What the Supreme Court Could Do for us.

If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable, they don't lead to predictable results, they're difficult to apply, that's one factor supporting reconsideration. --John Roberts

In the Wizer's post "Follow the Money", I pointed out that the gay rights advocacy people don't want the rights so much as the rewards they perceive are due them, simply by virtue of their civic unions.

Now it is time to address the real issue: Favorable treatment for married people. This is special rights accorded to married people.  There is nothing in the constitution that addresses alimony, child support, insurance coverage for spouses, or the ever popular "married filing jointly". Why are married people given more rights than the unmarried? That is what is wrong with the law.

Okay, fine. The right thing to do now, it seems, is to discontinue any rights ascribed to marriage that would not otherwise covered under contract law. The beauty of such an approach is that people, all people, are free to enter into contracts with each other. It eliminates a big problem with the chief constitutional aspect of this initiative: that is, that there would be any laws that seek to assign rights to special interest groups. The measure would have the side benefit of causing people to be more responsible for the nature of their relationships. An employer, through its employment structure is free to extend additional benefits to spouses as they see fit, but the government would be prevented from extending "rights" to any special interest group...traditional or otherwise. Just simply end favorable treatment for married people.

This way it will prevent an endless parade of special interest groups wanting "rights" extended to them by virtue of one association or another. Freedom of association has long been a hallmark of our government and our constitution. But those associations should not be given free rein to carve out special rights of their own.

Since John Roberts has seen fit to rewrite an argument before, here's one where he could actually fix the real problem, instead of blandly weighing arguments from two wrong sides. That would be a nice precedent for this court to make.