Why NOM would be fighting Obamacare instead of gays if it’s true purpose were to protect marriage

by CynthiaYockey on October 28, 2011


Today Fox News ran the story in the video above about how Obamacare will destroy marriage for the middle class because its means-testing requirements will force millions of couples to choose between marriage and health insurance. That’s because married couples who file joint federal tax returns will be means-tested by their combined income, but unmarried couples filing separately will not. Since marriage is optional, but Obamacare is mandatory, most unmarried middle class couples will have to forego marriage to afford their Obamacare. Obamacare may even force millions of couples to divorce.

The poor, the disabled and the elderly who need long term nursing home care already know how means-tested health insurance discourages marriages or forces divorces thanks to Medicaid. (One of the toughest things estate attorneys have to tell their married clients is that they should divorce promptly if one of them may need nursing home care in order to protect the spouse who is still able to live independently from being left destitute by Medicaid’s means tests.)

I pointed out that Obamacare will destroy marriage for everyone on March 24, 2010, the day after Obama signed Obamacare into law.

If the National Organization for Marriage really cared about protecting marriage, Obamacare is the asteroid that is going to make it all but extinct. If NOM’s true purpose were to protect marriage, it would be fighting the things that truly threaten it.

 

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

  • Liz

    Oh, Cynthia. Don’t bring logic into this.

    I think a large part of the problem is that opposing Obamacare would be, like, hard. If NOM actually went after that, they would have to have debate certain issues. These issues include explaining exactly *why* it’s better for people to marry than to just live together, and why the govt should encourage marriage above cohabitation.

    That would involve taking on the vast – and increasing – numbers of out of out of wedlock births and single parents. The left would have a field day, bringing out the sainted Hardworking Martyred Single Mom, accusing the socons of raaaaacism, slut shaming and wanting single parents to starve.

    (As you might be able to tell, I’m of the Ann Coulter school when it comes to single parenthood. I think it’s monstrously selfish and bad for both the individuals and for society as a whole to deliberately have and and raise a child out of wedlock. Huckabee was right about Natalie Portman.)

    But the left AORES it when socons start bashing LGBTs who simply want to live the socons’ idea of the good life,  with a spouse of the same sex. Not least because many of them – and their supporters – agree with them. All they have to to get the LGBT vote is not be quite as bad, without having to do anything to bring about real change. It’s not what you are. It’s what you’re compared to. And, this way, they don’t have to risk antagonising the black/Hispanic voters.

    So, basically, NOM are a bunch of cowards who use hating Teh Gheyz as a way to “defend” marriage without taking on the trends that actually endanger it..

    • Liz

      Um, that’s “ADORES”, not “AORES”

  • Peter

     Linda Lou and I are discussing divorce for the very reasons you state. We’re also hoping we can come up with the energy to do some of that sinning they talk about when they say “living in sin”. As it stands our sex life mostly consists of arguing about whose turn it is to hurt too badly for makin’ whoopee.

     Just had to get old, couldn’t die young and leave a good lookin corpse, no., that would’ve been too smart.

Previous post:

Next post: