Gay, Anti-Gay Republicans Who Love Being Hypocrites and the Straight Scoop on Gay (and Straight) Marriage

Is there no end to the current crop of anti-gay, gay Republicans? From NJ's ex-governor McGreevey, to alcohol rehabilitating Mark Foley to the latest, Ted Haggard, these people all love to be hypocrites. McGreevey was the model of self-assurance while he was pretending to be straight. Now that he is forced into the situation of having to live the truth, he appears to be very uncomfortable. Having seen him boosting his book on the Larry King show, he seemed to be squirming in his seat, seemingly longing for the days when he was able to live a lie. You'd think that these people would be relieved that they could live an open and truthful life. But no, the preferred life for them is one of lies and hypocrisy. They get off on it! Oh please, please don't make me live a life of truth when I want to live a lie, they seem to be saying. They just love misrepresenting themselves and fooling people and, not the least, living dangerously.

These gay Republicans love nothing better than to bash gay marriage. People who want to admit who they are and form a stable relationship are anathema to them. Why? Because they want to sneak around and do stuff behind people's backs. They want to live dangerously. The last thing they want is to admit who they are because this forces them to live honestly, and, frankly, that's no fun!

But let's look at the issue which riles up their constituents and causes them to have apoplectic fits: gay marriage. Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state in this country? Well? Well? Then any gay couple who can find a clergyman to marry them can be married in the eyes of God without the government having anything to say or do about it. It's none of the government's damn business. Doesn't that solve then at least half the problem? The other half is that gay couples want the same rights and privileges of heterosexual married couples. Well, this is another issue altogether. The issue of civil unions. But I favor the two-pronged approach for heterosexual as well as homosexual unions. There are two aspects to marriage: marriage in the eyes of God and marriage in the eyes of the state. A gay couple can obtain most, if not all, of the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples simply by entering into a legally binding contract between them.

Frankly, I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all even for heterosexual couples. Marriage should be strictly a religious and/or a contractual affair between the two parties. What happens is that clergymen are in cahoots with the state. They're the ones who file the paperwork with the state thus making the marriage "legal." There's no reason it needs to be legal. What you are doing when you get married, heterosexuals, is that you're entering into a contract with the state, a contract you've never read, a contract the provisions of which you will not even be aware of until you get divorced. Then you will find out about the provisions of the contract you entered into in a most unpleasant way. Why do gay people even want to be a part of this sorry situation? Wouldn't it be better for people, gay or straight, to set up their own contractual relationship thus "legalizing" the relationship without the state even being involved? You might say, well, they can get a pre-nuptial agreement? Why not just get a nuptial agreement? A pre-nuptial agreement modifies the legal arrangement with the state but the state is still involved, still is the final arbiter. Forget the state. The two parties should be consciously aware of any contracts they enter into. Anything else is just state paternalism. In fact a course in the contractual aspects of marriage should be required for all high school students.

A legal contract consciously entered into in addition to a religious ceremony should be the norm for all people, gay or straight, and gay people are certainly in a position to do this now, an even better position than straight people due to the collusion between clergymen and the state. That contract is "one size fits all." A marriage contract should be individually tailored to the couple's wishes. The only place the state should enter in is if and when children are involved since children weren't a party to the original contract, and the state should protect the rights and interests of children, not adults who have freely entered a contract or have opted not to have any contract between them at all.

So the way it would work is this: those wishing to have a religious ceremony and no marriage contract should do so (Option 1). They would be married in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the state. Those not wishing any religious ceremony, but wanting to enter into a contract should write their own contract with the help of a lawyer (Option 2). The contract is enforceable by the courts in the event of a divorce but, at least it was freely and knowledgably entered into unlike what you have today. Option 2 would be suitable for non-religious people. Those not wishing either a religious ceremony or a marriage contract should choose option 3. Their children will still be protected by the courts as they are today. Those wishing to enter into both a marriage contract and to have a religious ceremony should choose option 4. In every case children would be protected by the state, but adults don't need a paternalistic state to protect them, just courts to enforce their contract, if they have one, a contract that was freely entered into by both parties.

A word about taxes. It seems that gay couples want all the tax advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy. This is a double edge sword because then they will have to subject themselves to all the government interference in their private lives that heterosexual couples now enjoy. As some comedian said: he's in favor of gay marriage because he thinks gay people should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. In particular divorce lawyers see a whole lot more business a-coming once gay people have the same rights as heterosexuals. But would it really be worth it to save a few dollars on taxes? I don't think so. A rational tax policy wouldn't discriminate between married and single people, gay or straight. It would be based solely on individual earnings coupled with deductions for dependents. For instance, if there were one wage earner in the household, gay or straight, supporting a non-wage earner, gay or straight, the deduction should be the  same. If there are two wage earners, gay or straight, taxes per person should be the same as for a single person. Different deductions can be made for children and/or other dependents. In fact, the deductions should probably be different for adults, children or senior members of a household. In other words taxation should have nothing to do with the marital status of the people involved, gay or straight, but only with the number of wage earners and dependents per household.