My take on the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage

1st off, I think a man kissing a man is gross, but I also can't stand black licorice. There's nothing you can do to change my taste buds to like black licorice, just as there's nothing you can do to change my mind about 2 men kissing.  

But, if 2 men love each other and want to spend their lives together, and this makes them happy, who am I to stand in their way? I really don't care. If they choose to sign a legal document defining their relationship, I say great! I'm all for it!  

Here's the issues as I see it:
A) There are 2 components to a marriage. 1) the civil documents that make a marriage legal. 2) the religious component that defines what the word marriage means. The primary arguments everyone is having is how religion is defining what a marriage means. Most religions define marriage as one man and one woman. Religious dogma is extremely slow to change. Some sects have embraced the new definition, some have not, and some will not. But so what? Leave religion out of it!

I don't think anyone has an issue with the civil definition of marriage, and the Supreme Court just affirmed that the civil definition should be used in all 50 states, and I personally think it's about time. But let's not confuse the civil (legal) definition With the religious one. They are different, and you are not going to change the pope's mind.

Most conservatives understand this distinction, but there’s a very vocal minority (those that are conservative for religious reasons) that doesn’t.  I get it, and if explained correctly, the rest will as well.  

HOWEVER, just because the civil definition now includes same-sex, that does not give 2 men the right to expect the Catholic Church to marry them.  That’s an entirely different argument that gay’s will lose, and lose big.  Jews, Muslims etc. will line up squarely behind Catholics on this for one simple reason: If gays win, then there’d be nothing prohibiting anyone entering a Temple or Mosque to have a pig roast, because that too is against their religion, but having the precedent set, that won’t matter anymore.  I believe that this is what the court’s decenters were getting at.

What I also get that it is awkward to ask ‘Will you domestic partner me?’.  It’d be great if there were 2 socially acceptable words for a domestic partnership, but there isn’t.  Perhaps we should enlist the Eskimos because they have several dozen words that mean snow.  Allthough the word is spelled and pronounced the same,  it now has  2 different meanings (civil and religious).  We all have to come to terms with this and the church will need to back off their definition of marriage when it is applied outside of their scope of influence.  

B) There’s an economic component to marriage.  The tax code treats individuals differently than married people.  Married people can file jointly and reap some benefits, while individuals cannot.  A simple conservative solution has been put forth many, many times that alleviates this issue completely so that everyone is treated equally, no matter what or who you are, or who/what you identify as (I’m looking at you Bruce Jenner).  The simple fix is to eliminate all deductions, and simplify the tax code so that there are no ‘IF’ statements.  Just a standard deduction below which no taxes are owed, and then the tax rate that is applied to everything above the standard deduction.  

C) There’s a health care issue involved here too.  All corporate plans and all Obamacare plans only cover families.  So, now that spouses can now be gay, they can now be covered.  Again, there was a conservative health care plan that would have eliminated this issue.  Each individual has a MSA that individuals and/or their employer contributes to.  You, as the manager of your own MSA, can determine who gets covered. So if you want to cover your gay spouse, or even your Auntie Bruce, go for it!  No one will stand in your way because it is YOUR account, and you can do with it as you wish.

No comments: