number (say, the "poverty level") taxed at that rate.

Oh yeah, consider that the idea of owing a fixed *portion* of your income goes way, way back. Consider stuff such as tithing.

[aurictech.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the real question is, do advocates of gay marriage seek the expansion of marriage to include their relationships, or the destruction of the traditional institution of marriage? Much of the rhetoric from advocates of gay marriage seems to support the latter goal. Indeed, your LJ post also seems to support the latter goal.

Quite frankly, I am opposed to wholesale assaults on cultural institutions, such as marriage. Having said that, I am willing to entertain changes to, or even the abolition of, cultural institutions, provided that those changes can be shown to be beneficial to the culture as a whole. AFAIC, the burden of proof is on the advocates of gay marriage. Prove to me that you want to expand marriage, rather than destroy it, and you'll have my support. However, until the advocates of gay marriage show that they want to encourage gay couples to conform with the traditional definition of marriage to the best of their ability, including a pledge of monogamous fidelity (at least for the duration of the marriage), I'll have to assume that they prefer to destroy marriage.

[kengr]

You only see advocation of the destruction of marraige because that's what you are looking for.

I know of *no one* who want marraigae abolished. I know of *lots* of folks who want the *legal* institution changed to allow gays to use it.

Contrary to what the Radical Religious Right claims, this will not "destroy marriage". No more so than allowing interracial marraiges or marriages between those of different religions did.

What it will mean is that the definition of marriage in the *legal* sense will have to be expanded.

"Destroyoing" or "abolishing" marriage would require *removing* the legal institution and rights attached thereunto.

Nobody wants that. Though I dare say it might make some people finally realize just how much of a right/privilege it is.

Do you have any *idea* how msany things you get *automatically* by being married that a couple who isn't married *cannot* get, or that they have to *attempt* to get via complex legal papers WHICH MAY NOT BE HONORED?

Inheritance, visitation rights in hospitals and elsewhere, spousal benefits (insurance, taxes, a huge list), the right to make medical decisions for a partner who can't make them for themselves, and list goes on and on.

Religion and chirches have *nothing* to do with that side of being married. But many want to impose their standards on everyone else.

"No special rights" can mean "don't let anyone have this right". It can *also* mean "make this right available to everyone". Not that you'll ever see the anti-gay forces using it in the second sense, since the "special" rights they are always claiming the gays want are in actuality rights that straights already have.

You're seeing destruction rather than expansion merely shows that you've got some nasty biases.