I have several close friends that are gay and it pisses me off when someone opposes something that will not do anyone any harm. Try reading the WSJ editorial page Friday
10-27-2006 Darren Spedale/William Eskridge “The Hitch”…so much for the sky falling by letting “those people” marry.

I could just as easily see him arguing against court-mandated desegregation, not because of any racial prejudice, but simply because the letter of the law doesn’t require desegregation.

I agree to a point…although I think he and his supporters try to hide their prejudices beneath their blind loyalty to the letter of the law.

Like, for example, saying “Fuck due process in the state of Florida, let’s just pick the guy we like?” Nah…

JustinB:

For all his flaws (and they are many), I don’t think Xrlq is a “homophobe.” Sure, he’s a complete dickhead on this particular issue (yep, I just engaged in name-calling, it’s true), but I don’t think it has anything to do with any particular animosity towards, or fear of, homosexuals. If I had to make a guess at what it is, then, I’d say it’s a blind loyalty to the letter of the law, with absolutely no regard to what’s right or fair or just. If today were the 1950’s, I could just as easily see him arguing against court-mandated desegregation, not because of any racial prejudice, but simply because the letter of the law doesn’t require desegregation.

Xrlq Says:

Link to this comment
JustinB: please stop posting comments on any topic. Every time you open your mouth the collective IQ of the blogsphere drops by 3-5 points. Just for the record, I don’t hate you for being gay. I hate you for being an idiot. Your gayness is, if anything, a plus factor, as it ensures you will not reproduce yourself, no matter how many renegade courts may rule you have a right to. Now crawl back into your cave.

You really know how to win an argument dont you?

BH: Actually, I don’t pay the marriage penalty because my wife doesn’t work. In fact, I pay less taxes than I would if we were unmarried, so I actually enjoy a marriage bonus instead. The reason for both is simple: by adding two people’s tax brackets together, you allow them to effectively allocate their income such that both individuals’ lower tax brackets get maxed out before either’s upper (more severely taxed) brackets get hit. That is the marriage bonus. The only problem is, the shared bracket of a married couple is smaller than double the bracket of a single couple, meaning a higher tax rate for couples whose incomes were in the same bracket anyway. That is the marriage penalty. There are only ways to avoid this conundrum: (1) adopt a flat tax so that brackets don’t matter, or (2) abolish joint income tax liability. The first option is a political non-starter; I like it, Steve Forbes, and just about no one else does. The second option is worse, as it would royally screw single- or primary-income families. Fairness to married/single people, fairness to single-income families, or progressive income tax. Pick two.

Returning to the original issue, I’m not sure why any particular benefits should flow to gay couples automatically. Not one of them ever flowed to straight couples that way. Each and every benefit (or, the case of income taxes, non-benefit) resulted from a deliberative process. I don’t see why it should be any different for a brand-new institution that may not even work in the long run, and which we certainly don’t know anything about – i.e., you know how it is supposed to work in the long run, but no one really knows how it will. Certain benefits, such as inheritance or visitation rights for spouses, should be a no-brainer. Others, maybe not. For any given issue that really does just boil down to fairness, it shouldn’t be that hard to pass it on its own.

As to interstate recognition, it’s not going to happen overnight. AFAIK Utah does not recognize civil unions, so it stands to reason that an New Jersey civil union shoudl not be recognized there. However, I see no reason why a New Jersey or Vermont civil union, or even a Massachusetts gay marriage, should not be recognized as a domestic partnership in California. That’s not the case now, but I have little doubt that the civil union states will work that issue out over time, just as the right to carry states are gradually doing now, and just about every state has done in the past for traditional marriage. As to a New Jersey civil union being recognized in Virginia, I can accept that result under/over any one of the following events:

1. Virginians miraculously voting down the marriage amendment this fall, and later, even more miraculously voting to adopt civil unions.
2. My dead body.
3. My Virginia concealed carry permit being equally valid and equally recognized in New Jersey.

Besides, tax benefits are only one of many benefits that married couples get. Just google marriage benefits to see. And a lot of those benefits will not automatically go to people in civil unions. It’s going to be a constant battle to maintain the equality of civil unions. For example, will a NJ civil union be recognized in Utah?

You don’t need to be homophobic to be against this method of installing gay marriage. You don’t even need to be disgusted by the actual sex act, nevermind just two guys being legally recognized. I’m bi (leaning heterosexual), and despite being turned on by the physical attributes, I can still oppose the legal ones and the methodology thereof.

Now, go pull your balls out of whatever jar you stuck them in, be a man, and actually deal with the argument on its merits rather than simply assume that everyone opposing your viewpoint has a mental condition.

Standard, Are you seriously arguing that married people are at a tax disadvantage?

