The Weblog

Home for the heteronomous

Gay marriage cap-and-trade

The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 but allowed the existing gay marriages to stand. The question that arises is what happens when, as is virtually inevitable, one of the gay married couples decides to divorce. On the one hand, they will, you know, want to get divorced on a personal level. On the other hand, however, they will probably feel like they’re betraying the cause by reducing the number of gay people who are legally married.

For this reason, I propose that the California Supreme Court issue a supplemental ruling implementing a gay marriage cap and trade system. The total number of gay marriages in the state is capped at whatever number happened to exist presently. Once one of those marriages is dissolved, either through death or divorce, it opens up a new slot that can be auctioned off to help California’s budget crisis.

About these ads

May 26, 2009 - Posted by | family values, politics

15 Comments

  1. Since courthouse weddings are supplementally financed by taxpayer money, and since gay marriages aren’t allowed any more, I suggest to exempt the gay community from paying California State taxes.

    Comment by charlotte | May 26, 2009

  2. Ever the theology student, debating the number of gay marriages that can fit atop the head of a pin…Your proposal is clearly the best one, though.

    Comment by infinite thought | May 27, 2009

  3. Well Ideal solution would be that any and all restriction upon homosexual marriages lifted. Too bad it is not up to me to decide.

    Comment by Systen | May 27, 2009

  4. Wow, that’s pathetically stupid. A cap and trade scheme? They’re people not animals you know. Why not just allow them the same rights and freedoms as hetrosexual couples, and to keep some people happy call what they have a different name rather than marriage.

    Wow I think my solution is far more simple and it doesn’t violate any rights! Who’d a thought?

    Comment by Chase Stevens | May 27, 2009

  5. LOL..your proposal gives some humor and light to this gray matter. Thanks. Good thing Bill Gates is already married or the Gay community might find itself in a monopolized trouble.

    Comment by inkmartyr | May 27, 2009

  6. That´s a good idea, really it is.

    Comment by Ducker | May 27, 2009

  7. Interestingly, that is a good idea.

    Massachusettes made over $19m in two months on gay marriage licenses and paperwork.

    Gay marriage is good for the economy.

    Comment by mcclaud | May 27, 2009

  8. Gay marriage is not a religious issue, it is an issue about the government protecting and providing for its citizens. The gay community contributes in the same ways to taxes and everything else as heterosexuals do … then why deny them the right to get married to whoever they want to? It’s just stupid. I mean, do we want to bring religion into politics but then cringe at the idea of bringing politics into religion. WTF people, whatever happened to tolerance? Isn’t that what Jesus’s message is all about?

    Comment by stitchchick | May 27, 2009

  9. Chase Stevens said, “They’re people not animals you know. Why not just allow them the same rights and freedoms as hetrosexual couples, and to keep some people happy call what they have a different name rather than marriage.”

    You wouldn’t know they were people (instead of animals, or monsters even) based on the hateful way conservatives talk about them. Ever seen that goofy “Gathering Storm” video?

    And to think, the Prop 8 thing was funded by the Mormon Church which, of course, has its own checkered past when it comes to “marriage”.

    PS: In states that are proposing “civil union” laws, conservatives are still upset about it.

    Bottom line is they just don’t like gay people — marriage (or “civil unions”) really has nothing to do with it other than it “polls well” with folks in the mainstream who are not uber-conservative.

    Besides, what do you say to the couples who want to actually be married instead of “civil unioned”?

    Are they supposed to go around telling people their “civil anniversary” is coming up and that they’ve been “unioned for x years” now?

    Comment by Idea | May 27, 2009

  10. This is an insulting suggestion. Civil rights is an all inclusive concept, not an idea that excludes people based upon sexual preference. If you are indeed a proponent of civil rights, please do not act with bigotry towards any segment of the population. Many generations of Americans have worked hard to instate Civil Rights in this country. Do not use the work that they have done to mask your own hatred and intolerance

    Comment by rain miner | May 27, 2009

  11. The idea of the post is a joke. The California Supreme Court decision makes no sense, so I decided to mock it. I am in favor of gay marriage.

    Comment by Adam Kotsko | May 27, 2009

  12. wow! that really took a spin.

    Comment by inkmartyr | May 27, 2009

  13. @ Adam – Methinks some people wouldn’t know a joke if it came up and bit ‘em on the nose.

    Comment by Idea | May 27, 2009

  14. Identity politics is a sideshow. Those in the know (in California) recognize the issue has become California’s strange laxity in amending the state constitution. We’ve amended it 500 times since it was written, and if you think that the failure to support gay marriage is our biggest problem, you missed Proposition 13. No matter who is raising the children, gays or straight, the Prop. 13 debacle ensures your children will be poorly educated due to the anti-tax victories of the 1970s. Meanwhile, you’re obsessing on the failed institution of marriage.

    Comment by Morgan | May 28, 2009

  15. I don’t believe in “Gay Marriage” for the same reason I don’t believe in “Colored Drinking Fountains”, “White Lunch Counters”, and “A Jewish Seat on the Supreme Court”. (The majority of current Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholics; if we were serious about this kind of thing most of them would be out of a job.)

    I was raised Catholic back in the days when Separation of Church and State was still a Good Thing because we were protected from persecution by the heretical protestant majority. Back then the priests and nuns always taught us the difference between Civil Marriage (a legal contract) and Holy Matrimony (a sacrament). Civil Marriage is totally secular and should be; it is not about a blessing from a god. Holy Matrimony is totally spiritual and should be; it is not about legal rights and responsibilities. Why is this so difficult to understand?

    Comment by ChicagoMolly | May 31, 2009


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers

%d bloggers like this: