Tuesday, February 24, 2004
THE RULES OF MARRIAGE
Maybe it's just me, but life is really unfair. Gay couples say it's unfair to allow straight couples to marry, but prohibit gays to marry. First of all, as I pointed out yesterday...you have equal rights. I, as a straight person, am prevented from marrying another man. If I want to marry, I must marry a woman. Simple. There's no difference between the rights I have and the rights some gay couples are seeking. They can marry like anyone else...they just have to be someone of the opposite sex.
Besides, there are a lot of OTHER rules associated with marriage that I have to follow. For instance:
You can only marry if you are currently unmarried.
You can only marry a person that wants to marry you back.
You can only marry someone deemed mentally competent to enter into a contract.
Being required to marry someone of the opposite sex is simply another rule that those who want to engage in the process must follow. Maybe I should also start listing the various other rules you must follow AFTER you get married too...adultery, custody in divorce, alimony issues, divorce, etc.
I've said on the program a number of times that the whole issue of gay marriage is about money. What tips me off is the fact that the "marriage penalty" standard deduction has now finally been changed in this current tax year to $9,000. Isn't it curious that the fight is being engaged in NOW and not 20-years ago? But it's more than just the better tax benefits. The reason I say this is due to an interesting article from the Family Research Council citing statistics about the current status of marriage.
The highlights:
The proportion of American women 25 to 29 years old who have never married, slightly below 10 percent in 1965, reached 39 percent in 2000
Among men of the same age, the "never married" category increased from 18 percent in 1965 to 44.4 percent in 2000
What the Census Bureau now calls "unmarried partner households" have climbed in number from 523,000 cohabitating heterosexual couples in 1970 to 4,900,000 in 2000
Bottom line: Marriage isn't hip anymore. In fact, that's the common tactic for the gays who say they want to join in the fun..."Marriage is already falling apart, why would we damage it any more?" they say.
Then, it hit me...we need more kinds of marriage.
Think of all the fresh legal ground that can be covered if gay marriage were to be finally allowed. Since it's open territory for lawyers to set new rules, new precedents, new case law with respect to gay marriage...THE RULES CAN BE RE-WRITTEN! Finally, lawyers won't have to resort to calling themselves, "The Heavy Hitter" or "The Strong Arm" and hawk their wares at un-suspecting insurance company victims!!! Welcome back, ARNIE from L-A Law!!! We all know that gays proportionally have higher standard incomes than straights...think of all that fresh new cash out there waiting to be claimed!!
Just a theory? Well...the American Law Institute (ALI) issued last November...urged that adultery be eliminated as a factor in deciding custody or property claims in divorce settlements. Saying that, "...justice is hardly served by treating one spouse's adultery as relevent to the alimony inquiry..."
Now, why would they go and do that?
Maybe it's just me, but life is really unfair. Gay couples say it's unfair to allow straight couples to marry, but prohibit gays to marry. First of all, as I pointed out yesterday...you have equal rights. I, as a straight person, am prevented from marrying another man. If I want to marry, I must marry a woman. Simple. There's no difference between the rights I have and the rights some gay couples are seeking. They can marry like anyone else...they just have to be someone of the opposite sex.
Besides, there are a lot of OTHER rules associated with marriage that I have to follow. For instance:
You can only marry if you are currently unmarried.
You can only marry a person that wants to marry you back.
You can only marry someone deemed mentally competent to enter into a contract.
Being required to marry someone of the opposite sex is simply another rule that those who want to engage in the process must follow. Maybe I should also start listing the various other rules you must follow AFTER you get married too...adultery, custody in divorce, alimony issues, divorce, etc.
I've said on the program a number of times that the whole issue of gay marriage is about money. What tips me off is the fact that the "marriage penalty" standard deduction has now finally been changed in this current tax year to $9,000. Isn't it curious that the fight is being engaged in NOW and not 20-years ago? But it's more than just the better tax benefits. The reason I say this is due to an interesting article from the Family Research Council citing statistics about the current status of marriage.
The highlights:
The proportion of American women 25 to 29 years old who have never married, slightly below 10 percent in 1965, reached 39 percent in 2000
Among men of the same age, the "never married" category increased from 18 percent in 1965 to 44.4 percent in 2000
What the Census Bureau now calls "unmarried partner households" have climbed in number from 523,000 cohabitating heterosexual couples in 1970 to 4,900,000 in 2000
Bottom line: Marriage isn't hip anymore. In fact, that's the common tactic for the gays who say they want to join in the fun..."Marriage is already falling apart, why would we damage it any more?" they say.
Then, it hit me...we need more kinds of marriage.
Think of all the fresh legal ground that can be covered if gay marriage were to be finally allowed. Since it's open territory for lawyers to set new rules, new precedents, new case law with respect to gay marriage...THE RULES CAN BE RE-WRITTEN! Finally, lawyers won't have to resort to calling themselves, "The Heavy Hitter" or "The Strong Arm" and hawk their wares at un-suspecting insurance company victims!!! Welcome back, ARNIE from L-A Law!!! We all know that gays proportionally have higher standard incomes than straights...think of all that fresh new cash out there waiting to be claimed!!
Just a theory? Well...the American Law Institute (ALI) issued last November...urged that adultery be eliminated as a factor in deciding custody or property claims in divorce settlements. Saying that, "...justice is hardly served by treating one spouse's adultery as relevent to the alimony inquiry..."
Now, why would they go and do that?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
