2 min

Applying logic to marriage

Jun 26, 2015

In November 2004, I voted against Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage because I do not care who or what anyone "marries."

A human should be permitted to marry another human, a wheel barrel, a baseball, a blue spruce, or a smartphone. Those actions won't harm me.

Nobody should receive a tax break for marrying anyone or anything. Tax breaks for home ownership, kids, new windows, etc. also should not exist, but that's another story.

I never understood why we had to obtain a "license" from the goobermint to get married. Why is marriage the government's business?

I'm guessing that some antiquated reason exists for the government being involved in marriage. If so, then that reason should have vanished long ago.

This morning's news: "Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules."

June 26, 2015 HN thread with 531 comments as of 1:17 p.m. about the above news. The top comment:

Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root.

What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, at least not as the cultural/religious thing that it is.
In a nation where we care so much about the separation of church (broadly defined to include ideologies that may not be formal religions) and state, I don't understand why we're seeking to only expand that connection.

What should happen is the government should stop defining marriage of any form (leave that to religion or personal tradition), and simply define all these rights under civil union (or a similar phrase with no significant religious/cultural attachment).

Another HN comment:

What's shocking to me is that we need permission from the state to marry, whether gay or straight. Why do we need the blessing of the government to marry anyway? We can have kids without permission from the state (so long as you aren't in China), why do we need to ask for permission and "apply for marriage"? In theory, applying for marriage implies the government could deny a marriage, gay or straight. Why do we implicitly give this power to the government?

An HN commenter's response:

For one thing, the government gives you a tax break if you marry; this was particularly useful because, in the old days, women didn't work so it made sense to not tax the man (who did work) because he was effectively making money for two (and possibly more if they had children).

Yep, archaic. Maybe single people should revolt.

Bought a home? Congrats. You have a mortgage. Why does that deserve a tax break? Kids? Okay. Good luck with that. But why does having a child deserve a tax break? The proper answer is that none of these things, including marriage, deserve a tax break.

Silly wabbits.

#legal - #activism - #religion - #politics - #moronism

From JR's : articles
516 words - 3035 chars - 2 min read
created on
updated on - #
source - versions

Related articles
Taking coffee seriously - November 2002 - Jul 18, 2014
2014 Northwest Ohio Rib-off Concert Crisis - Jul 29, 2014
Another mass littering event - balloon release - Mar 28, 2014
Tt post jan 11 2016 - Jan 11, 2016
Politically-based climate activists change the name of their cause - Nov 10, 2017
more >>

A     A     A     A     A

© 2013-2017 JotHut - Online notebook

current date: May 23, 2019 - 1:53 p.m. EDT