Our Federal Government Is Discriminatory

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Federal Express (FedEx) was simply following federal law. But a surviving spouse disagrees.

A homosexual (lesbian) couple lived together for many years. One of them was employed by FedEx. She was with the company for 26 years where she accumulated a decent pension. The couple was together for about the same amount of time.

In 2010 the FedEx employee was diagnosed with cancer and in 2012 “ the cancer had grown so severe that she took a medical leave of absence from work. As one of her last acts on Earth, Lesly Taboada-Hall married Stacey Schuett in a California civil ceremony officiated by a county supervisor. Taboada-Hall died the next day.”

Problems arose when the survivor Schuett petitioned for her partners FedEx pension benefits. See, Taboada-Hall died six days before United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court decision that struck down DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Hillary Clinton’s husband.

FedEx claims, and rightly so, that DOMA was the law of the land at the time of her partner’s passing and they were following the law, which they were obligated to do. Her partner died a few days too early.

Lesly Taboata-HallReasonable people should hardly blame FedEx for this unfortunate matter of timing. Schuett is however blaming them. But her anger should not be directed at the company, but rather at the federal government’s meddling in areas it doesn’t belong and was never intended.

Marriage is a religious ceremony where a man and woman are bound (figuratively) together before God. It is not and should not be a secular ceremony. But it has become that thanks to progressives in government and the manipulation of the onerous tax code.

The tradition has until recently always been that marriage is between one man and one woman. And that is exactly what it has always been – a religious tradition – one the federal government should never have involved itself in. As if God needs the help of the United States government to define marriage.

Just like the government is prohibited from establishing or even favoring one religion over another, it should never have injected itself into the sacrament of marriage. Marriage is never mentioned or even hinted at in the Constitution. And if this is the case, which it is, the matter should always have been “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (10th Amendment).

I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but it is no business of the government to decide. On this I actually agree with the LGBT EIEIO lobby. The government is discriminating against them, just as they are discriminating against unmarried couples and single people.

Through the federal tax system, progressive federal know-it-alls decided to favor married couples over unmarried, just as they decided to discriminate against apartment dwellers by favoring homeowners, whites over blacks and then blacks over whites and so on and so on.

But like every other thing they are not supposed to be involved in, progressives in government created this problem long ago – choosing winners and losers. And when the losers complain, the government attempts to do what they always do – ride in to rescue the losers from the system they set up to discriminate against them.

So where will it lead? How absurd does it have to get before we must all agree that the source of all these problems is federal government meddling?

I am reminded of an episode of the Big Bang Theory. One of the science geeks, Raj, who is perpetually lonely, gets a new iPhone. The phone comes with SIRI, the Speech Interpretation and Recognition Interface. SIRI, as most know, has a female voice. The lonely and pathetic Raj develops a relationship with the voice.

How long will it be before some pitiful individual demands to marry his phone or some artificial intelligence device or personal robotic mate? How long until virtual reality is so advanced and life-like that some lonely soul demands visitation rights for his or her virtual partner or insists that the machine has a “right” to his or her death benefits?

Sound absurd? Just wait – its coming.

The only way to rectify this situation is to pry the government loose from the tradition of marriage, as well as all other discriminatory meddling of the nanny state. It’s time our government got out of the business of picking winners and losers.

About the Common Constitutionalist

Brent, aka The Common Constitutionalist, is a Constitutional Conservative, and advocates for first principles, founders original intent and enemy of progressives. He is former Navy, Martial Arts expert. As well as publisher of the Common Constitutionalist blog, he also is a contributing writer for Political Outcast, Godfather Politics, Minute Men News (Liberty Alliance), Freedom Outpost, the Daily Caller, Vision To America and Free Republic. He also writes an exclusive weekly column for World Net Daily (WND).

One comment on “Our Federal Government Is Discriminatory

  1. It’s long past time our government got out of a lot of things—private things and business things. Marriage is one of thousands of things it’s intrusion has corrupted. Reagan’s oft repeated quote about gov’t being the problem, not the solution is truer today than ever. And it’s growing like its own cancer every day under Barry though it was already a massively parasitic growth before.

    The last thing we need is another lunatic, narcissistic megalomaniac dictating from on high. We need a restoration “artist”, one who can begin the process of restoring that great work of art that is our Constitutional Republic to it’s full glory. It has been defiled, defaced and suffered such damage over the centuries but it is still there, waiting to be rediscovered under the many layers of filth and graffiti added with both good and bad intent, as the amazing work of art it is.

    For the purposes of this article, those women failed to have a contract which would protect their choice and enforce it. In this situation, marriage is merely a legal contract–one of several which could have done what they wanted. That they were too ignorant to obtain a different type of contract, one which WAS available to them, is sad but does not rise to the level of a “federal case”.

    As for the federal gov’t being “discriminatory”…well…YEAH…duh! It discriminates against the Constitution, our rights and common sense every day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *