Flogging a Dead Horse

Yesterday, the Senate blocked the Federal Marriage Amendment from going to a vote (with its much repeated vote not even getting a majority). The Federal Marriage Amendment is an amendment designed to take power away from the states, and also to block same-sex marriages and civil unions. However, the victory at a federal level is not necessarily a victory at all. As Dianne Feinstein pointed out on Monday, many states have marriage limitations already on the books. Many more states also have state constitutional amendments limiting the definition of marriage on this November's ballot, including Michigan.

This brings us to ask why are the activist senators trying to put a restrictive amendment on the ballot? Well, as resident slimeball Sen. Rick Santorum was stateing, countries where homosexual marriage has been legalized, such as Denmark and The Netherlands, out-of-wedlock births have gone up. Actually, I can conquor that with some facts that aren't being revealed. he rates of heterosexual marriage has not gone down since the legalization of homosexual marriage. However, I learned from a Dane that marriage is best reserved for deathbed results. Why? Because in Denmark, it is more expensive to live as two separate people, instead of one married couple. The taxes are cheaper that way. This on top of a nationalized health care system which doesn't need marriage for health benefits, unlike America.

Apparently (barring some research), America had the same thing going on sometime in the 70s. They had taken away tax benefits for married couples, so couples would divorce in December, before they had to file, then use their tax return money to take a vacation and get married again! How convienent. The marriage tax benefits went back into place fairly quickly.

The only question I have is with the marriage recognition stuff. If your marriage is not recognized by the state which you live in, will the federal government still grant you the tax breaks which you would get in another state?