The news and editorial departments of the New York Times have been giving a lot of (well-deserved) attention to the issue of marriage equality recently. In fact, the paper’s editorial board has emerged as a forceful advocate for the freedom to marry.
A recent column by economics and behavioral science professor Richard H. Thaler, titled Gay Marriage Debate is About Money, Too, makes a good argument for marriage equality in terms of dollars and cents. (I and many others wish the American media, including the Times, would stop using the inaccurate and misleading term “gay marriage,” but that’s for another post entirely.) However, Thaler’s central argument is flawed at its core:
In my ideal world. . . the legal unions that are now called marriages would be called domestic partnerships, which would be offered to same-sex as well as heterosexual couples. But if some states are unwilling to enact such statutes, same-sex couples who live in those states could simply go to a state that does offer same-sex domestic partnerships, and would then be treated as such by the federal government, with all the attendant financial benefits and responsibilities. Companies can choose the state in which they incorporate, so couples should have that privilege, too.
Marriage, of course, would continue, but would no longer be regulated by the government. Instead, weddings would become like many other important ceremonies from graduations to funerals: private matters. (Conservatives may applaud now.)
First, Prof. Thaler, I hate to burst your bubble, but conservatives won’t be clapping. They don’t just oppose marriage equality, but seek to block any and all legal recognition of the basic human rights of LGBT people (employment protections, anti-bullying laws, hate crimes laws, etc.). Second, they won’t accept marriage for same-sex couples by another name. For proof, look no further than the texts of the marriage discrimination amendments found in state constitutions all across the country. Most of them look like this one from my home state of Wisconsin:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.
Third, sir, do you really think that marriage recognition for same-sex couples should be contingent upon the state in which they live, or that couples who can’t afford to “simply go to a state that [offers] same-sex domestic partnerships” should just keep their heads down and accept their second-class status? Do you really think marriages — but again, only same-sex marriages — should dissolve once a legally-married same-sex couple crosses state lines? The assertion would be laughable if it weren’t so galling.
Finally, professor, even if your plan was magically implemented tomorrow and all couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, would only be able to enter into domestic partnerships in the eyes of the state, a two-tiered marriage system would still exist because of the tens of millions of opposite-sex couples and thousands of same-sex couples who’ve been legally married up until that point. The only “fair” way to enact your ludicrous plan would be to unilaterally commute all current civil marriages — opposite-sex and same-sex — to domestic partnerships. And if you or anyone else thinks heterosexual couples will be willing to give up the privilege and the federal protections that the word “marriage” entails, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
Contrast Thaler’s tortured reasoning and flawed “logic” with the eloquent words of openly gay op-ed columnist Frank Bruni. In an opinion piece published today in the Times titled Value Our Families, he writes:
In the intensifying debate over same-sex marriage, what I sometimes find hardest to understand is why so many opponents don’t see gay people’s longing to be wedded as the fundamentally conservative, lavishly complimentary desire it is. It says marriage is worth aspiring to and fighting for. Flatters it. Gives it reinvigorated cachet, extra currency, a sorely needed infusion of fresh energy. . .
Both [pro-equality Maryland governor Martin O'Malley and anti-equality New Jersey governor Chris Christie] were talking about family values, two words that have often been invoked in the argument against same-sex marriage. It’s time to turn the phrase around. What gay and lesbian couples are asking is to be recognized as families. And they’re just idealistic enough to hope that everyone realizes how much value there is in that.
Other than advising Professor Thaler to take a memo, I don’t think anything else needs to be said.
Why should I, a straight wife and mother, be willing to forego al the protections and rights that come with marriage simply to placate anti-gay bigots? There is no acceptable compromise with these people, because THEY aren’t interested in backing down at all. Do we consult the KKK before we pass civil rights laws for black people or Jews? Or attempt not to hurt their delicate sensibilities? Of course not, and neither should be attempt to pacify the gay haters. Who cares what they think or say? I know I don’t, as much as I don’t care or value anything David Duke thinks or says.
What Gay organization on earth have ever contributed to the welfare of people at large ?
They have only contributed to political parties for the money, advantages of married couples.
They do not donate blood at large. They largely contribute to the spread of AIDS. They promote Sodomy which Is the major habit of those who are incarcerated. The silent majority does not get full advantage of the aforementioned information in the news media or in schools. Gay communities in various States, truly shows their lack of decencency behaviors in general. Visit one in the summer, if there is any doubt in your mind. A Gay parade is only a sample of their normal activity. This is not published by the news media and allowed to be treated like it was a nudist colony. Let us allow Gay couples to behave as they want in their own privacy, but not encourage them with the sanctification of marriage.
You seem to know and awful lot about this stuff, Allard. Research it much? Go undercover in gay clubs to photograph the hijinks? Grow up and come into the modern era. You are a bigoted ignoramus. Do some research about AIDS before you spew your outmoded, medieval right-wing talking points.
Richard, when did Nelson Mandella or Ghandi ever contribute to the welfare of people at large? Guess you think they’re evil too. The only time you’d ever b***h about an oppressed people trying to help themselves is when its gays. Newsflash genius: An oppressed people trying to end the oppression is a moral and good thing.
Gays do not donate blood because they are not allowed to due to politics. The vast majority of AIDS infections are spread by heterosexuals. Anal sex and gay pride parades hurt no one and thus by definition are moral. Your dislike of an innocent and harmless minority is no justification for denying them the same rights you have. You stinking bigot.
We saw how charitable Christians are when they have to pay out of their own pocket. Didn’t they shut down operations in Chicago when state funding stopped due to their refusal to play by the rules? So much for contributing to the welfare of the people. For you to play that card reeks of the usual hypocrisy of your camp, Allard. Also, for you to spread misinformation about AIDS infections, as well as blatantly ignore the evolution of Pride events, reeks of the usual dishonesty of your camp.