I want to make one thing clear. I do not hate religious people nor am I interested in oppressing their right to exerecise their religion. I have issues with some of their fundamental beliefs and the way they can affect (harm) other people. I will not tolerate those who assert their religious freedom is being oppressed when it violates the separation of church and state a la abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraceptive rights.  As with racism, sexism-- there are always apologists that claim "Not all people..."

But in reality, many of them do and just because you are not the oppressive, shove-it-down-your-throat type doesn't mean you aren't complicit in a society that allows a subset of people to control the mainstream way of thinking. Because let's face it-- any totalitarian way of thinking has never fared well in human society.

I hate how people scream about atheists taking away their religious freedom, "pushing it down our throats," when atheists are not the group that walks around with a symbol of their beliefs around their neck and the support of 44 consecutive presidencies behind them. The word "atheist" is spoken with malice, as if it's a curse word. Even I feel uncomfortable saying it due to its connotation, as if I don't want people to perceive me as the devil and someone who sets babies on fire (which I totally do, but the generalization is offensive). Atheists just don't tell most people they are atheists, I've noticed, unless they, too, are atheists. You can't just tell someone and have them accept it; a deluge of questions follow, or worse, an awkward silence.

I just can't accept the idea that atheists are the oppressive people. It's ridiculous.

Pascal's Wager

What a hunk.

"Pascal's Wager" is an argument in favor of God's existence, trumped by Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal in the 17th century. He argues that no matter if a person believes there to be a god or not, one should believe in it anyway because if there happens to be a god then it would be better to be a believer when it comes time to "meet your (so-called) maker"-- as a sort of safety precaution. It's better to believe because it's a win-win! If there's no god, no harm no foul. If there is, you're gonna have some 'splainin to do at the pearly gates.

If I recall correctly, Richard Dawkins, a noted evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, makes a pretty good argument for how inane this "wager" is in his book, The God Delusion. He says something along the lines of, "Would a god rather you pretended to believe in him to gain his favor or lived your life virtuously so that a god could be proud of his creation? But then again, what if you choose the wrong god? Then you come into all sorts of issues." In the end, it's a ridiculous justification for religious belief.

Fortunately, this is not a common justification many people use today for religious belief. (Well, actually, I was friends with this kid who used this as a reason for his religious belief which kind of stunned me, but it was obvious he hadn't thought too much about it. Not that kids should have to, but you know.) But if this was the best they had going for them in the 1600s, the old times were not the best times.

This Just In: Women Shouldn't Have Rights To Their Body!

Debates over women's contraception "privileges" dominated news last year as old white men argued over women's rights to their body. While the issue is mostly to do with privacy rights, the massive opposition is deeply rooted in the religious sentiment that contraception is a method by which humans subvert God's plans, considering the Bible says that the matter of copulation is only to produce offspring. Why would any women need birth control if she's having sex to produce children? In fact, most Americans actually support birth control so how is it that this minority is so vocal?

This conflict of interests arose when the new health care mandate kicked in and religious organizations questioned whether they were forced to provide contraception to their female workers. Two SCOTUS cases addressed this issue--Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius-- but have not been decided on yet.

For the moment I am not even going to address the fact that women who work for religious organizations are not necessarily of that religion nor should they have to be... wait, actually I am. Even Joe Biden can recognize the difference between personal beliefs and public law. Contraception is not used so women can whore around-- in many cases, the possibility of pregnancy can be dangerous for them or the artificial hormones keep their own hormones in check.  Even if a woman does want to "whore around," no one should actually care nor tell a woman what to do with her body.

It's frustrating that personal convictions such as religious beliefs can hold weight in a court of law and people can lose a right due to a majority's opinion. I'm gonna come out and say it right now that most of the men voting against these laws have probably used a condom at least once in their life. (It's almost as if there's some connection between what men think they should be entitled to and the inflated sense of authority to decide what others are entitled to!)

Maybe one day people will be able to separate their beliefs from what is law but for now, we get arguments like this. Sigh.

