A note on marriage and government

In response to some rather excited reactions to my post...

Right now we have this thing called marriage. It affords people certain kinds of financial and tax-related advantages. People can choose to not get married and be together, but they don't get those advantages.

Those advantages are basically endorsing the institution of marriage, which is a religious endorsement and inappropriate for the government to make.

What I was suggesting was simply this: That in the event that an OBJECTIVE assessment of the stability of a set of parents could be made, and in the event that the child was either ADOPTED, or screened to be a good genetic match if the couple are breeding, that the couple receive tax breaks etc. similar to those married couples receive today.

Remove marriage from the legal arena. Civil unions would still exist, but they would be contracts between partners (of any gender, for any reason, and in any numbers) and afford no governmentally granted tax breaks, but rather rights such as hospital visits and unassailable wills. A registry, perhaps, of the people who are permanent partners in your life, who should always be allowed to see you in the hospital, etc.

Meanwhile couples in or out of civil unions could STILL have children if they wanted. The only difference is that without applying for thingum, they would not get the tax breaks. Given that unmarried couples have children all the time nowadays, all this does is shift the tax breaks to being based on ability to raise a healthy child in a stable environment, rather than a religious institution.

So chill out. :)

ok, one more thing about the marriage thing

My parameter DEFINED it as an objective psychological assesment of a parental units stability.

Thus, the system will be applied IF AND ONLY IF there is a truly OBJECTIVE method of assessing this. So stop complaining about that flaw in the theory, but rather simply question whether an objective method is possible.

Also, consider the possibility that I know something you don't know. ;)

A political question

Corrected
According to an sfgate article...
Kerry opposes a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
but
In an interview last week on National Public Radio, Kerry was asked whether he would support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in his own state.

"Well, that depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not," he replied.


What I'm wondering is...

(1) Do any of the other campaigns, especially the Dean campaign, stand a chance of winning the primaries at this point?
(2) Kerry may or may not be against Gay marriage, but he would still be an improvement over Bush. Do any of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance against Bush who have a more positive attitude about gay marriage?

Have at...

Homeward bound

Five days with myself. Five days alone, no socialness, nothing.

Well. There was socialness at the receptions, but it was all networking. Nice people, but you get tired of telling the story of your work background over and over and over again, or listening to wiser heads gossip. The gossip is fascinating, the networking is valuable, but it isn't a real connection.

Most of that time, I didn't miss socializing. I relished being alone, being independent. I wasn't even sure I'd go to S&P when I got back.

Now I think I might after all. I'm starting to get to the point where the thought of S&P is appealing rather than feeling like something I'm doing because I ought to.

Anyway. I fly in tomorrow on United Airlines Flight #631, arriving at 9:15. I expect I'll be home by 10:30, looking at the BART schedules.

---

Today I bought some presents. Besides some discounted godiva chocolates for myself, I also bought a giant black and white skull and cross bones tapestry for a certain special someone (with a caveat). And I got a discounted book on Cosmology and Philosophy with essays/articles by some physics and philosophy greats for myself, and (!) got a copy of the textbook I did the cover for for only TWENTY DOLLARS! That thing sells normally for over 100. Now, I know I have the preprint version in binder rings, but having a glossy, published book with my work in it, and my name in the credits (even if it is my married name) is worth $20. It's for my vanity shelf. *bounce*

---

Last thoughts on the damned marriage thing:
I don't know why this bothers me so much. When I'm centered in myself I'm such an irritable bitch. But anyway...

IFF it is possible to objectively genetically screen new children (for diseases only) and to objectively judge the stability of a parental unit, I think whatever tax incentives are aimed to aid in child rearing should only be given to those who meet those standards, and only while they are rearing the child.
OTHERWISE, I believe that tax incentives aimed to aid in child rearing should be given to all those raising children, but they should only be given while those children are still being reared; they should evaporate afterwards and go into effect only once the child is born/adopted.

The point, I guess, is that tax incentives for child rearing should be linked to child rearing. Legal rights for partners should be linked to partners, not to child rearing and not to religious rights, etc. And I'm running low on battery, so I'll post this and bid you all adieu.

I suck at this arguing thing. I get too emotionally invested in it, for some reason.