On Gay Marriage
In the United State marriage is a legal institution which provides a few benefits for the two people entering into that relationship.
- Spouses inherit their mate’s estate by default, and there are tax benefits to that inheritance.
- Spouses have power of attorney over each other by default.
- Couples (sometimes) pay a slightly lower tax rate than individuals.
- And there are others.
As a taxpayer, I am vested in the economic strength of our nation. To a large degree that strength is based on population. Therefore I am willing to pay a little extra in taxes as an incentive to couples to marry and increase the population. On the the other hand, I have no interest at all in paying higher taxes in order to incent gay couples to marry.
All the other benefits of marriage can (or should) all be attained through other legal instruments such as civil unions.
The reason I want to see heterosexual marriage is that I want more American children born into American families. But I have no reason to want to subsidize gay men or gay women who wish to enter into a tax-advantaged relationship and who cannot, in exchange, provide me the benefit of their procreation. Why should I have to pay more so that they can get married? Their marriage does not benefit me the way a heterosexual marriage might.
So, from my point of view I am willing to subsidize, through my taxes, hetero-sexual couples who can procreate and build families. I am not willing to subsidize homosexual couples who cannot. I have no objection to civil unions that grant homosexual couples every other benefit of marriage. But I think the potential for procreation is worthy of nominal and subsidy distinction.