If Atheists Ruled the World

"If Atheists Ruled the World" is a YouTube video released by user sliptivity which has garnered over 2.5 million views. The video is a satire of sorts, for the speakers are repeating comments on Christian fundamentalist forums online. The creators are making fun of these commenters by delivering the lines in a deadpan way. The last part is probably my favorite clip of all time.

Of course, the commenters could have been, as the internet savvy say, "trolls"but I have a deep sinking feeling that they are not. Enjoy!

A few years ago, Bill Maher, host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, wrote and starred in a documentary called "Religulous," which centers on religion as it stands today in America by interviewing outspoken and fervent Christians, visiting a creationist museum, and contemplating the origins of the Christian religion and God. He even interviews Ken Ham! (Yep, the one that debated Bill Nye.)



While it is super easy to cut Maher's interviews to make him seem like the winner and the most articulate-- there's always that bias to pick and choose (obviously Maher has an agenda within its context) -- there are several good points that are brought up.

While it does not appear in this video, the most chilling aspect of the documentary was the Jesus camps that parents send their children to teach them Scripture and indoctrinate them into religion.

Pope Francis's Crusade Against Capitalism

Pope Francis's Crusade Against Capitalism: Stephen Colbert addresses the pope's ongoing critique of capitalism raises concerns that he might be a socialist. First, Bill O'Reilly claims the far left is skewing Pope Francis's words to fit their agenda. Then, news outlets break the news that the pope is calling for the redistribution of wealth.

What a guy.

This week on "I can't believe we're still having this debate," we're still having this debate. I don't even know if most fundamentalist Christians know this, but Jesus was a socialist. Read the Beatitudes, for Christ's sake (pun intended). "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven... Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth," Jesus says in Matthew 5. Honestly, I don't know how that can be warped to fit the needs of the free market capitalism running rampant in the United States, a predominately Christian/religious nation.

I've never understood that people who preach "building yourself from scratch like all other successful white men," condemn "welfare queens" who are lazy and do nothing for the world except absorb government dollars, then trump the cause of their religion, centered around a selfless person interested in a revolution of the masses. This contradiction is astounding, yet no one questions it.

Some people are treating this pope as a radical and ultra-liberal by preaching that poverty is the main issue of the Church yet he is only following the words of his holy book which people love to quote when it's convenient-- not so much when it's not. Honestly, I'm happy that the alleged "facilitator" between God and man is using his seat wisely, for no Catholic disputes the pope. I don't think too many corporations will be happy about this newfound direction but I guess that's the point.

The Power of Myth

By recommendation from my freshmen year English teacher, I read The Power of Myth, a series of video interviews between Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell that were transcribed into book format regarding mythology around the world. According to his Wikipedia description, Campbell is credited as an American mythologist who focuses on comparative mythology and religion.

The main idea of the book is the reoccurrence of the "monomyth," a common thread that runs through all human cultures throughout history. The monomyth is the idea that the mythology within each culture carries a variant of the same story. It is the "hero's journey" and it is the story of the hero's quest of overcoming great struggles to reach enlightenment, allowing them to save themselves and their people. Regardless of origin civilization and time of creation, mythologies all seem to share this thread, albeit with different masks.

Campbell compares the creation stories of several religions (because religions are based in mythologies, by definition of the word) which is particularly interesting to me.

Campbell argues mythology is an integral part of human life and should not be lost to the ever decreasing of spirituality. "They're stories about the wisdom of life... Mythology teaches you what's behind literature and the arts, it teaches you about your own life," said Campbell. Mythologies create a culture and each civilization would be nothing without it's rich history and that involves myths.

MOYERS: Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

CAMPBELL: This is from "The Song of the World," a legend of the Pima Indians of Arizona: "In the beginning there was only darkness everywhere-- darkness and water. And the darkness gathered thick in places, crowding together and then separating, crowding and separating..."

MOYERS: Genesis 1: "And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."

CAMPBELL: And this is from the Hindu Upanishads, from about the eighth century B.C.: "In the beginning, there was only the great self reflected in the form of a person. Reflecting, it found nothing but itself. Then its first word was, 'This am I.'" 

