I was reading a guest blogger on Volokh Conspiracy, and was surprised to find that she was against same-sex marriage (SSM). For those of you who are unfamiliar with Volokh Conspiracy, it is a fairly prominent libertarian thought blog. The arguments were a bit cumbersome (for me), and the comments were even more verbose, but feel free to check it out because it is an interesting read.
The one comment I found particularly interesting regarded a narrowing of the definition of marriage-to only childbearing heterosexual couples. The idea was based of the blogger's comment that society needs procreation, and only heterosexual couples (this obviously overlooks the current use of technology) can procreate, therefore only childbearing couples really deserve the title of marriage. I found this idea interesting because it cuts into the SSM proponents' argument I find most compelling: denying SSM is a civil rights violation.
If our government confers special privileges on those entering a marriage (tax breaks, etc.) then denying someone these rights based on anything other than their ability to fufill the tenets of the institution seems wrong. Now, I understand that some believe a MAJOR tenet to be heterosexuality, but that seems to be the most banal of arguments, so if you are one of those people we will have to agree to disagree.
Onto the argument of childbearing couples earning our government's title of marriage. Would this not destroy the argument of our puritanical government giving preferential treatment? I would take this one step further, and take the concept out of our tax code. Does the IRS/U.S. government need to know that I am married? What does this do other than make our tax code more complex (granted not substantially more complex). If people want to keep filing jointly, it should not be a problem because I know for a fact that bank accounts can be joined between two people who are not married.
I am interested to hear people's comments on this subject. Let's hear your arguments for/against SSM. In addition, I want to know how much importance the tax code has in your arguments.
Here's the fixed link.
ReplyDeleteMaggie Gallagher's arguments seem seriously flawed, for reasons EP noted. EP raises an interesting related question, suggesting we eliminate the legal distinctions between married and single individuals: why do our taxes differentiate married couples from singles at all?
Our current tax system gives bonuses to single individuals, both by allowing a higher standard deduction and by putting them on a more lenient progressive curve than individuals who are married.
Why does it differentiate? Basically, since a couple can jointly own their property and earnings, they can divide their incomes and take advantages of cheaper tax schedules. (A wife making $100,000 with a stay-at-home husband could be taxed at the $50,000 rate). At the same time, couples and families get to take advantage of economies of scale: a married couple only needs one bed, one house, one refrigerator, etc. From these savings, married couples have a greater ability to pay, and yet they are taxed much less than a single earning the same amount. The solution for this inequity: harsher tax schedules and deductions for married couples.
I'm not sure whether this solution is warranted or fair, but those are the arguments that got us where we are today. If you want to abolish the distinction, you probably should consider whether such a move would allow tax evasion by married couples, or whether we should care.
I just wanted to comment on the rising number of couples who wed with no plans to ever have children. It seems that if the ability to reproduce is a requirement for marriage, and all of the benefits and perks that come with it, then couples should HAVE to reproduce to take advantage of these. Otherwise, the argument falls apart, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI didn't have time to read the post so they may have addressed this.
ReplyDeleteThis also brings up the question of infertile couples. What if doctors can show a woman / man can't have children? Does this mean they can't be married.
I already threw in my opinion on the matter back when Kansas was voting on it. Although I guess that was more on the stupidity of banning things in a constitution.
If anyone wants the argument I wrote about it, drop me an e-mail.
Constitutional Bans are Misguided
ReplyDeleteBy: Ryan Sheahan
Constitution, noun: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it.
Law, noun: a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
In lieu of recent events such as states passing constitutional bans of same-sex marriage and the contemplation by our federal government to do the same, I feel compelled to explain why this is bad.
First, the definitions above are from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. I will be using them as a basis for my argument. As seen above, laws are created as a binding custom. They are created to limit action in a society. We have laws against practices such as murder, speeding, drinking and driving, and so forth. Each of these laws seeks to limit your actions in society, the primary reason being for your safety as well as others. The body of laws is a social contract between citizens.
A constitution is a document generally detailing the workings of a government or society AND guaranteeing certain rights to the people in it. Now I bolded the last portion because this is the key point. A constitution is designed to ensure the rights of people, effectively it creates rules that laws cannot override. If a society wishes to restrict a behavior or action, there is a system to handle that, they are called laws. To place a restriction on behavior in a constitution ruins the point of the document.
