Same-Sex Subsidy
Though the Republicans now have their
candidate, the neck-and-neck Democratic race for the White House
continues. Both parties want a big turn out in November and some aren’t
above using devious means to reach that goal. Here in my home state of
Florida one of the techniques to prime the election pump is to put the
same-sex marriage issue on the November ballot.
Florida law already defines marriage as
exclusively between a man and a woman but Florida 4 Marriage, a right wing
initiative created in 2004 by the Florida Convention of Baptist Ministers
and funded with a $300,000 donation from the Florida Republican Party, has
collected enough signatures to place the same-sex marriage issue on the
November ballot as an amendment to the state constitution. Some Floridians
apparently don’t feel that the law is enough of a barrier to the evil
gay destructive forces aimed at the American family and are willing to
tamper with the state constitution in order to advance their cause.
Most rational Florida residents, even those
against same-sex marriage, recognize that the amendment is superfluous and
merely a ploy to bring right wing voters to the polls in November in the
hope that a large turn out will help insure a Republican presidency.
Governor Christ, a Republican, to his credit has publicly stated that,
“The Republican Party should not underwrite the campaign to amend the
constitution since Florida has higher priorities.” But, as if the
political pool weren’t muddy enough with the issues of Iraq, the
economy, education, immigration and health care, the amendment is bound to
muddy it more by injecting a guaranteed source of controversy. Tossing
same-sex marriage to red-neck Floridians is like tossing a raw steak to a
starving pit bull.
All is not lost, however. I have a plan
that will equitably solve the same-sex marriage controversy and I’m
waiting for one of the candidates to endorse it.
My plan is simple—subsidize gays and
lesbians not to marry. Since our real gripe isn’t that we can’t walk
down the aisle of some religious sanctuary arm in arm—the churches will
do what they want about recognizing same-sex relationships—but rather
that we are discriminated against economically by the government, it seems
reasonable to expect the government to provide a financial subsidy to gays
and lesbians to stay unwed thereby eliminating the inequality between
married and unmarried couples.
There’s plenty of federal precedent for
providing financial subsidies to worthy citizens for inaction. Farmers
annually haul in a multi-billion dollar bonanza for not planting tobacco,
not planting cotton, or whatever, so why shouldn’t single people who are
partnered and in a committed relationship be similarly rewarded by the
government for remaining single? If the government wants to support the
so-called family values of one segment of our population, let them put
their money where their mouth is—or, more accurately put their money
where my mouth is.
In typical Washington election year frenzy
opponents to my idea will scream, “Where will the money come from? We
can’t afford it!” But I figure the subsidy costs can easily be covered
by adding a tax—no, that’s a dirty word in an election year so call it
a marriage surcharge, or a non-voluntary equality contribution—to each
and every marriage license. Perhaps a hundred or two hundred dollars per
license would be an appropriate starting point. This added cost to wed
might test the sincerity of the Britney Spears wannabes looking for a
fifty-five hour romp in the hay. It would help protect the exclusivity of
the institution of marriage by making it more expensive thereby
eliminating the riff-raff, and the poor riff-raff at that, from this
sacred institution. What better defense of the family?
Add to the money generated by this
non-voluntary government imposed contribution the money that would be
saved by states like Florida by not having to put stupid and unnecessary
constitutional amendments on the ballot and the subsidy funds are
guaranteed. The Same-Sex Subsidy sounds like an accurate descriptor for my
plan, but the SSS acronym evokes images of men in black goose-stepping
across the stage. This is hardly the image we’d want for a step forward
in equal rights. Perhaps it would be best to name the non-tax the Marriage
Equalization, Same-Sex, or MESS for short. It has a certain ring of
truthfulness about it.
I recognize that it would take a whole new
bureaucracy to administer such a program, but the government is good at
establishing bureaucracies and any presidential aspirant would see this as
a challenge and an opportunity —more political plums to pass out,
thousands of new jobs to create. And best of all a select team of gay
decorators will be entrusted with color selections, furnishings and
fabrics for the federal and the regional offices. The Fab Four will be
relegated to historical annals as the Fab Five Hundred Federal Fruit-Flies
take over.
The biggest problem that I can foresee will
be the selection of an appropriate name and a suitable acronym to
designate this important mission. The Bureau for Same-Sex Subsidies has a
certain appeal to it, but BSSS might be confused with BSA, the Boy Scouts
of America, or just plain BS, and that’s no way to start an important
program like this. Agency for Marital Protection, or AFMP, sounds like
something I’d look for in the electrical section at Home Depot. Had the
term not already become a symbol of cronyism, mismanagement and
incompetence FEMA, the Federal Equality Marriage Agency, would have
worked.
Oh well, our new president will have four
years to work out the details, that is if he or she has the foresight and
leadership to champion my plan.
John Siegfried, a former Rehoboth resident who now lives in Ft.
Lauderdale, maintains strong ties to our community and can be reached at hsajds@aol.com.
|
Back to Top of Page 