Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Monday, July 31, 2006

Fixing Gay Marriage

I have figured out what we need to do to fix the gay marriage issue.

From best I can tell, the only benefit you get by being married is that you can file income taxes jointly if you are married. Most any other supposed "rights" of married couples are allowed to anyone by making a will, power of attorney, or some other legal document. Most of these are required even for legally married spouses.

This leads me to my fix. One tax plan that has gotten more attention in the past few years is the "FairTax". Under this plan, our federal government would abolish all taxes (income, FICA, etc) and replace them all with a national sales tax. Its considered more of a "fair tax" because it only taxes consumption, not income or anything else.

Anyway, if the federal government adopted this plan we would repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the federal income tax. Then we would need Virginia to do the same thing and married couples would have no unusual benefits.

There you go folks, adopt the FairTax for both the federal government and in Virginia and we eliminate the gay marriage discussion. Maybe the commonwealth coalition will adopt this plan.

Problem Solved.

23 Comments:

  • At 7/31/2006 8:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sorry, your "simple" fix is not there yet. There are far more "benefits" allowed to married couples. Such as those given spouses whether there are other documents or not, such as estates passing on to the closest relative. Certainly things like this can be done through legal papers, that is unless the marriage amendment passes here. Then that amendment would in essence outlaw persons of the same sex whether they are gay or not, to allow arrangements between them, such as joint ownership, custody, or medical agreements.

     
  • At 7/31/2006 9:41 PM, Blogger CR UVa said…

    Seriously though, if we remove all the "benefits" of marriage, will gays still want to have marriage so badly? Certainly, some will, but I suspect that it will no longer be a big topic for them, even if many Democrats still yell that they deserve "equal rights" (though last I checked, marriage is not a right).

     
  • At 7/31/2006 11:32 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Anon, what part of the amendment says "no 2 men shall enter into a legally binding agreement."
    If you are correct, our amendment will grind business to halt since no wills, trusts, or simple contracts will even be allowed.
    Come on, its not going to do this kind of stuff.

    By the way, I forgot a right of married couples: don't have to tesify against your spouse.

     
  • At 8/01/2006 8:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Anon, what part of the amendment says "no 2 men shall enter into a legally binding agreement."

    "This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage."

    Sure sounds like it there.

     
  • At 8/01/2006 8:06 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    "To approximate the ... of marriage."

    That doesnt say no contracts. Like I said before, we have had business partnerships for years now.

    The amendment still uses marriage to determined what we will not allow, nothing else.

     
  • At 8/01/2006 8:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hi, i was looking over your blog and didn't
    quite find what I was looking for. I'm looking for
    different ways to earn money... I did find this though...
    a place where you can make some nice extra cash secret shopping.
    I made over $900 last month having fun!
    make extra money

     
  • At 8/01/2006 10:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    GOP, Virginia Law is taken literally, and must be interrupted that way. Though the "intent iw one thing" the ramifications will indeed cause problems for others wanting to enter into contracts. the crafters do not want any same sex couple to have any way to approximate a bond, whether a marriage or legal avenue. To achieve this they the Bob Marshalls et al have cast a broad net.

     
  • At 8/02/2006 9:01 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Well nothing I read in the amendment should be interpreted like some of you think, but I am far from a legal scholar,
    or a judge.

     
  • At 8/02/2006 7:10 PM, Anonymous David said…

    Then that amendment would in essence outlaw persons of the same sex whether they are gay or not, to allow arrangements between them, such as joint ownership, custody, or medical agreements.

    I think that phrasing concern about the amendment in this way is causing a lot of people confusion. It makes it sound as if all private contracts between unmarried people would be automatically invalidated, or that entering into such contracts would be prohibited, upon passage of the amendment.

    That is not the case. The problem with the amendment language is that there is nothing to stop an interested third party with standing from challenging those contracts by claiming that the parties "intended" to "approximate" the rights of marriage or civil unions by entering into them.

