Starboy

The state claims a compelling interest in unions that have offspring. This is a legitimate claim since without children there will be no future population. It is in everyone's interest that the next generation has a sufficiently sound upbringing so that they can be competent citizens. I have no problem with families with children getting preferential tax treatment as a way for the state to assist in providing resources for the children. Couples with no children in the household should get no more preferential treatment as would apply to two single people.

Starboy

Starboy

In some sense they are for our benifit if we are the one's paying the taxes.

Starboy

jenergy

Yeah, that's true and goes along w/ my assertion... but who pays what in which states varies so much that I figgered it was safer to just say the "state" has to pay for the veggie. But you're right - ultimately, the state pays w/ OUR money...

nermal

This was also true when the issue was interracial marriage. Black people could still marry, they just may not be allowed to marry whomever they wish.
It didn't hold water then, and it doesn't hold water now, however technically correct.

No, it's not. The only question is is there sufficient reason for the unfairness. There's simply no question about whether or not the policy is unfair.

Those who argue against gay marriage spend a great deal of time and effort justifying the unfair policy. If it was fair, they wouldn't need do this.

Ed

BDS

That's true, nermal. Miscegenation laws obviously discriminated on the basis of race; laws which define marriage as the union of a man and a woman discriminate on the basis of gender. However, they do not discriminate AGAINST gay people (except tangentially). The laws apply equally to everyone.

As I pointed out above, it happens to be my well supported opinion that marriage laws are unfair to single people. Why, for example, should a married co-worker of mine get paid an extra $3000 a year (or whatever the benefits for his spouse amount to)? I'm willing to support such benefits in the case of families with children, because it is in my interest to support the next generation. But why should I support it for childless couples, who are (presumably) often richer than single people in the first place?

The reasoning here seems to be: since straight married couples get unfair benefits accruing from their marriage, gay couples should get the same unfair benefits. I suppose there's a certain perverse logic to this reasoning. It is, perhaps, unfair that straight people should receive unfair benefits and gay people should not. However, the patently obvious fact that the benefits ARE unfair muddies the water. Do we really want to INCREASE the amount of discrimination against single people, with the GOAL of DECREASING the amount of discrimination against homosexuals? Could I (being single) "marry" another man (in name only), who would pay me $2000 a year to receive $3000 a year worth of health benefits? If not, why not?

I'm aware, of course, that most job related benefits are negotiated. So we're not going to eliminate them easily. Unions who have fought for spousal health insurance will not forsake their hard-fought attainments easily. But why should sex have anything to do with it? Why should the sexual proclivities of two people (other than the afore stated relationship of sex to children, and my interest in providing for children) have anything to do with, for example, whether a company or the Government pays for their health insurance?

So gay marriage alleviates one unfairness, and exacerbates another. In addition, it's a step backward for gay people; sort of like ordaining gay priests. There's nothing wrong with being gay -- but shouldn't the gay consciousness rebel at the thought of becoming a priest in a religion that condemns homosexuality? There's nothing wrong with being gay, but shouldn't the gay consciousness rebel at the thought of aspiring to the rotten, moldering institutions of the straight community? Do gay people really need the institution of marriage? Or is it just a play for the extra cash?

trendkill

What muddies the water is your assumption that the purpose of marriage = tax breaks. Government recognition of family relationships would be the most significant purpose of marriage, IMO. This encompasses hospital visitation rights, next of kin, protection from testifying against spouses in court, etc. etc.

Happy Wonderer

This has less to do with the law than with the contract that you agreed to when joining the company. Health benefits are part of the compensation package and are negotiated between the employer and employee, they are not required by law in the US (except in Hawaii). Many employees do not have health benefits. I'm not sure if there is anything required by employment law that favors married couples above unmarried ones, perhaps with the (important) exception of the family leave act. It might be worth noting that most health plans cover dependents, so parents with kids get a lot more from the company than single people or childless couples -- especially if the kids are sickly...

The tax law favors people with kids above married couples without kids, there is the deduction for dependents. Generally speaking a married couple will pay more in taxes than the two would independently (this is the 'marriage tax penalty' that you hear so much about.) It is not true in all cases, but I believe it is true for most married couples.

hw

BDS

Of course it is true that there are non-financial benefits accruing to marriage. It is also true that negotiated contracts determine insurance benefits (although changing the law about marriage would have an impact on these benefits, obviously). It is further true that the largest employer paying such insurance benefits is the Government, state, federal and local.

What about my point about marriage being a rotten institution, though? Why (if not for the financial benefits, and some minor things about hospital visitation and testifying in court) do gay people want to be just like straight people? It reminds me of these agnostic churches, like the Unitarians, where people don't believe in God, but miss dressing in uncomfortable clothes, and sitting in bored silence every Sunday morning. Why would anyone want to go to church if he is not religious? Why would anyone want to get married, if not for the financial and other legal benefits?

p.s. to trendkill: I can picture the scene now: "Let's get married, darling, so I'll never have to testify against you in court." I really don't buy it.

abe smith

Fraid you're going to find yourself in a minority here at EyeEye, BDS... How does that feel to you, Person? Sompthing new & different, eh?.

Your arguments justifying your position are well-worn, and probably we here who disagree w/ you have been around the track w/ them already a number of times. I will not belabor the counter-points (rather be listening to the Old Man doing it Right!); I expect my EyeEye constituents here will tell you what'swhat...

BDS

[QUOTE=abe smith]
Your arguments justifying your position are well-worn, and probably we here who disagree w/ you have been around the track w/ them already a number of times. QUOTE]


Sorry for not providing a fresher argument, abe. By the way, what do you suppose I am arguing for or against?

One strange thing about I.I. is that many regulars seem to think that every thread must be an argument. As much as I enjoy an argument, I like other forms of discussion, too. I'm certainly not arguing against legalizing gay marriage -- I'm just pointing out some of the effects of doing so. One of these effects is to make gay people more staid, domestic, traditional, and mainstream. Is this necessarily a good thing?