tucked away (about marriage equality)

i was looking at an article as to how a cup of cocoa could help brain activity, or something. i didn’t get to the article because ‘i spied’ one of those ‘click here to watch video’ boxes. this one about marriage equality. it was from yahoo. tucked away somewhere. well, maybe it wasn’t tucked away before, but i haven’t seen it. well, to tell the truth, i’ve not been thinking about gay marriages (or as how my editor wants us to put it ‘marriage equality’). i’ve not googled “gay marriage” for a very long time. but the ‘marriage equality’, from my (and probably from Joffre’s initial take) view, it’s about rights

(though i don’t know if he knows what ‘important’ rights are granted, per se).

i’m talking about monetary rights, of course. when it comes to these subjects, i’m not into symbolism as much. but i do care about being able to claim those marital deductions, joint filings, ‘come as a couple - you get a discount’ ads ^.^.

that’s where the arguement should be. the inequality to gain those ‘filingstatus’ rights. it shouldn’t be a religious issue. should barely be a ‘who should raise a child’ issue (that should be left to those adoption agencies). it should be about the immediate rights when two people get marreid, that of taxes, property, medical, and estate planning. i heard it came to an issue of procreation as to why gay marriage rights wasn’t passed at the supreme court level in washington state. (a punting move by the court to get the legislative to make the laws, which was punted before by the legislative to the court system, i think) ‘procreation’? are you telling me that washington state won’t allow marriage equality because there’s a ‘rational basis’ or (whatstheotherterm?) ’strict scrutiny’ (do these even apply?) level of analysis telling gays to procreate? i’m sure if you tell a gay couple that they can’t get married because they have a ‘duty’ to procreate, you’ll get a ‘gotoheck’ answer.


this video [click here], was nice. wasn’t demanding anything. wasn’t being confrontational. it was to the point. and it, on the back end, proved a point. just live and let live? (and give me my ‘powerofattorney, maritaltaxdeduction, communityproperty, jointtenanc, medicalrights, and otherthings’ like other couples) i’m probably wrong hunh? u.u

(i didn’t read the legal pleadings - i’m sure they’re available online - but if i were these attorneys representing gay couples for marriage equality, i’d sue for monetary and tax bias given to ‘filed’ married couples by the government…. or something. none of this feelyfeely stuff. we’re americans. we may not all talk ‘religion-ish’ but we, for sure, talk ‘capitalism-ish’)

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply