Something Controversial

And Something Clever (2.0)

So, I’m finally doing it.  I’m finally taking the plunge and doing a Theme Thursday post, after reading countless Theme Thursday posts sponsored by Something Clever 2.0 in the past.  So, why haven’t I done this before?  Basically, I post blogs so infrequently that I was always afraid I’d do one or two Theme Thursdays, then drop the ball on it, which would only magnify just how friggin infrequently I actually blog.  Last night, though, I decided to finally succumb to peer pressure.

So, here’s how this all went down.  I was chatting with a couple of my favorite tweeps last night, when this happened:

So, I explained my position on the whole Theme Thursday thing.  Basically, I would love the opportunity to draw new blog traffic from people who don’t normally read my blog, but was worried about not participating regularly.  It’s the same reason I have no intention in participating in the whole April A-Z thing.  I really HATE letting people down.  But, Jenn was gently persistent.

My good friend, Sleepy Bard of the Insomniac’s Dream (I know her real name, but I think it’s supposed to be semi-secret so I’ll just call her Sleepy Bard for the purposes of this post), was less gentle but equally persistent.

This may be one of my favorite Tweets ever.

And… my response was worth a chuckle

So here I am.  Bowing to peer pressure.  Next thing you know I’ll be drinking and engaging in premarital sex.  Well, hopefully anyway.

So, On to the Controversy

First, to my regular readers, you should be forewarned that this particular post won’t be all that funny.  This week’s theme was to post about something controversial.   However, from what Sleepy Bard had said I forgot all about that and was thinking the whole theme for this Thursday was gay marriage.  Yeah, I know.  In my defense I AM easily distracted (OOoo!  Something shiny!  What was I saying?).  But I’ve already put it out there that I will be posting about gay marriage, so that’s what I intend to do.

By the way, apparently the “tin foil hat” thing is half the title to Jenn’s Theme Thursday blog over at Something Clever 2.0 … how weird is THAT?!  It’s a sign I tells ya!  A sign that I should participate in this Theme Thursday.  So, here’s my whole skewed take on gay marriage…

The Gay Marriage Conspiracy

I honestly believe the stance against gay marriage is motivated by financial greed, not fundamental religious beliefs.  How can I say that?  Because I think that most governmental policy is motivated by money.

1) 1996 – DOMA Was Designed to Defraud Homosexuals

In case you don’t know what DOMA is, here’s a brief explanation.  DOMA stands for the Defense Of Marriage Act, which is an act signed into federal law in 1996.  Under this law, marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman, to be recognized federally, in-state, and inter-state.  The point of the act, allegedly, was to reinforce the idea that no state should be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage enacted by another state, thereby protecting the particular political views of a state from being affected by the political views of another state.  However, the act continues into much more insidious domain in section 3 of the law, which states that same-sex marriages could NOT be recognized for ALL federal purposes.  In other words, same-sex marriage would not be recognized as a legal union for the filing of federal taxes, immigration purposes, Social Security benefit claims, or even for insurance for federal employees.

No big deal, right?  I mean, in the 90’s, “married filing jointly” was code for “governmental screwing,” because it was the single worst filing status statistically speaking.  However, this, besides being unconstitutional, opened the floodgates for any and all financial services to refuse to recognize a same sex union.  If federal employees were not allowed to insure same-sex partners, then insurers could refuse to cover same-sex partners outside of the federal government.  Anyone who has tried to provide health insurance for a partner to whom they were not married (same-sex or otherwise) knows the headache, financial strain, and relative impossibility of this task.

So… what if that was the point of DOMA?  What if, cloaked in rhetoric of protecting family values and the sanctity of marriage, was a DECIDED PLAN by insurance companies to save millions of dollars annually by refusing the addition of same-sex partners to insurance plans?  What if there was an even bigger plan in the works… for example, one which would allow the federal government to change the tax bracket to reward marriage, rather than punish it?

2) 2001-2003 – Federal Tax Brackets are Altered to Eliminate the Marriage Penalty

You knew this was coming next, right?  The Tax Act of 2001 (The Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001) and the Tax Act of 2003 (Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003) both came into being under the banner of tax relief.  These two acts reduced the marriage penalty, to the point of eliminating it, by making the tax brackets exactly double the income requirements of single people.  They both also include huge incentives for having children, which same-sex couples cannot do (on their own).  Neither of these tax acts came as any surprise.  The issue of the marriage penalty needed to be corrected for a long time, and the addition of child care credits and improvements of earned income credit both needed to happen.  It’s just interesting that neither was addressed until AFTER the Defense of Marriage Act was passed into law.

So, What Does This All Mean?

Is it one big conspiracy?  Possibly.  After all, I honestly believe the single greatest motivator to public policy is money.  By seizing an opportunity to cash in on anti-gay sentiment, insurers and the federal government have potentially saved billions over the past 16 years.

I am not saying that all insurers are evil.  I mean, they probably are, but that’s not really the point here.  Many insurers provide domestic partner health benefits to unmarried couples.  And while the two tax acts named above gave substantial relief to married couples filing jointly, there still exists a marriage penalty for couples who both earn a substantial income (for example, if both spouses earn around $250,000, filing jointly creates a tax bracket nightmare).

On the whole, though, I think the talk of the sanctity of marriage and the assertion that homosexuality is an abomination is just smoke and mirrors to appease the masses.  In the end, by codifying the non-recognition of same-sex marriage on a federal, state, and local level, lawmakers know they are lining the pockets of all the right people.  It’s Washington, people.  Money talks.