Same-Sex Marriage: Forget The Constitution, Look For The Underlying Issues

August 6, 2010

A Federal Court Judge overturned the outcome of a California referendum Wednesday. Seems that California voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of Proposition 8, which changed the California Constitution to read “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Now, Washington has nullified the process of state self government in Federal court. The Judge’s assertion is that Proposition 8 violated the US Constitution in some way.

Isn’t it fascinating that Washington ignores the Constitution entirely until and unless it can be trotted out to further some social engineering goal they hold?

I could write a treatise about the pros and cons of this issue. In fact, I wrote an article back in August 2009 entitled “Homosexual Marriage: Don’t You Want To Be Free?” The article is shown in its entirety below these initial comments.

So, let’s dispense with the analysis and look at what this entire same sex marriage issue is about.

It’s about benefits. It’s about MONEY.

A civil union or some sort of a contract of cohabitation doesn’t get the same legal status as a marriage. And it certainly doesn’t get the same societal respect as marriage.

• Social Security and Medicare – It’s about monetary benefits for spouses, and survivor benefits for the surviving spouse.

• Taxes – Even though the IRS regulations actually penalize married couples with smaller standard deductions than single people, it’s still about taxes.

• Inheritance taxes – Tax law provides a surviving spouse with a considerably large tax deduction on the assets of the estate at the death of one spouse. People in civil unions or cohabitating don’t enjoy that deduction, which could be hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxes.

• Insurance benefits – Many if not most group health insurers allow benefits for domestic partners, which includes same sex unions.

So, in the final analysis, proponents of same sex marriage simply want to solidly place their lips on the Federal nipples and stay there.

Why should we secessionists care about same-sex marriage?

For a state that secedes, this same-sex marriage business would be a non-issue. If there were no monetary benefits to be had, the issue would cease to exist.

• No Social Security benefits since there would be no Social Security program.
• No IRS regulations since there would be no IRS.
• No Federal taxation, and likely no inheritance tax in tax code of the new nation, since the new nation would likely have no income tax…if it knew what was good for it.

Even though California, our most populous state, would never consider secession…this most recent Federal Court decision should be a wake-up call for everyone. This is not the first time that a Federal Court has vacated the outcome of the vote, and it won’t be the last. Arizona is going through a similar case in their immigration issue, since it is the Federal Courts that are asserting their sovereignty over Arizona law. And, going forward, Washington is going to likely take a more hostile approach when dealing with recalcitrant states trying to assert their power. Washington will likely brook no rival.

Washington DC, in its death throes, recognizes no power but itself. Eventually, there will be a showdown. Nullification of various laws, done by various states, will help bring on that showdown. The winners will be the states that secede. The losers will be the majority of the states too cowardly to stand up to the DC criminals. You’ll know them by the chains they wear.


Homosexual Marriage: Don’t You Want To Be Free?

Homosexual marriage, or civil union, has always been kind of a mystery to me.

When I moved to Atlanta from a small town in Michigan in 1992, I had never even met a homosexual. Once I got here in Atlanta, I auditioned and was accepted into the Tenor section of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus. Out of about 30 tenors, there were only two or three of us that were not gay men.

Quite a culture shock for me…the conservative Christian who was always told that homosexuals would burn in hell. But I met and became friends with individuals, not a group. They were kind, and warm, and caring, and genuinely wonderful people. My attitude toward homosexuals was forever changed. I don’t ascribe to their lifestyle, but neither do I stand in condemnation. That’s someone else’s job.

I’ve heard comedians say, “The homosexuals should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married people.”

Why should homosexuals want the blessing and licensure of the State on their relationships? What’s the big draw… the big benefit?

It doesn’t appear to be that the homosexuals want to be taken too seriously. The folks that march in Gay Pride parades don’t appear to be concerned with the straight world’s acceptance of their chosen lifestyle.

Could it be that they are looking for a legal status that will provide them monetary benefits that they cannot get today? Like Social Security, Medicare, pension and health care benefits?

They already have the right to have any kind of legal relationship they choose.

The Evangelicals who spend so much time denouncing homosexuals say that licensing homosexual marriage will undermine the “sanctity of marriage.”


First, if you have a faith or religious tradition you follow that prohibits homosexuality, fine. Practice your own individual behavior within your own conscience. But the states and the Federal Government of the USA are secular in nature, not Christian. Don’t presume to force your beliefs onto others.

Second, if marriage was as sacred as our society tells us it is, the state legislatures would not have passed laws that made divorce so easy. Besides, why should any state have any licensure of a marriage? Is it only for the easy fees it generates? Is there any real difference between a marriage license and a dog license or business license?

Seems to me that the essence of this issue is the sanctity of contracts, not the sanctity of marriage.

There is nothing I know of that prevents any two or more people from entering into contract with each other. Two or more legally adult individuals can go to an attorney and have a legal document drafted that deals with legal duties to each other, community property and the disposition of assets, legal duties to children of the “union,” procedure for dissolution of the agreement (kind of a civil divorce), Last Wills and Testaments, and any other contractual terms the parties desired.

When the contract was acceptable to all parties, it could be signed and notarized. No preacher or judge would have to officiate…that’s just the romantic myth that accompanies the process. And, there is no license fee for executing a contract.

If the partners of a civil union want to have a little ceremony and a celebration following, great! Nothing prevents it but their budget.

You never see two guys going into business as a remodeling contractor, draw up a partnership agreement, and then go get a pastor or priest to bless their partnership. Homosexuals don’t need it either.

If homosexuals would stop thinking about being slaves of the State, they could actually become leaders to the rest of the population. They could enter into their own legal relationship agreements, and completely forsake the blessing of the State. Tell the bureaucrats to stay out of their relationships, as well as their bedrooms.

Homosexuals, stop trying to curry the politicians’ favors, and show the rest of us a little taste of individual liberty.

Forget state-approved marriages forever!

Secession is the hope for mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.