The two continue in this fashion, Campbell citing the Bassari people of West Africa and again the Pima Indians and the Upanishads. It is really quite fascinating how on the face the common perception of cultures around the world are vastly different, yet these civilizations, which thrived completely independent of each other, all share the same story. I think many people with entrenched beliefs have the propensity to focus on their microcosm of the world yet refuse to see the general picture of this shared human consciousness. I think we forget that we are, for the most part, the same but cite irrelevant aspects of culture like dress and skin color and region as a reason to be blind to the rest of the world. Campbell humbles us, and that's a good thing.

Since it would be too long, there are some fascinating ruminations Campbell has about the US dollar found here on page 33!

TheInfuriatingAtheist

Youtuber and blogger TheAmazingAtheist, or TJ Kincaid, has gained quite a reputation in the atheist community and it's not for the better. Watch the video of his above and listen to the voice you will hear in hell ('cause you're goin' there anyway, ya heretics). It's wonderful that an unreligious person is able to voice opinions not held by the majority in the mainstream, if only his message was not so militant.

I can totally understand the frustration that much of the non-theistic community feels at this standard that at the slightest provocation, the religious majority can start spewing hate speech like "secularists are destroying the world as we know it!" when non-theists ask for the enforcement of separation of church and state, which is constitutionally ordained. Even phrases like "War on Religion" and "War on Christmas" are all too-familiar to the average American's vocabulary.  Non-theists know they are the minority and must acquiesce to the majority (and don't tell me this is not true when it took until 1961 for atheists to even be allowed to hold public office!) Kincaid even posted a video voicing this frustration which (for the most part) has some good points.

I like to think of myself as a tolerant person (maybe overly tolerant) and I find that is a result of an open mind (not necessarily an atheistic mind). Yet the message TheAmazingAtheist sends with videos like "WOMEN ARE NOT SMART," while sensationalized, tend to discredit the cause that many non-theistic people wish to further. Though Kincaid's obvious misogyny has no direct relation to his atheistic beliefs, his credibility is questioned in one manner and therefore questioned in all manners. I could go through the list of Kincaid's sexist and misogynistic beliefs like how he thinks the patriarchy doesn't exist,  has an extreme case of rape apologism, and encourages men's rights activists but they are conveniently listed here and here.

This guys ultimately disgraces the non-theistic factions of society, leading ambivalent people to believe all atheists are like this. PSA: Not all non-theistic people are like this!

Pastafarianism

Ever felt like you're missing something from your life? Like there is a higher purpose and a higher being presiding over it? Look no further than the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With his great Noodly Appendanges, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will wrap you in all the existential love you need. As part of his mystery, the FSM has never been seen nor heard, but there is much and more evidence that he exists. Just visit the homepage of the church at venganza.org.

The conception for the Church of the FSM began when Bobby Henderson sent an open letter the the Kansas School Board of Education after a great debacle of whether to include intelligent design alongside evolution in the school curriculum. Henderson urged the school board to not only limit the curriculum to these two theories, considering they are not the only legitimate theories and after all, the motion was intended to give equal time to all theories. As a staunch believer in the FSM, he felt it not only right, but necessary to include the religion's teaching in the curriculum. He included an artistic rendering of the FSM because "we are all His creatures."

Now this is one church I can get behind. 

Is Atheism Irrational?

As a part of a series, philosophy-inspired blog The Stone is dedicating a series to religion, which questions theism and atheism alike. In this installment, Gary Gutting interviewed Alvin Plantinga, a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame.  Gutting addresses several pressing issues of both sides of the debate from what (Plantinga believes) are the best arguments for atheism ("the so-called 'problem of evil'") and the best arguments for theism (the 'fine-tuned' nature of the universe).

I always find articles like this interesting, especially when theists are willing to logically pull apart their beliefs despite the usual inclination to leave it at "you cannot question God's authority" (which, this past weekend, was my uncle's response to me questioning the bible).

