An interesting take on the gay marriage ruling

[Finagle]

@Construct

Nah, this analysis is incorrect.

Society has a vested interest in encouraging procreation both because an ever increasing supply of productive workers is needed to preserve the existence of our social insurance schemes like Social Security and Medicare and because our children allow for the perpetuation of our genes and our culture.

This interest is best fulfilled through the birth of natural-born citizens to US parents, because US citizens have higher earnings than due immigrants (whether due to discrimination, assimilation difficulties, or other issues).

Consequently, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to impose differential levels of taxation on individuals on the basis of the number of kids they have, because this compensates for the positive externalities created by children.

Golly, it’s a good thing you phrased this so logically or otherwise it could be mistaken for pure apple sauce – a transparent rationalization for prejudice against immigrants and the LGBT community.

Not really where to start. Maybe one could point out that continually increasing the population clearly cannot continue beyond a certain point and providing incentives for population growth beyond replacement is probably a bad idea? Or we could point out that being LGBT does not remove one from the gene pool – it’s certainly possible to reproduce and/or adopt.

We could also point out that even if natural born US citizens have higher incomes than first generation immigrants (presumably Construct means illegal immigrants, because H-1B holders are probably doing quite well in STEM jobs), this would be a shockingly short-sighted distinction, as virtually all of us citizens are descended from immigrants and are now paragons of high income, culture-assimilated, high-quality gene pool material.

Actually, I think you could make a very good argument is that what the government policy should encourage more single, childless, lonely tax payers who will pay taxes without putting a burden on the school systems and other infrastructures and who will then die intestate so that their estates go to the government’s coffers. By that standard, maybe the marriage ruling was a bad one, but I guess we’ll just have to live with the consequences

[Ravenman]

@Clothahump

Nobody bothered to read the article, apparently. Especially you,** Lightnin’**. No sour grapes of any kind. He’s not arguing that the decision was wrong. He’s arguing that the decision weakened the Constitution and made for more government intrusion, and he’s absolutely right about that.

Whether you are for or against gay marriage is immaterial. This was a bad decision by SCOTUS. There was no basis in law for the decision. It was purely political and it was a horrible case of legislation from the bench. With the passage of time, it will rank up (or down) there with other decisions that damaged our society, like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. But nobody cares about that apparently. Y’all are too busy prancing around and waving rainbow flags and thinking that you won something. You didn’t. We all lost on this one.

My god do I want to give you a big fat super-gay tongue kiss right now.

And I’m not gay. It’s just that right-wing doublespeak really turns me on.

[BigT]

@Ravenman

Instead of complaining about libertarians, you should be complaining about the IRS.

I literally lolled.

Edit: I will give Clothahump one thing: I would have preferred this to be about discrimination by sex instead of all that “soaring language.”

[puzzlegal]

@RivkahChaya

The impetus for the gay marriage movement goes back to a couple named Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski. I have met them. They were not political people before they were forced to be. Karen Thompson even admits that she voted for Ronald Reagan. Twice. But then one day on her way home from work in 1983, Sharon was involved in a car accident that left her severely disabled.

Neither Karen nor Sharon had come out to their families, and neither had made a power of attorney naming the other as guardian. When Sharon Kowalski’s parents learned of the relationship after the accident, they applied to become Sharon’s legal guardians, and forbade Karen from having any contact with her. They even went so far as to deny her recommended rehabilitation than might have allowed her to communicate her own wishes clearly.

Thompson sued to gain guardianship, and after a very long fight, finally won, mainly on two bases: one, that Sharon’s re-emerging communication skills seemed to indicate that she wanted to be with Thompson (there was controversy, as her nursing staff and her family gave conflicting testimony, and Kowalski herself was not competent to be sworn in), and the fact that Thompson could show that Kowalski’s parents were not following doctors’ recommendations, and had hampered Kowalsi’s potential recovery. (As one comic said, the Kowalskis think it’s better to be a vegetable than a fruit.)

Thompson gave lectures all over the country, seeking donations for her legal fund, and serving as a cautionary tale, encouraging all couples in committed relationships to have powers of attorney drawn up, even if they were young, and didn’t think they needed to worry about end-of-life decisions soon (the fact that Kowalski’s accident happened near the beginning of the AIDS crisis, when a lot of young gay men were facing end-of-life decisions made things even more urgent, though).

Anyway, after enough gay couples went to all the trouble to sign on the nth dotted line to make sure that they wouldn’t end up like Karen and Sharon, they began to think, if they could just get married it would be so much easier. And the gay marriage movement was born.

There were other reasons too-- wanting recognition, wanting celebration, and soforth-- but Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski were really why things happened when they did. You can’t have a gay marriage timeline without them and their landmark legal case in big bold letters.

So whatever else marriage may be about, for gays, this is a big part of it. Paying higher taxes in order for your parents not to lock your partner out of your hospital room during your last days is a small price to pay. Especially if it is part and parcel of all straight marriages, and the definition therefore of “equality.”
…

Thanks, I didn’t know that history.

[hajario]

@Clothahump

Nobody bothered to read the article, apparently. Especially you,** Lightnin’**. No sour grapes of any kind. He’s not arguing that the decision was wrong. He’s arguing that the decision weakened the Constitution and made for more government intrusion, and he’s absolutely right about that.

Whether you are for or against gay marriage is immaterial. This was a bad decision by SCOTUS. There was no basis in law for the decision. It was purely political and it was a horrible case of legislation from the bench. With the passage of time, it will rank up (or down) there with other decisions that damaged our society, like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. But nobody cares about that apparently. Y’all are too busy prancing around and waving rainbow flags and thinking that you won something. You didn’t. We all lost on this one.

This is just plain offensive and disgusting. Your small minded hatred is really coming through here. This will be way closer to Brown and Loving than to anything else.

The narrow minded, nasty bigots are the only losers here.

[erysichthon]

@Clothahump

Whether you are for or against gay marriage is immaterial. This was a bad decision by SCOTUS. There was no basis in law for the decision. It was purely political and it was a horrible case of legislation from the bench. With the passage of time, it will rank up (or down) there with other decisions that damaged our society, like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. But nobody cares about that apparently. Y’all are too busy prancing around and waving rainbow flags and thinking that you won something. You didn’t. We all lost on this one.

You should have started the thread with the “eww, gays, ick!” stuff instead trying to distract us with that IRS nonsense. You’d still look like a homophobe, but at least you wouldn’t look like a disingenuous homophobe.

[Lightnin]

@Clothahump

Nobody bothered to read the article, apparently. Especially you,** Lightnin’**.

You’re absolutely right- I didn’t read the article. I didn’t have to. You didn’t post the article to further the “government-out-of-marriage” agenda, you posted it to further your own “gays-shouldn’t-get-to-marry” agenda. Sour grapes, as I said.

For what it’s worth, I’d prefer a “religion-out-of-marriage” agenda, but I don’t insist that homosexuals should have fought for that. That agenda, like the article you posted, is a completely separate issue from gay marriage.