Say "I Do" to Marriage Equality

“I’m getting married!”  Well, not now. I’m not even dating anyone.  But, I do hope to be married one day.  I believe we all hope to be in a relationship where we are loved unconditionally and made to feel special.  Marriage is the bedrock foundation of family in our country. In fact, fifteen times since 1888, the U.S. Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right of all individuals.  In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause…”

For reasons passing understanding, the government plays a role in marriage.  What I mean is the government issues marriage licenses, grants divorces; and is in the midst of trying to define marriage.  It’s a pretty big issue: “gay marriage” and “defense of marriage” are terms we hear in the media quite a lot lately.  Lawyers and legislators are busy every day, too; locking horns and battling over who should be allowed to marry.  So, let’s begin by defining what I’m talking about today: Marriage Equality.  Not gay. Not straight.  Just equal.

Make no mistake, marriage is big business.  I don’t mean weddings, and all the related expenses, or the endless TV shows about weddings, brides, bride-zillas, dresses, cakes, and the list goes on and on.  I mean, the business of marriage!  Couples who aren’t married pay higher taxes.  Married couples have legal rights of survivorship, and can make unlimited gifts to each other without being taxed. Married couples are entitled to financial benefits relating to their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.  And, marriage offers 1,138 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state.

What do I mean by marriage equality?  Imagine you and your fiancé go to the county courthouse to get a marriage license.  You pay the fee, but the clerk refuses to issue the license.  Why?  Well, they don’t approve of who you plan to marry.  And, the law says you can’t marry the person you’ve chosen, and who has chosen you.  Now, instead of picturing a same-sex couple, imagine that one of you is white, and the other is black.

Nearly 50 years ago, around the time my parents were born, Richard and Mildred Loving were banned from the State of Virginia for being married.  Richard was white.  Mildred was black.  Embarrassing, right?  They sued for their right to be married, took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court... and won - opening the way for interracial couples in the U.S. to marry legally.  How fitting that their name would be “Loving”.

The New York Times recently ran an Editorial discussing the expanding influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v Windsor. The overall premise of the article is that the Court’s decision clears the way for an expansion of equal rights among the gay community.

Nobody at the courthouse interviewed or screened my parents when they went for their marriage license.  Nobody made sure my mother was tall enough, or that my dad was thin enough, or that they fit some state-sanctioned ideal for how a couple should look.  So, why would we do that to anyone?  The State’s role in marriage is ministerial, meaning – you pay the fee, and the State issues the license.  Whether a church will marry you is a different matter, and churches are free to not bless any marriage.  The Catholic Church, for example, doesn’t allow divorced people to be married in their church, unless the previous marriage is annulled.  So, if the government really wants to regulate marriage, perhaps we should start by outlawing divorce.

      Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced S.1808 - Marriage and Religious Freedom Act to the senate on December 12, 2013. This amendment specifies that the term "person" includes anyone regardless of their religious beliefs and or partner.It prohibits the government form discriminating against a person in accordance with their religious beliefs, marriage (recognized as the union of one man and one woman) or sexual relations. Currently, this amendment has only been introduced to the Senate and has just begun it's long, enduring process through the legislature."This non-discrimination bill is significant, indeed, very important,” said Archbishop Cordileone.  “It would prevent the federal government from discriminating against religious believers who hold to the principle that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This is of fundamental importance, as increasingly such individuals and organizations are being targeted for discrimination by state governments – this must not spread to the federal government (USCCB Press Conference)." Many people view marriage equality as a threat towards religious beliefs and religious freedom, causing very negative views on this amendment. I believe that 45 years from now, denying couples the right to marry will be an embarrassing blemish in our history and denying religious freedoms, much like our embarrassment today for the way we treated interracial couples 45 years ago.  Marriage and religious freedom is a fundamental, constitutional right.  Not just for some of us, but for all Americans.  I’m not willing to give up any of my rights, which is why I support marriage and religious equality for all Americans.

With Liberty and Subsidies for All...

This week, the New York Times Editorial Board published an Editorial touting a report from the Congressional Budget Office estimating 2.5 million people will leave the workforce full-time over the next decade as a result of the Affordable Care Act.  The Editorial rationalizes this estimate as somehow being a good thing.  And, this is where my hair started to fall out!

The Editorial states, in part:

“[T]hanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have.”

Are you kidding me?  Thanks to “available subsidies”?!?!?  Really?  Where do they think these subsidies come from?  Who do they think pays for those subsidies?  Why, oh why, would anyone think the government is in a position to improve the quality of the healthcare system, or make it more efficient?The Editorial describes the ACA as “liberating” American workers from the burden of having to work for their health insurance.  I’m left scratching my head at why seemingly intelligent people are content to turn our country into a socialist society.Somebody, somewhere has to pay for all this “free” health care.  And, while the Times Editorial claims 2.5 million workers will leave the labor force by choice, employers are making cuts as a direct impact of the ACA’s regulatory burdens.The President’s centerpiece legislative achievement is crumbling around him, but the New York Times Editorial Board is still serving up the Kool-Aid and telling us what a crowning achievement it is for the American people.  In weighing the value of the ACA, I need only to consider how our health care is improved by the expansion of – wait for it – the IRS, and the addition of 16,000 additional agents to carry out enforcement.  Remember to turn your head and cough!