Is Boycotting Marriage Really the Answer

Is Boycotting Marriage Really the Answer



A National Boycott of Marriage until the "DOMA" (Defense of Marriage Act) is repealed may seem like an effective and valid way to demand equality and change, but is the boycott really the answer.



All great boycotts hit the boycotted where it hurts, but there seems to be some flaws in the boycott of marriage. While the cause is noble and a change offering all people, no matter their sexual orientation, the same legal rights and recognition is long over due, but the logic seems misguided.



As it stands, the government doesn't show issue with opposite sex couples marrying. In fact, the government offers these couples breaks with taxes and married (husband/wife) couples have certain rights when it comes to insurance companies. By dropping the number or married couples, you are actually doing the government and insurance companies a favor. It saves the government money to continue your single status and it keeps insurance companies from having to payout more money for claims filed by spouses.



The days of making change for equality and change's sake seem long gone. The battle for same sex marriage recognition seems to be more deeply rooted in economists and business than it is in morality. Maybe government officials mask their true intent by ringing immoral claims and throwing out bible verses. Why should government care if you are husband and husband or husband and wife? Is the true answer in the numbers? By recognizing marriages by same sex couples, the government and companies, like insurance, would be losing thousands of dollars on a monthly, even daily basis.



This appears to be a giant oversight by groups like LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning) and straight communities that are rallying support for The National Boycott of Marriage. It seems plausible that discrimination toward homosexual individuals maybe rooted more in greed and wealth than it is in a denial of equality.



It's hard to challenge the effectiveness of a cause that at face value seems brilliant, but when thought seems ineffective. Change is necessary, but eliciting change through metaphorical representation seems to be a wavering method that died with the 70's. The sad, dark truth is that money rules and morality can be bought. Is Boycotting Marriage Really the Answer



A National Boycott of Marriage until the "DOMA" (Defense of Marriage Act) is repealed may seem like an effective and valid way to demand equality and change, but is the boycott really the answer. DOMA was signed into law by former president Bill Clinton in 1996. This act made two distinctions about same sex marriage:


1. No state needs to treat a relationship between same sex couples as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government only defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.



All great boycotts hit the boycotted where it hurts, but there seems to be some flaws in the boycott of marriage. While the cause is noble and a change offering all people, no matter their sexual orientation, the same legal rights and recognition is long over due, but the logic underlining the boycott seems misguided.



As it stands, the government doesn't show issue with opposite sex couples marrying. In fact, the government offers these couples breaks with taxes and married (husband/wife) couples have certain rights when it comes to insurance companies. By dropping the number or married couples, you are actually doing the government and insurance companies a favor. It saves the government money to continue your single status and it keeps insurance companies from having to payout more money for claims filed by spouses.


One LGBTQ member spoke of the boycott as a persistent pricking thorn in the side of conservatives. For some members, it's not about doing financial damage, but about hurting conservative voters where it hurts, their pride. It was expressed that LGBTQ members want it to ache and annoying anti-gay rights supports by keeping opposite sex couples away from the alter. Instead of adding to the numbers of those who are married with rights, the National Marriage Boycott puts the strength in the numbers of those unmarried and still in love.



The days of making change for equality and change's sake seem long gone. The battle for same sex marriage recognition seems to be more deeply rooted in economists and business than it is in morality. Maybe government officials mask their true intent by ringing immoral claims and throwing out bible verses. Why should government care if you are husband and husband or husband and wife? Is the true answer in the numbers? By recognizing marriages by same sex couples, the government and companies, like insurance, would be losing thousands of dollars on a monthly, even daily basis.



This appears to be a giant oversight by groups like LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning) and straight communities that are rallying support for The National Boycott of Marriage. The community of equality started this campaign after the pass of proposition 8 and Obama's promise to campaign for the repeal of DOMA was removed from the priorities listed on the White House's webpage It seems plausible that discrimination toward homosexual individuals maybe rooted more in greed and wealth than it is in a denial of equality.



It's hard to challenge the effectiveness of a cause that at face value seems brilliant, but when thought seems ineffective. Change is necessary, but eliciting change through metaphorical representation seems to be a wavering method that died with the 70's. The sad, dark truth is that money rules and morality can be bought.

Thank you for taking time to review this information on sensuality and arousal. Please include a link to our site if using any portion of this work on your site including RSS feeds. This Original Article and any variations are owned by Executive Image International c.2009 Health and Beauty - Submit Best Offer