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.
I have a paradgym/context question which I hope I can convey properly: What is meant by “marriage” (what is the viewpoint)? Specifically, is it’s meaning grounded/founded on historical, or religious, or economic, or politcal, or national/tribal origin?
It looks like your statements might be from a economical viewpoint. If so, AND then suppose that “marriage” only truely has it’s meaning from another, say religious, paradygm; then, wouldn’t “marriage” be meaningless in the economy viewpoint? (Well, perhaps not meaningless. But maybe it shouldn’t be called “marriage” … rather, it might be named a specific set of economic contracts, rights, and obligations)?
Comment by RScott — October 17, 2006 @ 2:11 am
What about elderly widows and widowers who remarry? Or gay couples who adopt? Should they get the tax benefits (of marriage, not child dependency) then?
To set up the legal contracts you’ve mentioned above costs money. In essence, it’s an economic burden on homosexuals who want some of the same non-tax-break protections as heterosexuals: “Sure you can have the right to make medical decisions for your unconscious partner in the hospital, just pay your legal fees to set up the power of attorney, and don’t forget to bring the documentation with you on your honeymoon or wherever you may happened to travel together, because you’ll need it at 2 a.m. in the emergency room to convince the doctors after you’ve been in a car accident. Oh, and I hope your partner’s parents are on board with the whole ‘gay’ thing, because they could easily contest the validity of the contract in court. Good luck with that!”
Comment by Michael R-P — October 17, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
Only once slight problem with this thread. Married couples with jobs actually pay MORE in taxes than they would as two singles. Not weighing in on the Gay Marriage issue here, just the financial impact of it. The two gays involved, if they both work, would provide more money to the government.
The benefit of procreating is in the child tax credits that we receive for having two kids, the medical deduction for all their trips to the dctor, and the extra deductions for the little dependant angels. So, the gay couple would not get any of those benefits, unless they adopted one of those non-aborted babies in the orphanage.
Comment by Aaron — October 18, 2006 @ 9:48 pm