Well, I’m not married, so I don’t have first-hand experience. Google; however, is your friend.

Discover how the marriage penalty causes married couples to pay more taxes than their single counterparts. Learn who it hurts, why it is so costly, …

Although millions of US couples have been impacted by the marriage penalty in the federal tax code, do you understand what the marriage penalty is, …

Some have found that matrimony has hiked their tax bill unexpectedly. Roy Lewis looks at the details of the “married-joint” filing status.

(That’s the first three results)

BH:

PS: The reason DINKs have a lot of money isn’t because they have a better tax situation. It’s because kids are expensive. And there’s lots of striaght DINK couples too. I’m in one.

Which is why I said:

At least some people tend to think DINKs of any gender have lots of disposable income and are also “early adopters”.

I’m still waiting an answer to my previous question. Tell me on a personal level why you are against gay marriage please? I don’t want your fucking diatribes citing case law from old Abe back in 1862. I want to know why you have 10 prior posts against gay cooties but haven’t bothered to explain why you think its wrong on a personal level.

I supported gay marriage myself when I was in my mid-20s, unmarried, and just plain didn’t know any better. I don’t anymore. I don’t think I’m the only person who falls into that category.

Thats a real convincing fucking argument after posting 10 posts against gay people for wanting to marry each other eh? You are not man enough to come out and admit that you don’t like gay people and find their lifestyle abhornt to your beliefs will you? You hide behind other peoples arguments without coming out and saying why you are so against this topic. Be a man and admit it.

Are you seriously arguing that married people are at a tax disadvantage? Married people have the of filing either singly or jointly. The majority of them file together. They are CHOOSING to do so. For you to claim that huge numbers of married people are choosing unfavorable tax status boggles my mind.

Gay couples want the same options as straight couples when it comes to taxes. Simple as that.

And: the AMT doesn’t only affect married people.

PS: The reason DINKs have a lot of money isn’t because they have a better tax situation. It’s because kids are expensive. And there’s lots of striaght DINK couples too. I’m in one.

When it comes down to is, it’s all about the tax breaks….

Actually, there’s a niche in marketing that goes after Gay couples and their “double income no kids” dollars. At least some people tend to think DINKs of any gender have lots of disposable income and are also “early adopters”.

Marriage as DINKs, usually means paying a hefty marriage penalty, including frequently the thingy known as the “alternative minimum tax“

The point is that in exchange for a massive societal cost, we’re getting nothing but the “equality” of having a capability other people didn’t have, and spending a lot more political capital than necessary to butt heads with discriminatory laws or individuals.

Consider it… pragmatic.

Perhaps you should have read the next sentence with the bit you quoted. Not only are young people less bigoted than their elders, but today’s elders are less bigoted than yesterday’s. It’s a clear trend. Even though people get more conservative as they age, the population as a whole is moving in the right direction.

This is a good thing. It means that today’s controversies are likely to be less controversial in a generation or two.

Every poll I’ve ever seen correlates anti-gay animus (and anti-marriage equality sentiment) with age.

So what? Contrary to the hallucinations of the 60+ crowd who once trusted no one over 30, young people get older just like the rest of us. Belief in Superman and the Easter Bunny correlates with age, too; that doesn’t mean the Superman and Easter Bunny factions are winning (though they probably think they are). I supported gay marriage myself when I was in my mid-20s, unmarried, and just plain didn’t know any better. I don’t anymore. I don’t think I’m the only person who falls into that category.

Every poll I’ve ever seen correlates anti-gay animus (and anti-marriage equality sentiment) with age. And the polls done today show lower overall anti-gay sentiment than 10 years ago. America is moving on this issue. Where it stops nobody knows, but the grand arc of American history is clear. We’re winning, albeit slowly.

And to be clear, my beef is with inequality. I’m against discriminating against some marriages by calling them civil unions and treating them differently from all the other marriages. Civil unions do not provide the same legal benefits as marriages (i.e. tax benefits). Even if they did, the two structures would drift and gays would have to fight the constant battle to maintain equal benefits.

If marriage and civil unions are to be legally identical in all but name, then the only reason to deny the name is bigotry.

I’m not sure what overwhelming majority you’re referring to.

I’m referring to the United States of America, where initiatives or constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage – that little civil nuisance you pooh-pooh as “bigotry” – have passed handily in every state where they have been put to a vote, and where not a single state has enacted a contrary law through the normal democratic process. If public sentiment were close to an even split, you’d think that by now at least one state would have taken the plunge on its own, without some puffed up judges telling them they had to.

The grandchildren of today’s antigay demagogues will be ashamed of their family history.