    The poorly defined language raises the question of whether a judge would look at a set of contracts like a will, medical directive, etc., and decide that, in aggregate, those private contracts amount to what would be a domestic partnership in another state. At what point does a combination of private contracts begin to "approximate" marriage? I don't know, and you don't, either. The amendment, if it were drafted well, would not raise those kinds of questions.

    This does not belong in our Bill of Rights.

     
  • At 8/02/2006 7:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So we should not approve a poorly worded amendment, which is exactly what is before us this Fall.

     
  • At 8/03/2006 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    i thin that is the dumbest idea i've have ever heard. let's hope they teach you something at tech before you leave...

     
  • At 8/03/2006 8:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So let me get this "straight"...transportation is in shambles, our schools are underfunded, our legal system is biased against the poorest of folks and we are debating over a marriage amendment (which is nothing more than a political move!) Damn this is what the GOP has left...how long can you stand by a party that has clearly moved away from the principles of limited government? It now panders to the far right.

     
  • At 8/03/2006 10:41 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    9:57, you guys started it.

     
  • At 8/04/2006 6:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How do you figure that?

     
  • At 8/04/2006 12:12 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    If you told your buddies in San Francisco to quit breaking the law and handing out illegal marriage licenses to gay couples, we wouldnt even consider this amendment, bc we wouldnt need it.

     
  • At 8/04/2006 3:39 PM, Blogger business voodoo said…

    how 'bout we eliminate 'marriage' and 'civil unions' all together ... we can be polygamist society like most were and are today, anyway ... except we use words like 'cheating' ... we can eliminate the government from our relationships and the guilt associated with the completely natural human condition of sexual attraction ...

    i'm a different kind of republican ... how 'bout this for a new 'republican' motto: more power to the people and the states! that used to be our's.

    peace & harmony,
    elaine
    'freedom must be exercised to stay in shape!'

     
  • At 8/04/2006 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    GOP, your train of thought has gotten us where we are in this word. We say we are accepting people in this country but do expactly the opposite. Gays are not just in the urban areas of the country they are all over, in every county, every country and should be treated equally. The Churchs can make their choice if they want, but the government should treat all equally. The Valley is not without gays, they are just closeted because of the lack of acceptance. I learned a great deal at Virginia Tech about different types of people, I hope you begin to learn more than what you have already.

     
  • At 8/05/2006 12:18 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I have met gay people as well anon.
    They are fine people. Even so, that doesnt mean we need to shatter thousands of years of tradition b/c they are "different".
    Marriage is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.
    BV, getting rid of govt sponsored marriage is a nice thought but probably something that will never happen.

     
  • At 8/05/2006 1:38 PM, Anonymous tom said…

    GOPHokie said...
    9:57, you guys started it.

    8/03/2006 11:41 PM

    That statement is perhaps one of the most childish things I've read...

     
  • At 8/05/2006 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This country was formed form to get away from certain things and to support freedom. The basis of much is seperation of church and state. I am a Christian, the lord I know doesn't care whether you are gay or not for what ever purpose. I find it funny that so many that fling the bible in defense of marriage do not live without sin. I say those without sin through the first stone. How many of those writing here in support of the amendment have had "been" with another outside marriage.

     
  • At 8/06/2006 4:22 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    2:38, correct me if I am wrong but if ppl werent trying to get gay marriage legalized we wouldnt need this amendment.
    5:45, if we cannot do anything in our government based on religious beliefs we need to allow murder lying and stealing b/c they are in the Ten Commandments.
    Just b/c something is a relgious belief doesnt mean it should be automatically disallowed by the govt or vice-versa.

     
  • At 8/06/2006 4:23 PM, Blogger Rick Sincere said…

    Filing a joint tax return may be one benefit of legal marriage, but there is another significant marital privilege that is often overlooked: In most cases, one spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other. This is a major legal protection for the integrity of the marital relationship that cannot be obtained through private contracts, no matter how scrupulously written.

     
  • At 8/06/2006 10:31 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Good point Rick.
    Unfortunately you are the first person I have ever seen make this arguement.
    This is one of the few legitamite ones I have heard.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home