More McHenry County Blog

BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM: Traditional Marriage is under attack and diminishment. The dilution of societal incentives and benefits to enter into, and maintain marriages for the purposes of raising stable and well-adjusted future citizens will diminish and ultimately destroy our society as we know it today.

Our founding fathers knew well that no stable and flourishing society, and no democracy, can exist without the unit of human organization known as the nuclear family.

Saying the above, citizens need to pursue supporting such traditional institution while honoring States’ rights to determine the religious and personal lives of their citizens. It is suggested by candidate Ken Arnold that going as far as having an Amendment to our Federal Constitution is a slight over-reaching of Federal power. It is a STATE’S primary responsibility to regulate such affairs within its borders while not thereby forcing other States to agree or condone such actions by that other State.

Even if the respective States decide for themselves, and even if no other State has to recognize such marriage within their borders, don't OTHER States (and the taxpayers within them) STILL have a high interest in this issue within that other State?

Clearly, the answer is YES!

ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION:

Why do the residents of other States have a direct interest in such affairs? Two reasons very quickly come to mind:

1) EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: As an employee benefits professional working for multistate firms, candidate Ken Arnold knows these "married spouses" would then be entitled to company employee benefits that OTHER employees of that same firm living in other states would be denied. And, mind you, with employee benefits now typically composing approx. 40% of an employee's total compensation, “…this ain't no chicken feed”. Dependent Life Insurance, Medical/Dental/Vision Plan coverages, and even Pension Plan "survivor benefit rights" would be placed in jeopardy under such environment. Why should, then, Employee A get so many more benefits including a survivor pension benefit and Employee B - doing the same job for the same company - get so much less in total compensation???

2) FEDERAL TAXATION: Federal taxation is materially influenced on whether you are a married taxpayer or a single one. And although there are many instances where "the marriage penalty" comes into play - there are many others where jointly filing is clearly a money saver to the taxpayer and a money loser to the U.S. Treasury. In such cases, the "State-by-State" concept of handling gay marriages also presently falls apart here. This is because you effectively are asking State B taxpayers to "subsidize" State A’s residents (State A having such Gay marriages) on a basis that State B’s citizens cannot also take advantage of (State B having traditional marriage laws). Not only is that patently unfair -- but Candidate Arnold wonders if that would even pass legal muster under the equal protection clause of the United States. In essence, one is asking State B taxpayers to make up the difference in lost revenues from State A’s independent decision to have gay marriages.

3) FEDERAL WELFARE AND OTHER ASSISTANCE: The amount of Federal welfare assistance given to beneficiaries is dependent upon whether they have dependents – including “spouses”. In States where marriage would be allowed for citizens other than one man and one woman, the Federal taxpayers of the States NOT with such provision would effectively be asked to pay higher Federal taxes for higher benefit payouts they are neither eligible for nor perhaps even in agreement with. This is a similar injustice to that mentioned in point #2 above regarding taxation…

The perplexing problems of gay marriage MUST be uniformly resolved on a national basis in some manner. Otherwise: I certainly would not want to be that Employee Benefits Manager or IRS agent "explaining the illogical" as the above considerations well outline. Stating this, the solutions need not overreach to have a Federal, constitutional amendment and effectively take away the right to regulate such affairs at the State level, either. After all – marriage licenses are STATE licenses, not Federal…

The balance creatively proposed by candidate Ken Arnold in the criteria of supporting and reinforcing the institution of traditional marriage while respecting States rights is truly an American solution that is quite in keeping with our Federal form of government.

It is a simple solution. An act of Congress – not a full blown amendment to our very Constitution. It would be an act that would simply state:

“No citizen shall receive a benefit, nor incur a detriment, in any federal program or laws EXCEPT when it is a marital union between one man and one woman.”

ADVANTAGES:

The above initiative effectively takes citizens in other States out of the equation in the affairs of another State. Citizens of Illinois, for instance, will not have any interests in the affairs of the State of California. They need not recognize such marriage (given The Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 1990s), and they are not asked to pay for such arrangements that are NOT traditional marriage in nature.

The above preserves our structure of Federalism in the operations of our country. Here in America there are 50 flavors of government – each respecting the other. This is as our Founding Fathers deemed it. Citizens can “vote with their feet” as to which flavor of government and society they are comfortable living within. What a marvelous system that has held us together for well over 225 years!

Candidate Ken Arnold strongly desires to defend and support traditional marriage. [He has worked hard currently circulating the Illinois Defense of Marriage referendum petition to make one man/one woman the clear “law of the land” – within Illinois, for instance]. But installing the above Federal law makes for he and other citizens to not so much care how somebody in California, for instance, lives their life. We would be unaffected. We live in the great State of Illinois! And we all have then preserved this marvelous experiment our forefathers started – an experiment called a Federal style of government.

Ken Arnold believes that’s worth preserving!

Ken Arnold – Republican Candidate
U.S. Congress – 8th District of Illinois
January 13, 2006 – Revised and Updated December 8, 2007
Ken@Arnoldforyou.com
www.ArnoldforCongress.com


ARNOLD FOR CONGRESS
“ Strong, Creative Leadership . . . for the 21 st Century ! “

Labels: 8th Congressional District, Defense of Marriage, Melissa Bean