Discrimination through Marital Status
December 30, 2012
You might often hear, or say, that someone has the legal right to do something, you might believe you have a legal right to walk down the street without being interrupted, you might believe you have a legal right to send your children to school, you might believe you have a legal right to say something or write it and let others know it, but there is a difference between what is right and what is legal. We do not necessarily have a legal right as much as we have a legal guarantee to be able to do something, and we hope that what we guarantee in law is guaranteed because it is right to protect it by preventing the existence of behaviors preventing or interference with it. What we do not have is a guarantee or a law that all of what we believe is right is guaranteed to be legal, and we do not have a legal guarantee that what is right is protected by the law. In fact, what we have are many things that are right that are not legally guaranteed, and among them is the free choice of employment of every citizen who works, and lacking that guarantee in the law, we need to put it in the law.
There are many examples of disparity between the individual in society and the individual inside a family in society, and in 20 of our 50 states, laws have been enacted to address this disparity to prohibit the use of marital status in decisions effecting employment, decisions that usually favored the individual inside the family rather than the individual in society. While it is right that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state, the use of marital status in employment decisions is an arbitrarily act that has manifested an inequality in employment, as statistics show concerning being employed, and as commonplace prejudice exemplifies in decisions effecting those already employed. I believe the civil union or same sex marriage is the resulting act aimed at addressing this disparagement, but it does nothing noble in that it is congruent with family values, which are detrimental to everyone who, without any discrimination, has the right to work and protection against unemployment. Families have many other means of social protection at their disposal, the income tax structure gives a child credit, taxes from everyone are used for schools and programs designed to keep children in school, many family discounts exists for car insurance, health insurance, buying in large quantities, mortgage interest deductions, property transfers between spouses, social security benefits extending beyond the life of the retired worker to the spouse, and yet, in employment, those not married are forced to suffer the lack of a legal guarantee against their marital status being used to decide if they are hired, if they are promoted, if they receive the same pay rate, and if they are terminated, all arbitrarily within the at-will employment law.
There is another effect of families being favored in employment through arbitrary public opinion; an unmarried person cannot hold a job that has a high rate of compensation as families will claim that job as necessary for their family’s income. This prevents unmarried persons from becoming chemists, lawyers, statesmen, and occupying many other positions associated with high-income levels. That is the direct result of the lack of free choice of employment in the law, and it is a malfeasance of so great a magnitude that it disgusts me to think of it in the same context as what our schools teach children: you can become whatever you want to be and you are free, not compelled to belong to an association. It is a moral outrage, but apparently not to those who benefit from it that seem to have no conscience or sense of shame, nor sense of justice, nor concern for those outside of their own family. Nepotistic Napoleons with chauvinistic wives do not want rights for everyone, they want laws to protect their interests, and to omit the interests of others, their interests so extensive, that they are wealthy corporate interests, the equivalent of a selfish union which seeks only its own exclusive benefit, defining its membership by marriage, the recipients of corporate welfare and special treatment in the laws and in their circles of influence. And so thoroughly have they infiltrated our social systems that presidents boast of family values, the gap in wealth is gigantic, and those who still show respect of individual rights are virtually destitute without the aid of the state programs that support them, state programs vigorously denounced by these Bonapartes in their political opinions.
In this case, I am just advocating inclusion in the law of the right to free choice of employment by specifically addressing discrimination based on marital status. This is just a small part of what is wrong with North Carolina, and 29 other states, among so many other larger problems.
Contrary to this argument, you or others may believe that families have a natural, exclusive importance for the purposes of procreation within the nation extending from nature and religion, and that there should be no limit on the number of children a woman can have, or a man can sire; and through these reasons and customs, you can claim divine right to use whatever resources, of whomsoever should possess them, to discriminate against unmarried citizens in the law , and leave God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as answer to those left disenfranchised by discrimination in employment and among other things. Withstanding the idea that children should, upon their birth, be the property of the state, a situation, incidentally, where you would feel the same distress as I do in having to sacrifice to pay for them, not being able to use them as credit vouchers at the governmental/social “casino”, having to accept the average wage for whatever employment you may be able to choose and being confined to those careers that remunerate the average wage; withstanding this, none of us wanting human beings to be commodities or currency, either in birth or in employment, you have to respect and accept human rights or accept the prehensile tale of religious family values, celebrating more than two hundred years of tax evasion in the United States of America, values that should be in a ministry and not a government.
Arguments that leave God to answer for losses are not pragmatic for either employment or human rights, and employees being judged honestly on performance does not mean that those who have reasons to perform as they do will be unemployed regardless of their human rights. Salaried employees are of the human species, and there is rarely a corporate policy that does not allow them to act as if they are, yet there are corporations that lack executive ability to monitor the enactment of their policies, and managers who lack the human traits of reason and conscience within the spirit of brotherhood, desperate to climb the corporate ladder, who willfully and aggressively violate human rights, promoted by their comrades to get them to go anywhere, up or down the corporate ladder, simply to get rid themselves of the offensive, disparaging and vainglorious presence of those who disenfranchise our fellow citizens of their rights at work and in employment. It is time we pulled the reins in on these corporate stooges that we find at the local level with a law against the discrimination in employment concerned with marital status.