The above argument applies to any constitutional amendments that restrict a behavior. My second point is concerning specifically same-sex marriage. The banning of same-sex marriage is nothing short of discrimination. I would argue it is on par with the acts of bigotry that occurred before the civil rights movement. The problem with banning this form of marriage is that in the United States there are over 1,049 federal laws in which "rights, benefits, and privileges are contingent on marital status”. By preventing two people from attaining marital status, they are having their rights impinged upon. A legal denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizens across classes.
The arguments of marriage being a sacred sacrament and should be protected do not work for me, the reason being that there is no distinction between the religious sacrament of marriage and the civil benefits of marriage, currently. My proposition to the same-sex marriage conflict is to separate the religious sacrament of marriage and the civil benefits of marriage. The main change under the new system is a clarification of definitions. The government would give out civil marriage licenses and churches would have religious marriage certificates. Individual churches, of course not being controlled by the government because of separation of church and state, would be allowed to define marriage in any way they choose. The government would allow a civil marriage between any two people.
The major complaint about allowing same-sex marriage is that it opens the door to all sorts of marriage. People say that if we allow same-sex marriage then why not allow marriages that involve incest, pets, pedophilia, and/or multiple people. The animal argument is simple; animals cannot give consent under law and cannot be married. A similar argument can be made against pedophilia, since minors cannot give consent under the law. Incest is a bit trickier, but this should be prevented because inbreeding leads to genetic problems. Finally, polygamous marriages or group marriages are not affected by my suggested solution. Marriage is still defined as between two people. The main reason for this is fairness; it would not be possible to give three-person groups equal rights and responsibilities as two-person groups.
Sources:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary - http://www.m-w.com/
ReplyDeleteReport on laws concerning marital status - http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
These didn't make it on the first post.
As many of you pointed out, we've had similar discussions on this topic before, when we spoke about tax code and the various forms of taxes.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is: what are the civil liberties of marriage? What is it that SS couples want that they are being denied?
A religious/formal ceremony? Many religions offer marriage ceremonies without the legal binds. Friends and family can witness.
Shared costs? Two people can live together sharing most costs already.
Tax breaks? Sure, we all want tax breaks, but what I think SS couples want is Social Acceptance. Of course, I could be wrong, but bear with me.
Society and society's voice: the law, gives rules of precedence and responsibility to marriage partners. In lieu of a will, etc, who speaks for the other? Who has "family rights" to visit the sick, etc. "Life-long partner" just doesn't carry the same weight as "spouse."
I think this is the "civil right" that SS couples are being denied.
There are a variety of ways to deal with this problem somewhat independently of the definition of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, but one that government has recognized for ages.
In France, from what I understand, the definition of marriage is based on that definition of 'child-rearing.' Mainly this was due to the depopulation after the world wars. This definition, as I think Thomas pointed out, has some difficulty excluding SS couples with just the possibility of adoption, let alone other forms of reproduction.
The solution I would advocate would be to do away with most of the legal priviledges of marriage and replace them with something akin to a 'civil union.' It doesn't sound like we're in too much disagreement on that issue. Some other simplifications can ensue from that distinction, but a government could then be free to legislate on 'child-rearing couples' or what I prefer, 'dependent caretakers' of which children would only be a subclass.
Of course this only moves the debate to this other contentious arena: are SS couples suitable for raising children? I would assume so, but being neither gay nor a parent, I'm not the most qualified of individuals.
In response to Ryan's post on same sex marriage, I have only one question: How would a genetic defect (argument against incestous marriage) be substantially different from a psychological disorder (some people's argument against same-sex marriage), if they both prove to handicap the child? Sorry that question is so long.
ReplyDelete--EP
I must be missing your point EP.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any conclusive evidence that a child raised in a same-sex marriage will have a psychological disorder.
Whereas it is well documented the problem with inbreeding (Royal Families and such).
But as a response from my perspective, I don't believe a child be raised in a same-sex household would be any worse off than one raised in a heterosexual household. As long as there is a caring environment and the parents care a child would turn out reasonably well, but this is just opinion.
After reading the vitriol amongst comments on the "Volokh Conspiracy", I want to take the time to thank Ryan for his post.
ReplyDeleteHe mentioned that he knew
"of no conclusive evidence that a child raised in a same sex marriage will have a psychological disorder"
My comments on children of same-sex couples having the potential for psychological problems was a generalized argument proposed in a "Devil's Advocate" stance. Having read his comment, I then went to find the evidence. I could not.
The APA clearly states that there currently exists no evidence linking homosexual parenting to any negative experience on their children's part.
Thanks to all contributors like Ryan who are helping to make this blog a true marketplace of ideas, and keep up the excellent discussions.