While Plantinga's argument does fall short as soon as he says, "I should make clear first that I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God." This is interesting because he directly goes on to make an argument for the belief in God (but I'm not complaining, just kind of... contradictory). He goes on to say, "In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past." I've never liked this argument because it presumes that there needs to be a "belief" in other minds/the past for them to exist. It is not exactly a belief, but an acknowledgement by awareness. While they are all abstract concepts, an omniscient, unknowable being is not as concrete a thing as the recognition that there is such a notion as five minutes ago, a time in the past.

Bertrand Russell's analogy for theism with teapotism is alluded to, which has always been my favorite.

"Russell’s idea, I take it, is we don’t really have any evidence against teapotism, but we don’t need any; the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and is enough to support a-teapotism. We don’t need any positive evidence against it to be justified in a-teapotism; and perhaps the same is true of theism.
I disagree: Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism. So if, à la Russell, theism is like teapotism, the atheist, to be justified, would (like the a-teapotist) have to have powerful evidence against theism."

I think Plantinga misses the point of the analogy, but also (rather awesomely) confirms it, by concluding that a teapot, a manmade object, obviously had to be put into orbit around the sun by man. That is his automatic position. Now replace the idea of the "teapot" with God, or supernatural, unacknowledgable, and invisible deity. A god couldn't have possibly been placed by man, but a teapot sure can.

Plantinga later says, "Some people simply don’t want there to be a God. It would pose a serious limitation for human autonomy." While this can be seen as a criticism of atheism/agnosticism, I think it is quite positive. I like to think of myself as a human trying her hardest and making positive choices (though they may not always be the best) for herself. And that's it.

(But the main question, I guess: Is Atheism Irrational? I don't think so. It would be, however, hilarious that a god created beings that are supposed to follow his words absolutely but give them the capacity to stop believing in him.)

'Cosmos' Controversy And Why It's Ridiculous

After years of absence and a subconsciously upset consumer audience, popular TV show Cosmos returned, hosted by astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson and produced by comedy writer Seth MacFarlane. For my younger crowd, the original Cosmos: A Personal Voyage ran for a stint of 13 episodes in 1980 when it was hosted by Carl Sagan and garnered worldwide acclaim as the most-watched series by PBS in history. It was broadcasted in 60 countries and allotted 500 million viewers. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

The show works to introduce science to the mainstream viewer crowd. While not very in-depth, it interests the general consumer in the sciences so that they may look further into the topics covered which include DNA, the Theory of Relativity, black holes, and of course-- evolution.

This venture into "unsavory" territory has sparked controversy by creationists who believe they are not getting their "equal airtime." Talking Points Memo published an article called "Creationists Complain Neil deGrasse Tyson's 'Cosmos' Isn't Giving Them Airtime" which can be found here.

Danny Faulkner, founder of Answers in Genesis, criticized the show by saying, "Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all." He cited how "so many scientists... simply do not accept Darwinian evolution" as the prime reasoning why it should be covered, especially in the first episode where "Tyson talked about all views being up for discussion in the field of science" which obviously is not the case.

First of all, "so many scientists" are not as many as creationists are led to believe. In 2009, a survey by the Pew Research Center found that 97% of scientists "say humans and other living things have evolved over time.”

Furthermore, Tyson responded to this criticism by saying

"I think the media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but doesn't really apply in science. The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view, and then you can be viewed as balanced... you don't talk about the spherical earth with NASA and then say let's give equal time to the flat-earthers."

Creationism and intelligent design are widely regarded as a pseudoscience and the idea that these theories should be given airtime in a science and fact-based television show is almost laughable.

While I do not watch Cosmos on a regular basis (since it is directed at those with almost no knowledge of science so it is not in-depth), I think it is a wonderful way for people to actually get interested in the sciences (How cool are the special effects?) and I hope that it does not cancelled due to a few vested interests.

Wendy Wright v. Richard Dawkins

Wendy Wright sat down with Richard Dawkins to conduct an interview on their own personal beliefs about human evolution, for Dawkins' TV documentary called "The Genius of Charles Darwin." Wright is an outspoken Creationist whose views differ greatly from Dawkins'.

Really, the only thing I can say about this interview is that it hurts my head and makes me cringe a little. Give it a go.

She may look like an angel but she is a mean, white ball of charisma machine. 

So, I read this article on Buzzfeed where they asked users to send in questions they would like to ask Bill Nye during the Bill Nye-Ken Hamm debate.

Because these people thought it was worth their time to write down these questions they believe unanswerable, I figured it would be worth my time to answer them.

I think I can forgive this one because this person does not know the definition of evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God believing people. They do not embrace intelligent design because that is literally the basis of their "non-believing." The standard position is that evolutionists do not believe in a supernatural creator and creationists do. Easy enough. If you want to get a bit more technical, evolutionists believe over a period of billions of years the universe took form through a process called abiogenesis where life arose from organic compounds. Single-celled organisms evolved into multi-cellular organisms evolved into complex organisms. This is grossly over-simplified but you get the picture. 

One of the key tenets of science is that it is not law--it changes when new evidence arises and is constantly disproven by perpetual experimentation. Scientists do not mind changing what they thought to be true because they are aware they are not always right. A theory is the opposite of not testable, observable, nor repeatable. Scientific evidence does not come together to constitute a theory until after endless attempts at disproving it through experimentation and further evidence. The issue I personally have with creationism is that it is lazy-- it lazily attempts to measure and confine the universe to something as simple as "because God made it so." It disregards facts and places faith in a book written when it was technically a-okay to stone people. Creationism does not even deserve to be called a theory because any attempts at disproving it are met with hostility and narrow-mindedness. 

There actually is not only one "Lucy" ( pieces of a skeleton belonging to an early ancestor of modern humans found in Ethiopia) but several that have been found including Ardi, Selam, Taung Child, Mrs. Ples (and these only from a cursory search through Google). In fact, Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to the history of hominid fossils found. While it is true that there are definitely gaps in the fossil record, there is no shortage of evidence for human evolution. 

Literally anyone who has ever taken a first-year biology class can tell you that humans did not evolve from monkeys. But, I'm sorry, you probably spent your year of biology protesting your teacher and skipping class so here's a quick (simplified) biology lesson:  all living beings have a common ancestor and at one point this ancestor diverged and evolved into different types of animals due to mutation/environmental stimuli/etc. Modern humans come from the line of primates including chimpanzees and gorillas but divided off between 5.8 and 8 million years ago into their own genus of Homo. Humans are believed to have developed from australopithecine to homo habilis then homo erectus then homo sapiens then homo sapiens sapiens (humans as they exist today). Modern humans are the only animals left with the genus homo because we kind of either killed the other species off or bred with them.  Nonetheless, monkeys do share a common ancestor with humans but humans did not evolve from monkeys.  

Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True? - Reaction

[note: I am woefully going to focus on Christian beliefs for the majority of this blog because they are the beliefs I am most well-versed in and surrounded by on a daily basis. Another day Islam and Judaism. Another day.] 

Recently, the New Yorker published this article by Maria Konnikova, a writer on psychology, entitled "I Don't Want To Be Right." Give it a quick read because I think it’s important. 

In case you’re not feeling it, I’ll give a quick run-through. Konnikova opens discussing Dartmouth professor __ experiment, which determined that parents will ignore all obvious facts in the face of all previously conceived notions. In this case, a study of 2,000 parents set out to decide if informed parents will choose to vaccinate their children after being given a pamphlet outlining how vaccinations are not correlated with autism and no vaccinating your children will expose them to a multitude of diseases. It was found that most parents disregarded, or even used the pamphlet as reasoning for not vaccinating their children. No matter the facts, the parents ignored the information in favor of preconceptions. 

This segues into numerous examples from history where disseminated misinformation will convince people even after corrections of false information. Examples include Galileo, the “raw milk” movement, and fact-checking (or lack thereof) in the 2000 presidential election. 

