Well I'm hanging out enjoying a beautiful July 4. Been thinking a lot about "Freedom" and my thoughts wandered to those "Freedom to Marry" signs that abounded in Minnesota during the gay marriage debate.
"Freedom to Marry," like many hollow canards (including "my family counts too," "no hate," and "equality for all") rests upon low-information Americans not thinking through the details.
The freedom to marry is slightly different from the "right to marry," which is a whole other debate I'll skip because it's sunny out and I don't want to lose time here. Let's focus on this concept of being "free" to marry. Usually the same people who say gays should be free to marry are also the ones who want "government out of our bedroom."
If you look closely at the issues, however, you'll see that same-sex marriage takes away the freedom of gay couples to live as they'd like. Same-sex marriage laws bring the government and its surveillance state into gay people's bedrooms. You see, once you have the government registering gay couples in its county halls and federal databases, you have the government tracking what gay couples are doing. And family law--as dictated by the government--now applies to what the gay couple does. If we're talking about two gay men who like having threesomes with strangers, now they're violating laws against adultery and are opening themselves up to government sanction. If we're talking about lesbians who decide they don't want to have sex anymore, wish to have separate bedrooms, and now want to live like roommates, they can't just shuttle the furniture around. They have to go through a divorce and have family court adjudicate on whether their sexual relationship is proper or not, according to the government's standards.
As our side has pointed out countless times, people are "free" to call their relationships marriages if they want. The Windsor case that just gave gay marriage advocates a major win was not about freedom at all. In the case, Edie Windsor wanted the IRS to pay her over $300,000 as compensation for the fact that she had sex with another woman for an extended period of time.
Yes, folks, that's what the Windsor case boils down to. Edith Windsor was an octogenarian lesbian whose long-term sex partner, another woman, died. Apparently these weren't your average trailer park lesbians like the ones whose kids I grew up around back when I was a ten-year-old in blue-collar Buffalo, being raised by two dykes. Nope. Windsor and her sex partner (I say "sex partner" because we have to be clear about what makes a lesbian "marriage" distinct from two female friends; they are engaging in cunnilingus or finger-to-vagina stimulation or dildo usage or SOMETHING that must qualify as SEX) were quite wealthy. So wealthy, in fact, that when Windsor's partner died, the estate tax became an issue and she received, in inheritance, $300,000 less than she would have received, had she been in a marriage with a man.
When we talk about "tax breaks" and "corporate welfare," it is commonplace for us to engage in Occupy-speak, where we cast reductions in taxes paid by the rich as "subsidies," like the public is paying the wealthy for something by dint of not being able to withhold some of the wealthy's money for the purpose of spending on the common good.
So it goes with Edith Windsor and the woman she was having sex with. She went to the Supreme Court and demanded that American taxpayers reward her for having lesbian sex by issuing her a back check for $300,000+.
This is what civil marriage is based on. The country pays you to have sex. When it's a man and a woman having sex, it makes sense -- we need men to have sex with women so that we procreate. Why do we need Edith Windsor to have sex with another lady? What is the public interest in their sex life?
They have the freedom to engage in sex because after Lawrence v. Texas, anti-sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional. So it's not possible for the state to prevent Edith Windsor from jumping into the sack with another sexy senior female and using dildos, dental dams, frottage, or whatever stimulating activities might send them into erotic thrall. They are free to do that.
Once they are legally married, however, and they want the state to pay them for this mutually gratifying sexual activity, they are now no longer free to stop having sex. If Edith and her partner were to keep their clothes on for twenty years and not even do anything erotic at all, her partner could sue for divorce and claim sexual neglect. They would have to go to divorce court. Judges would have to know facts and figures about how they serviced or didn't service each other's erogenous zones.
Now, there is a reason that courts get involved in the sexual antics of straight couples. Straight couples run the risk of pregnancy, whether intended or unintended. It's in the interest of the state to make sure that husbands and wives have healthy sex lives so that they can reproduce if at all possible. If they are infertile or past their reproductive prime, we need them to remain emotionally satisfied and sexually bonded in order to keep the household intact for potential adopted children or as an example to the community generally.
You don't get taxpayer money in exchange for having sex unless we, the community, get something out of it. Straight people have grown so accustomed to the community being in their business because it's always been clear that when they boff, they are boffing for God and country. They might be making babies that will replenish our nation with a new generation. We need them to boff often, long and hard. They need to be good at it. If they start being sexually incompetent, one spouse can say they're the victim of sexual neglect, or the other can level charges of adultery, and they will have to get divorced. Once they are divorced, if there are no mutual children, then the tax subsidies stop. The community isn't going to finance a sex life that isn't performing up to the community's needs.
Isn't this all terribly intrusive? If you're wealthy enough to have an estate worth millions of dollars, it might not be worth the $300,000 to have Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas thinking about your acts of cunnilingus with a lesbian you've been shacked up with for forty years. You don't want society thinking about your cunnilingus. Your partner probably doesn't. I certainly don't want to go there. And if you decide you don't like it anymore and you want to do something else with your life, then why not have the freedom to have a heart-to-heart breakup speech with your lesbian belle, and then move on, move out, move away, without any of us asking to see your medical records, tax returns, or bank statements?
Are you getting the bigger picture here, lesbians? I hate to be so vulgar, but it's time to be brutally honest. The more you get legal recognition for your sexual choices, the more restrictive those choices become. Same-sex marriage isn't keeping us out of your bedroom, it's dragging us into your bedroom and into your cervix. Let's all take a pass.