Proposition 8 Propaganda
Last night Melissa Etheridge and her partner were on a show hosted by Oprah Winfrey, discussing the recent ban. Ms. Etheridge, of course, is a openly homosexual and has been in the forefront of much of the gay advocacy in the State of California, along with Rosie and Ellen DeGeneres. The "equal rights" rhetoric has been again the hook, but now in aligning these equal marriage rights somehow to the civil rights movement. Most intelligent Americans know that the similarities between the two are non-existent. One was a "property" issue under our Constitution needing correction and enforcement after it was recognized under the 13th Amendment that people are not property, and had been a bone of contention even before the Constitution was drafted between most of the founders. The Civil Rights movement was needed in order to enforce that amendment in our schools, public facilities and workplaces where the culture had not caught up with the law, especially in the historically agricultural South. The banner of equal "marriage" rights between two same sex partners can hardly be categorized in the same light.
After the argument for "equality" was raised, the practical tax issues were brought into the forefront. Unfortunately, that argument also doesn't fly since ever since the onslaught of no fault divorce between traditionally married couples, for those gay couples with children there is the "Head of Household" option, used by single parents and also married persons filing separately in order to take advantage of tax savings. The personal exemptions apply for adults whether filing as single or married, and actually with the tax laws they way they are, would be a benefit to someone in Ms. Etheridge's situation with, it would appear, disparities between the two adults in income in which party would get the most benefit in filing as head of household.
This has nothing to do with tax laws, or equal rights, but social equality. Unfortunately, you cannot change public perception over such an issue by simply changing the laws. There is physical anatomy, and it's pretty clear that it takes two independent and different sexes to procreate biologically. Marriages in our nation's roots were actually performed by the clergy, and simply recorded with the local officials thereafter in order to secure rights of inheritance for the posterity of the marriage. With legal adoptions now by gay couples, and even artificial inseminations it would appear those rights of inheritance and actual legal parenthood by both federal and state laws, are documented and secured through the adoption or insemination processes themselves. Maybe what is needed is creating an additional requirement that such documents need be recorded with local officials just as marriage licenses now are, in order to protect the children in the event of dissolution of the parental partnership.
But in attempting to force feed social acceptance of such a basic and fundamental religious and social precept, you are not simply arguing "equal rights," you are arguing not just religious doctrine, but basic science and biology.
Maybe Ms. Etheridge should be hopping on the bandwagon to get the entire 16th Amendment rescinded at this point for all U.S. citizens as an unlawfully instituted federal tax on labor, which was legislated without the consent of the governed and contrary to the founder's basic intent for taxation in this country (no direct taxes) and has now placed our country at an over 10 trillion dollar deficit due to the federal government's lack of accountability and freewheeling ways.
That would be true "equality."
Published by Betsy Ross
Former legal professional and long time resident of the State of Arizona. Have written numerous articles for publication with respect to private property rights, immigration and Constitutional issues. View profile
- The Importance of Music and the Civil Rights Movement The Civil Rights Movement is one of the most important events in history. It was a forceful and collective movement to disband segregation and racial injustices. The people involved in the movement
- Was Martin Luther King Vital to the Civil Rights Movement?A summary and analysis of two varying view points on the question of King's role in the civil rights movement. One historian said yes, he was vital, the other said no.
African-American Civil Rights MovementThis article is on the African-American Civil Rights Movement and famous leaders.
Proposed State of California Budget to Tax Your Taxes and Raise Sales Ta...The California budget will not balance. California government officials came up with a list of California tax increases, some disguised as fees and surcharges. Soon you might pa...- Filing Status for Taxes: Requirements for Head of HouseholdLearn about this filing status, how you qualify, and some exceptions to some rules regarding head of household.
- Big Brother 11 Episode 20 Recap: Jeff is New Head of Household
- Homeschool Laws in the State of California
- Rosa Parks: Mother of the Modern Day Civil Rights Movement
- The Civil Rights Movement 1954 - 1965
- Factors Behind the Rise of Civil Rights Movement During the 1950s
- Martin Luther King Jr.: Inspirational Leader of the Civil Rights Movement
- Black History Month Poems Celebrate the Civil Rights Movement and Barack Obama
28 Comments
Post a Commentit is about social acceptance which cannot be legislated, and if the near friends and relatives accept the union, than isn't that truely what is important after all? It's one of Hollywood's hysterias, you are absolutely right.
It is odd that these two attacks would come from recent CP posters who have no content articles. And actually, having two gay children myself, the "common law" with respect to marriage and marital rights predates our Constitution by about 2,000 years.....since there were gay individuals in the founder's era it is pretty clear that they didn't address the issue because it was assumed that the "common law" would apply as it had for 2,000 years in this country. So whatever your positions in your misled beliefs, that actually is fact. "Common law" marriages existed in this country between two sex couples prior to this century in a number of states, so no "formal" license or ceremony was involved whatsoever. So so long as the couple involved makes their own personal commitment, there are also "powers of attorney" whereby you appoint anyone whatsoever to act in your stead for financial or intestate matters or for any reason whatsoever. So this isn't about "equality" at all, it is about
Where are your articles, since it appears you also just joined as "Francoise."
Another "new poster" just registered with no content. All site visitors can verify those facts, so appears a friend of "Francoise," now "Santa Clause."
By any chance are you a domestic relations attorney, promoting your agenda in order to increase your income stream, since with same sex marriage, it would also, since traditional marriages now have a 50% divorce rate, be the biggest boom to the domestic relations attorneys in this country, and why so many are promoting it actually, not because of the politics now involved in it, but their own bottom line profits.
who takes a postion based on personal bias, and not the "common law" upon which our Constitution is based, and for which supports traditional marriage as pre-existing in the common law prior to own Constitution itself, as does homosexuality, which was not recognized or included as an "equal right" under our Bill of Rights, although the slavery issue was contentious at the time. There is and was no such disagreement or even discussion of legalizing under our Constitution marriage between two same sex partners.....and if you do your own legal research on the founder's in both the Federalist and Anti-federalists papers it will bear me out as the truth, not your fictional and misrepresented legal theories.
"Falsehoods made with 'actual malice' are not protected speech but torts (personal injuries). In this case (considering the subject matter) using the Internet to circulate rubbish like this is tantamount to pouring napalm over the fires of hatred and bigotry. Anyone tricked into publishing slanderous matter...."
This particular topic is a "political" matters and protected free speech with respect to positions on the issues. The article is directed toward Proposition 8, a political matter. So your knowledge of protected free speeech also needs a lot of work, as does your definitions of slander - when actually it is your attacks that are the ones that are slanderous, since nothing in the article whatsoever is a "personal" attack, where as yours quite definitely is and was. Insofar as expertise, it is your bio under your empty content producer identification that is absent anything other than the fact that it does appear you must be a law student or lawyer who takes a postion based on
discourse. The same harassment occurred there that you have engaged in here, so it just is possible that the "malicious intent" is on your part, and just maybe the same person and a "stalker."
Trying to incite rather than contribute anything of worth whatsoever, or with any knowledge of Constitutional law or accusing also without any basis in knowledge or fact. You proved that from your own malicious and unsubstantiated accusations and commentary.
Oh, appears you are one from the OpEd News that is full of hate speech against any that disagree with their left wing positions.....the left wing that claims to believe in free speech, but who in action actually are opposed to any free speech except their own. There is no malice at all in the article, if you actually reread it, there is simply a presentation of factual information that opposes the position of those who what this "equal right" supposedly and basing their arguments inappropriately on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was actually an act that was passed to reinforce the 13th Amendment, not the commerce clause at all. You really do need to bone up on your actual knowledge of U.S. history and our Constitution, rather than your biased legal theory that has no basis in fact. The "malice" that has transpired in these comments is coming from "Francoise" which I would assume is not simply a byline at all, but an attempt to malign writer's whose views you differ with under a