The finding detailed in this article is a wonderfully interesting explanation for beliefs held by most fundamental religious observers and why they're so obstinate in opinions contrary to all evidence proven. The theory of evolution comes to mind. A friend of mine vehemently opposes evolution due to strongly held religious beliefs, including the belief that the earth was created 10,000 years ago and men could not have possibly descended from apes. I asked what his explanation for fossils found on the coast of South America matching those found on the coast of Eastern Africa and he said (paraphrased), “‘Scientists could easily plant those fossils or make up studies to give to the public.” As if all scientific endeavors are based on a lack of evidence and people desperately looking for a justification of their views. It does sound familiar, but not in this context. 

The whole “convergence of science and religion” has sort of woven together evolution with Christian beliefs, the majority of Christians believing that God, their Creator, made this process occur over millions of years just as science ascertains. I still don’t quite see how this meshes with the “world-created-in-seven-days” story but it’s progress. 

One discovery by Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist, struck a chord. Konnikova writes, "One thing he learned early on is that not all errors are created equal. Not all false information goes on to become a false belief—that is, a more lasting state of incorrect knowledge—and not all false beliefs are difficult to correct." This begs the question: why is religious fundamentalism so deeply cemented? It probably has to do with  childhood indoctrination, or being instilled with these values from a young, impressionable age. No matter what one tells an adult predisposed to an ideology, they see all assertions contrary to their viewpoint as biased, therefore stregnthening their own beliefs. 

Konnikova echoes this: "When there’s no immediate threat to our understanding of the world, we change our beliefs. It’s when that change contradicts something we’ve long held as important that problems occur."

And further, "If someone held a contrary attitude, [a] correction not only didn’t work—it made the subject more distrustful of the source."

The article closes on this point: "Vaccines, fortunately, aren’t political. 'They’re not inherently linked to ideology,' Nyhan said. 'And that’s good. That means we can get to a consensus.' Ignoring vaccination, after all, can make people of every political party, and every religion, just as sick." While vaccines are not linked to ideology, religion will forever be linked. Religious beliefs affect political beliefs, which can be infinitely destructive toward scientific research and even women's rights (That whole contraception debate. Yeah.). 

I have no qualms with spirituality-- it's only when this "spirituality" is distorted to fit an agenda and oppress other people's beliefs and rights.

Pennsylvania Approval of Gay Marriage is Progressive! ...Or is it?

This just in: Pennsylvania courts have overruled that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and therefore may be repealed. The linked article is an affirmation that the governor will not go out of his way to appeal the ruling.

This is awesome-- I have no qualms with this. However, the fact that this is news, something to be lauded, instead of expected is just baffling. There is no reason why these issues should be debated in courts where the basis of the opposition relies on religious values. The argument against same-sex marriage is that it subverts the idea of "traditional marriage," or the union between man and woman. Yet where does this idea of traditional marriage emerge from? Most linguists will tell you definitions of words change and evolve over time so why does this definition stagnate?

Survey says it's based in the teachings of the Christian and Islamic churches. In the Bible we know the drill. Leviticus 20:13 in the King James Bible tells us, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." So that makes homosexual relationships off-limits, since according to the New Testament, sex is reserved for marriage.
The Qu'ran echoes this idea in the story of Lot in Surat Al-'A`rāf 7:80-84, "And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people. But the answer of his people was only that they said, "Evict them from your city! Indeed, they are men who keep themselves pure."
Now, I'm going to ignore the obvious bigotry and hypocrisy inherent in these two works because that is a discussion for a post when I have more energy. However, I will ask how these religious beliefs have any bearing on the secular-based laws attributed to the state and federal constitutions. After all, the first Amendment of the freakin' US Constitution says that the country will respect no establishment of a national religion.

I think what bothers me most is the legal and political benefits of marriage-- it is no longer just a promise between two people but a deal with the state that gives married couples certain rights not afforded to single people. The list includes but is not limited to tax write-offs, parenting rights, bereavement leave, and joint insurance coverage.