A Case for Repealing Marriage Benefits

The cornerstone of Ronald Reagan’s conservative appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision to rule in favor of the lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell in the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges rests on three simple words: “Constellation of Benefits,” found in the broader text “same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.”

Some Libertarians and Republicans have argued and fought for less government intrusion into our lives, less social engineering and wealth redistribution legislation, and have opposed identity politics like Affirmative Action and Title IX for decades. Therefore many Libertarians and Republicans may support marriage equality simply by not supporting government control of what constitutes a marriage in the first place.

Liberals who consistently support Affirmative Action, income inequality, wealth redistribution, and Title IX remain perfectly inconsistent when they support marriage equality as they selectively support homosexual and transgender causes over other groups like polygamy and marriages between parents and their abused children of legal age.

Evangelists will surely look to Religious Freedom Restoration legislation to protect themselves from the onslaught of legal battles that will surely come their way.

Trending: The Supreme Court Difference: Liberals want a Liberal, Conservatives want a Constitutionalist

The free fall of marriage as we know it is falling into the hands of our legislatures and lobbyists, who will surely target the foundation of marital benefits (aka “Constellation of Benefits”), religious freedoms (aka “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”), and other aspects of family law that will surely place big smiles on the faces of every divorce attorney in America.

justicekennedyDivorce law will be the new frontier. Who is the mother? How will the new landscape effect traditional marriage legal battles where the courts overwhelmingly support the Mother in child custody battles and alimony lawsuits?

How will millions of married couples, many of whom were married in a different time, a different generation, when their contracts clearly stated that marriage was between a man and a woman be impacted? Will they get a refund from the state? Will their contract become null and void?

The “Constellation of Benefits” that we have afforded to marriage and married couples originated from our founding Judaic Christian values to support family, community, estate planning, and procreation. Of course procreation as part of family building would now involve non-traditional methods of procreating and adoption.

Marital benefits to promote family have fundamentally changed to now include all citizens. If marital benefits now include everyone the questions really becomes why offer them in the first place? Marriage has really become nothing more than two people who love each other professing their love to the world. Love had nothing to do with marital benefits legislation. Estate planning, community building, family structure, and incentive for procreation to grow a strong and functional population is what the Supreme Court might one day rule as the “intention” of marital benefit laws.

Now that anyone can marry anyone, it seems the only population that is disenfranchised from Kennedy’s so-called marriage’s “constellation of benefits” is the poor, ugly, sick, socially dysfunctional, mentally ill, and those with special needs that prevent them from finding “love” that leads to marriage.

Aren’t single people entitled to the same “constellation of benefits” as those who choose marriage? If not, why not?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend