Halo Halo: Cake, Flowers, Pizza and Jesus

May 2015 Socialist StandardI thought the comment "Wouldn’t it have been easier just to find another bloody baker?" was objectionable.The job of bakers under capitalism is to bake for profit not to express their bigotry.

Well in reference to the Southern Baptist florist and pizza shop opposed to gay weddings raking in thousands of dollars profit, the conclusion of the article pretty shamefully states "There must be a lesson there somewhere." The implication being there is more profit in opposing gay weddings than supporting them.

I, for one, don't recognise same-sex "marriages". I'm not opposed to or support these now state-approved arrangements, but it is not marriage in any meaningful sense of the word, apart from the inheritance factor. Seems to be something of an affectation. A sop to a section of the working class by the state to keep 'em happy for a while, and to make them feel as if they've made "gains".To be clear, I don't support or oppose conventional marriage either, but I recognise the function they serve in a private property society.

Heterosexual marriages exist to establish property rights, and to indicate the lineage of any children. These days, it may be useful to highlight inherited medical problems. Historically, it also had the effect of gaining societal approval of activities you otherwise didn't talk about.Same-sex "marriages" are biologically sterile unions, and seem only to exist to establish property and inheritance rights with the maximum tax avoidance on the same basis as heterosexual marriage.And why stop there? How about bisexual (i.e. three-way) marriage? Or four-way?Same-sex "marriage" is no more marriage than nationalisation is socialism.

Same-sex marriage is even sterile on the property front. If partner A dies, their property goes to partner B. When B dies without "remarrying" what happens to their property? Even if they leave a will their estate will still be taxable–they're back to square one.It's a bit like the old days when people got married just before the end of the financial year, so that they could gain the greatest tax benefit.

It would only be null and void if it was their stated intention at the time of their marriage not to have children. Again, I'm not saying I'm supporting or opposing these institutions. It's a question of definition.