It still doesnít pay to be gay by Kurt St. Angelo
From my legal perspective, I see issue of gay marriages or civil unions as one of civil rights.
The federal governmentís civil rights laws prohibit discrimination against people based on race, age, or gender. So how can state legislatures legally discriminate against a class of people Ė homosexual couples Ė based on sameness of their gender?
Having raised this question for intellectual purposes only, Iíve got to admit that Iím not a big fan of civil rights, and I donít defend them. In spite of their egalitarian motivations, they are a misnomer.
Civil rights are neither civil nor rights. They are privileges bestowed by government on one group of people, which always come at expense of equal rights of others.
Marriage privileges are civil rights. Both government and business give married people perks that rest of us donít get and that we largely subsidize. Licensed married people get preferential tax rates, better employee benefits and legal protections. Advocates of gay marriages or civil unions want these privileges of marriage extended to gay couples.
I canít say that I do Ö and itís not because Iím against anyoneís sexual preferences. I donít want government bestowing more privileges upon anyone.
Heck, if gay couples get civil-marriage rights, there will be one fewer disfavored class of people to subsidize taxes and insurance rates of married heterosexuals. How fair will that be on singles like me and ordinary cohabitants?
Itís one thing to exercise our natural rights to marry under God. Itís another to force others who are unlicensed to subsidize our behavior, hetero or otherwise.
We would be best to dismantle special interest privileges, not add to them. Besides, I wouldnít wish government privileges upon anybody. They come with too much government servitude and accountability.
Marriage licenses grant state power to divide marital assets according to whims of General Assembly. I donít understand why gay couples would want their relationship subject to our state legislators.
Ultimately Iíd like to see all licensed people freed from their unnecessary commitments to government. This would include not only licensed married people, but also licensed attorneys, doctors, electricians and sports trainers.
The government can no more certify quality of doctors or lawyers through licensing than it can quality of marriages or civil unions.