Sez you. The fact is that no one knows. History is chock full of activists who have convinced themselves that their respective causes are 100% just, and that future generations will smile on their prescience and write off their opponents as big weenies (or worse). A few of these individuals (e.g., real civil rights activists, who dealt with physically separated schools rather than the harmless “separate” legal abstractions you seem so exercised about), turned out to be right. A few others (e.g., communists, prohibitionists or the KKK) turned out to be so horribly wrong that we remember them for being such colossal idiots. The rest – and, I suspect, the vast majority – are basically forgotten because their pet cause turned out to be the Next Best Thing that wasn’t. Based on what is known and knowable about gay marriage today, none of those three possibilities can be completely ruled out. History will tell, but trying to tell WHAT history will tell is a fool’s errand.

Obviously, you’re convinced that gay marriage is one of those few righteous causes that will eventually be accepted universally, or at least nearly so. If you’re right, you ought to be madder about yesterday’s decision than I am. Not because it subverts the rule of law, which doesn’t seem to bother you that much anyway, but because its long term impact will be to set back the cause of gay marriage, not to advance it. Two days ago, I would have said there is at least a chance – an outside chance, mind you, but a chance nevertheless – that Virginia’s downright goofy marriage amendment might fail. Not anymore. I hope you’re happy with that result. Then again, if your principal beef is not with marriage-lik benefits but “separate but equal” civil unions, perhaps you are. Virginia’s nutty amendment will prohibit those, too.

If opposite-sex marriages of convenience are so common, how come the institution of marriage hasn’t toppled? I guess they’re not such a threat after all.

And really, oppostie-sex college roommates getting married for convenience is common? Spare me. Even the people who raise the boogeyman of college roommates marrying don’t believe it.

I’m not sure what overwhelming majority you’re referring to. In a lot of places, sentiment is fairly even. And bigotry in this area is to some degree an artifact of age. Fact is, population effects are going to deliver marriage equality in my lifetime, just because younger people today are less threatened by homosexuality. The grandchildren of today’s antigay demagogues will be ashamed of their family history. I wonder how often Bull Conner’s grandkids brag about him.

The inequality has real world consequences of handing out a bunch of benefits to one group but not to another. You can dress that pig any way you want, but it still stinks.

To you, but not to the overwhelming majority, which thinks it smells just fine. I still fail to see why you think your vote ought to count more than anyone else’s.

I’m still not seeing how this is discrimination.

I call it bigortry because that’s what it is. If you prefer, we can call it a tradition of bigotry.

And it’s not equality for equality’s sake. It’s equality for justice’s sake. The inequality has real world consequences of handing out a bunch of benefits to one group but not to another. You can dress that pig any way you want, but it still stinks.

And to the extent opposite-sex roommates ARE jumping in and out of them, why hasn’t that destroyed the institution of marriage?

Either it’s not a risk or the institution can withstand it. Either way, it’s an injustice to pretend the risk and the damage is uniquely a factor of ending marriage discrimination.

Marriages of convenience are easy. Saw many of them while in the Army.

It was a great way for people get a little extra money, out of the barracks and away from the “hey you” tasks that always manage to pop up after normal duty hours.

I don’t care for civil marriage much, it’s true. But if the gov is going to go around handing out rights and classifying relationships, it matters to me that it gets done without bigotry.

OK, then, how about you start calling tradition “tradition” and stop calling it “bigotry.” Problem solved. And since you don’t care much for the institution anyway, you might want to find a better cause than fighting for the rights of gays to cut off their noses to spite their faces – or worse, their all-important semantic right to call their noses and faces “noses” and “faces,” respectively.

It’s not the separateness that burns. It’s the inequality.

Equality for equality’s sake is a stupid objective, and one libertarians usually have the good sense to eschew. How about looking out for yourself, “equality” be damned. Don’t like the rules applicable to civil unions? Then lobby your legislator to change them. Like them the way they are? Then tell him/her to leave them as they are. Making them more similar to the rules of traditional marriage should not be an objective; at most, it should be a side-effect of doing the right thing. And in some cases, it’s probably not even desirable, e.g., I can think of a number of reasons why no-fault divorce is a bad idea for traditional marriage, but may be appropriate for civil unions. Hell, I’m not even sure men and women are similar enough that it makes sense to have all the rules be the same for male-male civil unions as for female-female ones. Maybe the rules should indeed be the same, but that’s an empirical question. It’s hardly a given – at least, for anyone living in the real world rather than in Analogy-Land.

That’s why the state requires licensing.

That’s why gays want it.

Any other right they claim to want is easliy handled by legal documentation.

I’m not going to make the slippery slope argument again, even though it’s a valid one. I just don’t like having my tax dollars wasted on this issue.

As to ‘inequality’, perhaps we should then allow men to use the woman’s restroom, and reverse? Oh, that’s right, we accept that structural differences exist.