Well most simply, yes. One or the other. I definitely agree with instituting civil unions, but I'm not quite sure I can say marriage. But, either way you slice it, Illinois needs it. State Representative Deborah Mell wants it. Should we have it?
I'm not even going to argue civil rights on this one, I'm going to argue revenue. Imagine all of the revenue that would be brought in through taxes and fees. New unions means new fees and revenue for the government. Heck, institute civil unions and raise rates for certificates at the same time. The old pols wouldn't even have to give tax breaks to same-sex unions. Would some same sexers whine? Yes, but it would represent acceptable progress for the vast majority.
That majority might even change its views and be out more spending money for a wedding ceremony (even if legally it is a "civil union") or big dinners to celebrate. That means more tax money. Shouldn't this argument get the pols off their behinds and out instituting same sex civil union laws in Illinois? I hope it would because their greedy eyes would have more of other people's money to spend. "Oh golly gee more of other people's money for me" is what I can hear them saying now.
Heck, "Golly gee how about some rights for me" the same sexers are saying. And I say why not? "What about the American family" some will cry. That argument is over. The 1950s prototype family USA is dead, buried, and turned into good planting soil right now (I've got an organic garden to plant). Well, guess what I don't care who someone loves and that person should be able to be in a meaningful relationship without the big, bad government stopping them. Who knows, maybe the gays will get unions, or marriage, right. C'mon, the straights aren't doing too well in the marriage department (see 50% divorce rate).
It's a rights issue, it's a revenue issue, it's a people issue. People want to be happy and in their pursuit of happiness they should be able to legal be in union with their partner.
Filed under:
News, Politics
Tags:
bill brady, blagojevich, blagojevich family, civil, civil rights, civil rights violation, civil union, civil unions, civil unions Illinois, deborah, deborah mell, divorce, gay, gay marriage, gay marriage Illinois, gay rights, heterosexual marriage, heterosexual rights, homosexual, homosexual rights, human condition, human nature, human rights, Illinois civil unions, Illinois gay marriage, marriage, mell, mike madigan, pat quinn, politics, rights, union
Great post! Though I don't think we should be advocating seperate benefit structures. In all actuality, if a same sex couple wants the symbolic act of marriage, there is no law to prevent people from having a ceremony to celebrate the joining of two lives. The true issue with this inequality is in how it is recognized by the government via tax breaks, via power of attorney, etc etc etc. In any other form, legislation just becomes a matter of the government saying "you can use the term married," but we still don't recognize you as such.
If Illinois were to legalize gay marriage, defined as the word "marriage", I do not believe it should have to give the tax breaks and stuff like that, but that wouldn't be fair to gays. In saying that, it goes back to my point about legalizing gay marriage or civil unions for the pure purpose of revenue. More people getting licenses and paying the fees, more money to government, hopefully money spent on dinners and ceremonies, etc.
In this time of great fiscal turmoil, I'm for stripping marriage tax breaks anyway. I mean heck, what's the benefit if 50% of people are getting divorces? Maybe they only got married to get tax breaks. Anyway, about looking at this purely from my revenue standpoint, gay marriage or civil unions = gay divorces = MO MONEY to the government, hopefully less need for cuts in critical sectors, balance budgets, build surpluses, pay off public debt.
Note: I personally believe that there should be legalized same-sex civil unions. Let religions howl about "marriage" because once you've got a certificate/license, you can call it whatever you want, I mean Social Security is technically OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance).
Thats a great point! I'd be all for no tax breaks if it no one was getting them. Though I don't think that would ever happen (i.e. stripping married folk of their tax breaks).
You also make a good point about civil union. As a gay man, I do not care about marriage (its a religious term in all actuality). The real issue truly is with civil unions. Not many people realize this, but when you get married, the government is actually recognizing it as a civil union, not marriage. Check your "marriage" licenses if you don't believe me.
I suppose they have just as much right to live their lives as they want as the rest of us do. Let them be.
Lou
www.post-anonymously.us.tc
Everyone knows that gay marriage is a hot button topic. I mean everyone has their opinion on it, some say it should be legal, others say no. But what's interesting is this article I just read on wordpress, believe it or not, that described and discussed the topic, its legality and whether it is a right or not in the most profound manner I have ever heard, I strongly suggest everyone read it
http://bit.ly/aVH5MX
Thanks for your contribution. I'm sure, in fact I know, many people would and do disagree with you, but I appreciate that you presented a reasoned, thought out contribution.
Anytime