(Hopefully this will be a “lighter side of” Great Debates.)
I hereby propose that I, Candid(ate)Gamera, be made ruler of these United States.
Further, I will henceforth be known as King Gamm-Ra, Lord of the Hyborean Wastes, Master of all he Surveys.
So now, a survey.
On the issue of Same-Sex marriage, I, Gamm-Ra the Mighty, propose the following: ‘Marriage’ shall be a term reserved to private individuals. The government has no concern over its application, as it is closely tied with religious concepts. Rather, the government shall have an analog of marriage, hereby dubbed the ‘Life-Bond’, which conveys the benefits one might currently see under a ‘Marriage’, and is available to any two people, irrespective of gender. Further, ‘Divorce’ shall be renamed ‘the Sundering’, as it sounds more impressive and ominous.
What say you, citizens? Goest it too far? Not far enough?
And what issue shall the Mighty Gamm-Ra address next?
You can get the state out of marriage as a religious thing, but you will find it hard to get out of civil unions of some kind or other, for purposes like taxation, health benefits, etc.
I don’t see any difference between a civil union and a “life bond,” other than the fact that Klingons might prefer the latter term. Changing terminology doesn’t effect the core of the debate one way or another.
In other words, the proposal in the OP is not a departure from other proposals on SSM that have already been made. It’s just quibbling over terms, so it doesn’t “go” anywhere.
(I’m in favor of same-sex marriage and civil unions.)
Sorry, we don’t do kings here. Commander-in-Chief Gamma-Ra the Mighty would be acceptable.
In a country where there is supposedly a strict separation of church and state, marriage is, or should be, purely a civil union between two people (gender unspecified) where granting of legal rights is concerned. One could call it marriage, civil union or life-bond (but what if it’s not for life in most cases?) and it’s all the same thing, IMO.
But hey, I like the idea of renaming divorce “the Sundering”. Very dramatic.
Why the one that, more than any other, has caused so many of our innocent citizens so much mental anguish, so many sleepless nights and such unjustified pain and torment, lo these many years. I’m talking about the Designated Hitter Rule, of course.
Gamm-Ra finds your lack of humor… disturbing - but does not want to mix his metaphor with that of Lu-Kas.
The essence of Gamm-Ra’s proposal is to do away with Marriage as recognized by the Federal government - having essentially ‘Civil Unions’ for everyone.
And terminology seems vital in this cause - Many support Civil Unions for Same Sex Couples, but not Marriage. Mighty Gamm-Ra views people that are fooled by such a distinction as weak-witted, but requires their support, and must therefore give them that distinction.
Gamm, not Gamma! Though Mighty Gamm-Ra speaks in the third person, he is not to be confused with the Incredible Hulk, who is of course a member of the Green Party. King is… Gamm-Ra’s first name. Yes, that’s the ticket.
Gamm-Ra believes that his position would pacify the fundamentalists, and grant the essential equality to the disenfranchised.
Gamm-Ra requires a pitcher, not a belly-itcher. If one cannot bat, one has no business playing baseball. Gamm-Ra has spoken. Next issue?
Ramm-Ga, can I form a “life bond” with my roomate or friend, for tax purposes? How about an ailing parent who moves in with me? Can more than one “life bond” be formed at a time?
You seek to anger Gamm-Ra by purposefully mangling his name. For shame.
Gamm-Ra foresees that multiple bonds may be justified by some; he has no objection against them apart from their inherent abuse of the taxation system. Provided the tax-exceptions are re-written or eliminated to account for the behavior, thus preventing abuse of the system from that perspective, Gamm-Ra approves.
In short, Gamm-Ra wishes to eliminate the tax benefit of Marriage, eventually. The ‘LifeBond’ would still provide benefits with regards to custody of children and power of attorney.
How does Grammar-Ra expect that social conservatives will in any way condone or accept this proposal to allow polygamy and raise taxes on married – er, life-bonded couples? Does Grammar-Ra have mind control powers over the electorate, or might dissent be met with a Sundering from one’s life-manna?
Gamm-Ra is merely unopposed to eventual polygamy. Gamm-Ra is also a fan of gradual change. Gamm-Ra does not intend to use his mighty blade to enforce his will upon the electorate, to drive his enemies before him, and hear the lamentations of… er… wrong teleprompter.
Gamm-Ra believes the ‘Marriage’ tax benefit can be eliminated without much opposition by in turn offering a simplified tax code, and compensatory across-the-board (small) tax cuts. Once Gamm-Ra has adjusted the budget.
Gamm-Ra grants you free license to ‘Life-Bond’ for the purposes of this discussion.
Doesn’t matter what you call it; many of the opponents of same-sex marriage(or whatever) are just concerned with stopping same-sex couples having the same deal as they themselves enjoy.
Merely changing the legal term ‘marriage’ to ‘life-bond’ or anything else won’t help as long as the opponents don’t want same-sex couples to have the same deal.
I’m for SSM, and Gummera’s plan is just plain nuts. Just because Bush’s reckless tax cuts are phased in over ten years does not make them less reckless; nor does phasing in polygamy make it more acceptable.
Simplification of the tax code is something that should happen anyway, and it has nothing at all to do with LifeBonDing.
If Gummera becomes the next Dear Leader or whatever, you can bet I’ll put a bumper sticker on my car: “Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
What if two people get married in a church, but do not go through the life-bond procedure because they don’t see any real benefits or their church feels this is an invasion of the state in matters for God. Then 40 years later, after Spouse A gives up his/her job to raise the kids and support Spouse B in his/her career, Spouse A decides that now that the kids are gone he/she wants to just move on. Would you allow Spouse B to present evidence of the marriage to further a claim for a remedy? Would you consider allowing this evidence as a state endorsement of the marriage?
Gamm-Ra believes you. But Gamm-Ra’s efforts in this regard are not directed at converting the most ardent of the fundamentalists - merely enough of them to insure a broad base of support for the proposal.
Perhaps it cannot be done, but by Crom, Gamm-Ra will try.
Kel Varnsen - Gamm-Ra presumes you mean allowing Spouse A to claim remedy, after Spouse B moves on, as Spouse A is the one left without a job. If one is foolish enough to eschew one’s career for another without the life-bond, one is, to a certain extent, out of luck. Gamm-Ra sees no need to make special provisions for someone who gambles one’s livelihood away. However, their will be programs designed to help one along - Gamm-Ra’s state will still take care of its poor.
I like “The Sundering”, but it would cause some country songs to have to be changed. For example:
I’m headed for the big “S” and don’t mean Seattle
I can’t believe what the judge had to rattle
She got the ranch and I got the cattle
I’m headed for the big “S” and don’t mean Seattle