, , , ,

Remember former state representative Cynthia Davis? Slightly nutty and seriously dim denizen of the lands on the far right shores of dominionist Christian extremism? Now that she no longer has a legislative outlet, she shares her very special political views by means of an internet talk show. Via the Turner Report, we  now have her considered opinion about why same-sex couples want to get married, and, trust me, it has nothing to do with any rationale for same-sex marriage that we’ve ever heard before.

No, same-sex marriage is, according to Davis, a ruse to “drain” the Social Security fund. Seems she “was doing research” on the Social Security Administration Website and found that now that same-sex marriage is legal, gay and lesbian partners are eligible for Social Security and Social Security Disability benefits in the same way that married heterosexual couples are. And, goosed by mental incoherence, revelation suddenly blazed forth:

So there you have it. The purpose of changing the definition of marriage was intended to drain the Social Security fund more quickly. When we allow people who are not actually married to receive marital benefits, the end result is that people will “get married” based upon what kind of monetary bonus is available.

It works the other way as well. When people discover they can extract more money from being in a divorced status, they divorce.

This is fraud. Yet, you can’t blame the people for being smart. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the Congress who are charged with the duty of controlling their own created bureaucracies.

How could anyone ever think fornication is promotable or merits financial reward? If the Supreme Court jurists, who are supposed to be legally brilliant, are that blind, what can we expect out of our normal citizens?

The part about folks who are “not actually married” must, I think, refer to a statement on the Webpage that indicates benefits may be available to a surviving partner in a non-marital, legal same sex relationship. This refers to state-recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships. These categories of relationship were devised precisely in order to make the legal system fairer for committed same-sex couples without offending folks like Davis who wanted to keep “marriage” exclusively for heterosexuals. At any rate, the provision now makes even more sense since these are folks who would have been married if they had not been denied their constitutional rights.

The provision for divorced spouses is of fairly long standing and is designed to take care of women or men who stayed at  home and provided support for their spouses during their marriages, only to be left with no or minimal Social Security earnings after their divorces. They may, if they wish, calculate their social security income based on their spouses’ work record and receive the equivalent of 50% of what their spouses would receive. Seems only fair to me.

Although Davis might not like extending benefits to same-sex couples – or to anyone – it’s hard to figure where the “fraud”  that has her all riled up can be found. Perhaps she should have done a little more research or asked someone capable of parsing English – and following links on the Social Security Webpages – to explain how these benefits work.

It is a mystery how she  managed to construe anything in the text she cites as promoting “fornication.” There have been people who fornicate for money since the beginning of recorded history, but I don’t think that fact has anything to do with same-sex marriage or the rules for paying out Social Security benefits. Perhaps it’s Davis whose mind is just a little too much “dans la boue,” as one of my French teachers used to say when she heard ideas or language that struck her as crude.

As for draining social security, don’t you think it might have occurred to Davis that these same-sex partners have been paying into the Social Security fund just like the rest of us, but haven’t been able to tap into the same range of benefits? Is it possible that Davis likes having a class of individuals denied the same rights as others for strictly financial reasons?  

Just for funsies, Davis might also think about what would happen if all same-sex marriage partners were magically to become straight overnight. After she yelled “hallelujah,” would she start worrying about the Social Security fund? Wouldn’t these new heterosexuals likely “drain” just as much from the fund through the opposite-sex marriages they might contract?

Perhaps Davis thinks that marriage itself is designed to drain the Social Security fund? Which would explain why she has claimed in the past that marriage is the cure for poverty. It must be all that Social Security fraud that is enriching married heterosexuals.