patrick.net

But then gays can file taxes as "married, filing jointly". That will reduce tax revenue in some cases.

Just kidding. Legalize it once and for all. I don't even understand all the opposition to this. A committed relationship of any kind is helpful to society, I feel.

I think the opposition to gay marriage comes from the unspoken reasoning that goes like this:

If being gay is OK -> bible is not literally true -> I'm not going to heaven

You hit the nail on the head, Patrick!

If being gay is OK -> bible is not literally true -> I’m not going to heaven

You mean people still take the bible literally? Isn't this the season to finally celebrate reason?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/celebrate-reason-new-atheist-billboard-calls-christmas-a-myth/

Sorry, Patrick, with your last name you are probably a good Irish Catholic. One who likely interprets lessons from the bible rather than taking it literally. Me - big shock - well (see billboard above). The crazy things some of us fringe people will say on this blog ;)

I think the opposition to gay marriage comes from the unspoken reasoning that goes like this:

If being gay is OK -> bible is not literally true -> I’m not going to heaven

I don't think it's that simple. The people who think like the above are the same kind of ill-informed people that think that the Republican elite cares about them and want to "help" them by getting the government out of their lives. There is plenty of them, but they are not the ones that drive the real right-wing agenda.

I think that the unspoken and underlying reasoning about gay marriage is quite a bit more complicated. Basically, I think allowing gay marriage will expose or highlight many of the legal follies and inequities that constitute the current state of affairs with good old-fashioned heterosexual marriage.

And a lot of powerful people are worried about that, for various reasons.

Once Bill and Bob show up in family court, the legal system is going to have to contort itself in a major fashion in order to appear fair and balanced, and this will have effects on how hetero marriage contracts and divorce are enforced.

The financial elite wants working class people to be married and not single. It provides for a more stable workforce and reduces welfare and other tax-based programs that lead to taxation of the rich. Anything that exposes marriage as a bad deal for men must be counteracted.

There are other reasons, such a businesses not wanting to have to provide health benefits to gay partners, especially considering the much higher prevalence of AIDS and the cost of AIDS treatment among the gay male population.

IMHO, the issues surrounding gay marriage & gay rights is that people are frightened of those who are different than they are. The bible thing applies too. It's not financial.

Many people believe that the pedophile priests were gay, therefore all gays are pedophiles. It's just plain ignorance and lack of tolerance for those who are different than we are. We don't like gays, or muslims, or wiccans...

elliemae says

It’s not financial.

I agree that for the naive tools that support the right-wing agenda against gay marriage, it is all about religion, fear and intolerance.

But for the people that pull the strings, it is all about money and power.

justme says

elliemae says

It’s not financial.

I agree that for the naive tools that support the right-wing agenda against gay marriage, it is all about religion, fear and intolerance.
But for the people that pull the strings, it is all about money and power.

Who are the people that you consider the be 'pulling the strings' here? Because you must be talking above the congressional level, since those guys are clearly just homophobes.

I could see the likes of the Koch brothers or Murdoch thinking in these terms.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning though. Marriage is only a bad deal for men if they are the sole worker in the family. It's fair to argue that there aren't a lot of financial advantages to marriage that aren't also available through simple co-habitation, though I personally saw gains since our collective costs for health and auto insurance were reduced.

I definitely think that marriage is a bit of a silly concept in and of itself. It seems odd that you need a legally binding contract to stay together. I know plenty of couples, hetero and homo, who have been together for decades and never felt the need to marry.

Truth be told, there were two main reasons that my wife and I got married:

1. Insurance. Her employer didn't offer any, and we were looking at several hundred a month to get it.
2. Cultural expectations. It's really annoying explaining to your parents why you aren't married, and we thought it would be difficult explaining to our planned children why we weren't married as well.

Both of these things can be fixed though.

Kevin says

Marriage is only a bad deal for men if they are the sole worker in the family.

Pray you never end up in divorce court, uh, family court is what they call it.

If you do you will very likely find out first hand why marriage is an incredibly bad deal for men.

Ask your divorced male friends and listen to what they have to tell.

justme says

Ask your divorced male friends and listen to what they have to tell.

Things are slowly changing, but it ain't happening fast enough. I wish that the courts would recognize that children need both parents equally. I can at least say that when I got divorced, I got half/he got half (no kids from this marriage) and no alimony. He made 3x what I did, but I didn't ask for anything else. It didn't seem fair.

justme says

But for the people that pull the strings, it is all about money and power.

Wow, does this mean that someone will pay you to be gay? That could be the answer to the massive unemployment problem we have in the US right now. That's me, always thinkin'.

elliemae says

I can at least say that when I got divorced, I got half/he got half (no kids from this marriage) and no alimony

Unfortunately experience has shown that one cannot count on people to be fair like Ellie.

elliemae says

Wow, does this mean that someone will pay you to be gay? That could be the answer to the massive unemployment problem we have in the US right now. That’s me, always thinkin’.

Sorry, I could not follow the joke.

justme says

Kevin says

Marriage is only a bad deal for men if they are the sole worker in the family.

Pray you never end up in divorce court, uh, family court is what they call it.
If you do you will very likely find out first hand why marriage is an incredibly bad deal for men.
Ask your divorced male friends and listen to what they have to tell.

