Readers Write
So this dude, Anonymous left me some comments. Way to go Anony! Verily I shalt reply below.
Also, note for the unblogging crowd: if you comment, please please please sign your posts. Even if I don't know you or if you want to use the alias that I've given you in here, whatever. The anonymous comments feel like the voice of God talking to me, and that's a little intimidating. Also a symptom of a disorder.
Anyway, A. Nony Mous commented twice (or maybe it was two dudes, but they sound the same) here.
I'll respond sort of point-by-point, of course ignoring the points I don't want to cover and/or don't have an answer for. 'Cause I can.
"why is government even involved in marriage at all? it shouldn't be."
Well, I'm not sure about that. I'm okay with the government putting some sort of tax and other legal benefits on couples that decide to enter into long-term partnerships. Even if you want to quibble over the tax benefits part of that statement, think about medical care, dispersal of common property after the death of a partner, rights over children raised within the family. In the early days of the AIDS crisis, there were all kinds of heartwrenching stories of long-term partners being denied access to the hospital beds of their dying companions. Or of a patient's wishes, clearly expressed to a partner, being overridden by a family from which the patient had been estranged for years. Or of the surviving partner being tossed out of the home they'd lived in for years because some one died without leaving a will.
Listen, there are good reasons to provide some clear legal status to committed long-term partners. We live in a bureaucracy, so there's got to be paperwork on these things. My argument is that it should be open to all. The rules of citizenship, whether they are in regards to jaywalking, voting, marriage, whatever, have to apply evenly across the board to everyone.
"as for the IRS, dear God, what a travesty that it even exist, but it does and so must be dealt with"
Hoooooboy. Here's my thing: do you drive on roads? Do you like calling 911 and having someone answer? Do you like having a military force that protects this country's borders (without getting into any arguments about anything that military may be currently engaged in)? Do you like the idea that all the little kiddies in the country go to school? Do you like turning on a tap and having water come out of it? Do you like knowing that, to some degree, the food you buy at the store and the medicines your doctor prescribes have been tested and monitored and have to meet certain standards? Do you like student loans? Do you like national parks? Do you like museums? How about libraries?
We live in a society, all of us do, and any benefits of that society are felt by all of us. Nony, if you drive to work, if you took out a loan to help with the cost of college, if you don't drink from a well you dug yourself or grow your own crops or treat yourself with herbal concoctions--you are enjoying the benefits that the IRS makes possible. I hate paying taxes, too. But unless you are living on a two acre atoll and connecting to the internet via a coconut computer powered by a monkey on a bicycle, then you are getting some chunk of the gubment cheese, even if it's hard to see. We've got to pay our dues to live in the society we've got.
Now we're onto Mr. Randal Vinson (and I'm pretty proud of the phrase "slack-jawed jackass," it's got some good vowels in there, some serious resonance and rhythms), whereat Nony has a good point:
"this is a quote from one person in tennessee and i can find its mirror in the north as well, why hate the south for one example?"
Yeah, it's a prejudice. I'm sure there are lots of open-minded nice people down there. And it's not like we're all calm and rational paragons of virtue up here, either. I oughtn't talk like everyone south of Cincinnati is a Klan member.
So there you go. Keep the cards and letters coming, folks. I'll post a complete Stratford report later today or perhaps tomorrow.
2 comments:
Is it really such a wonder that I don't "'blog?" Good Grief. I get the distinct feeling that the response I'd end up giving to any such comments made with regard to my "'blog" would read "F--- you, f--- you, and f--- you. Who's next? Do not presume to question This Guy." :P
voice of god, huh? sorry about that, don't mean to be intimidating and i certainly don't rank that highly. and yes, those were both me. per your most gracious request, i shall sign begin to sign my comments. i say that government should not be in marriage and still stand by that. the benefits you ascribe to government's involvement would (and should) be associated with a separate and optional civil union that should be available to any couple. ever try to get a church wedding without a government issued marriage license? the government version of this should not be mandatory for the religous service, let alone bound together. to do so is to select one religion's version of marriage above any others as the standard. some religions permit, even encourage, polygamy. should this be the standard that government selects? most religions would cry foul at that, though when polygamy was outlawed, a religious group was essencially told it couldn't practice a portion of their faith because it didn't match the "officially selected version" of marriage the government chose to adopt. i wanted to see government completely out of marriage and all existing marriage licenses converted to civil union licenses long before the gay marriage debate came up. i also want to see religious marriage unimpeded by any government requirement for permission. i know of many couples that wanted the religous service (and are more bound by it) without the legal version and see no reason to bar them from it. i agree that the couples should have the option of legal recognition of their union regardless of sex. as a counter question though, are you willing to take it a step further?
as to the IRS, i didn't really want to open that can of worms, but you did for me so here goes: we had roads and armies before we had the IRS. we are billed separately on our phone bill for the 911 service. we are billed separately for our water service. these aren't made available by the IRS nor paid for by them. that isn't my problem with the IRS anyway. it's a clause in the Constitution that says, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" which is supposed to be applied to individuals unilaterally. unfortunately, this doesn't apply to the IRS, if the IRS decides to audit you, you are GUILTY until you prove otherwise. and have you ever actually seen a complete tax law book? it would take months to actually read it and probably years to decipher it without leaving time to do anything else (like earn a living). why must this be so complex if not to trap people into making mistakes? i understand that taxes are an unfortunate nessecity in any large civilization, but creating a government agency that violates a basic principle the country was founded on and giving it a separate set of laws so complex that there is no possible way average joe can understand the full set of them in time to comply before they change again (the tax laws change every year) is a recipe for Trouble. i would be very happy to scrap the tax codes and the IRS and replace both with a much simpler plan: the first $10,000 per dependant is tax free, and a fixed percent beyond that for individuals, and the same percentage for business without the per dependant part. let's look at some examples: married couple with 2 kids earning $37,000 in the year -- taxes=0, same married couple, same 2 kids, this time earning $80,000 in the year, first $40,000 is tax free, so they are taxed on $40,000. same married couple, same 2 kids, making $160,000 in the year would be taxed on $120,000 -- simple enough yet the more you make, the smaller that tax free portion is by comparison. businesses on the other hand don't have dependants, so businesses would not get a tax free portion of profits.
at present i'm not going to touch the student loans, national parks, etc. because i just don't have the time. though as a side note, i think i could arrange the coconut computer and could certainly arrange the monkey powered. ;)
as for randal, i think you've pretty well identified him, 'nough said.
very much enjoy reading your blog. keep going.
and as you've requested some kind of signature:
---The Dancer in the Shadows
Post a Comment