It's a mixed bag. Those who have a spouse who did not work were made to remain responsible for their children and former spouse's well being for a period of time. Those who have a spouse who did work got an even split.

I see nothing wrong with this.

I know one divorced man who was a stay at home dad, and he got treated the same as a typical stay at home mom does following a divorce. His ex wife pays him alimony and child support.

There is nothing unfair about that.

Unfair would be if both spouses were working and making similar amounts of money, both were given similar parental responsibilities, but one spouse was made to pay the other. I haven't heard of anything like that happening in a very long time.

justme says

Sorry, I could not follow the joke.

If being gay is a financial issue, all we have to do is pay all those unemployed people to be gay. Capiche?

Kevin,

I think you are somewhat young and somewhat idealistic. What you are describing is what happens in divorces that are between two partners that are fair and agreeable. A very large number of divorces do not fall into that category, unfortunately.

If a woman is not fair and agreeable, she can concoct all kinds of trouble that exhibit the inequities of marriage and family law.

An example: A school friend of mine is currently living in an extended-stay type hotel because his wife "kicked him out of the house".

How could she do that? Well, she basically threatened him that if he did not leave voluntarily, she would file for a restraining order against him, on some false grounds. The net effect of this would with high probability be that the judge would say that said male spouse would not be allowed to live in his own house, because it would be "better for the children and their mother to stay together", and by the restraining order he could not stay near them.

This is the reality of marriage and "family law", in the US, today. There are literally millions of men getting this kind of treatment.

I should add that said friend is a kind-hearted, gentle and religous man that would never hurt a fly,

elliemae says

If being gay is a financial issue, all we have to do is pay all those unemployed people to be gay. Capiche?

I must be dense. They would have to become gay and then we would have to find someone to provide for them in marriage "-) ?? Sometimes elliemae's jokes are too clever for me.

The US military policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was just repealed late last night by Congress.

This means that gay persons can now "serve openly" in the military forces. But what does "serve openly" mean, exactly?

I think we shall soon find out that it means much more than having a photo of your same-sex partner on your desk, or bringing them to the officers club for dinner.

Very soon, the next step of contention will be whether a soldier's gay domestic partner (or spouse, where legal) is entitled to health benefits, pensions and other survivor benefits. And then we will see why the army brass has been against it for so long: it costs lots of money.

justme says

I think we shall soon find out that it means much more than having a photo of your same-sex partner on your desk, or bringing them to the officers club for dinner.

Very soon, the next step of contention will be whether a soldier’s gay domestic partner (or spouse, where legal) is entitled to health benefits, pensions and other survivor benefits. And then we will see why the army brass has been against it for so long: it costs lots of money.

Serving openly means that a gay person doesn't have to fake being straight merely to get ahead in their chosen profession. It means that they don't have to worry about losing their job because of their sexual orientation.

So far as the benefits, pensions, etc. that's bullshit. We spend more dollars on useless war-related crap than we do for military benefits - and why should we deny someone the same rights that we give to others simply because they have same-sex partners? It's certainly not the costs - the army brass isn't against anything because of money because they are far, far, far removed from reality.

They're against gay people serving openly because they're prejudiced.

I have not seen any single facts to prove gay marriage is good for our economy. More I read, it seems the opposite. I'd like to know the facts supporting this claim. Cause marriage can reduce the tax revenue by filing jointly. This seems to shrink our education system etc more. Also, the company has to pay extra for the health insurance benefit (some may already do, but I don't really know). I am not sure how it can boost the economy. Can someone outline them?

I am neither against nor for gay marriage. If the gay marriage does boost the economy, perhaps I will be for gay marriage. Can we get back to the main topic?

justme says

Kevin,
I think you are somewhat young and somewhat idealistic. What you are describing is what happens in divorces that are between two partners that are fair and agreeable. A very large number of divorces do not fall into that category, unfortunately.
If a woman is not fair and agreeable, she can concoct all kinds of trouble that exhibit the inequities of marriage and family law.
An example: A school friend of mine is currently living in an extended-stay type hotel because his wife “kicked him out of the house”.
How could she do that? Well, she basically threatened him that if he did not leave voluntarily, she would file for a restraining order against him, on some false grounds. The net effect of this would with high probability be that the judge would say that said male spouse would not be allowed to live in his own house, because it would be “better for the children and their mother to stay together”, and by the restraining order he could not stay near them.
This is the reality of marriage and “family law”, in the US, today. There are literally millions of men getting this kind of treatment.
I should add that said friend is a kind-hearted, gentle and religous man that would never hurt a fly,

So why doesn't he file for divorce and get a competent lawyer?

Your bias is showing.

justme says

Very soon, the next step of contention will be whether a soldier’s gay domestic partner (or spouse, where legal) is entitled to health benefits, pensions and other survivor benefits. And then we will see why the army brass has been against it for so long: it costs lots of money.

I doubt it. Less than 10% of the population is homosexual, but more than half of military age are married. The worst-case scenerio is about a 5% increase in health care costs. We increase the military budget by more than that every year to upgrade planes that we don't even use.

Nobody says

I’d like to know the facts supporting this claim. Cause marriage can reduce the tax revenue by filing jointly.

If only one spouse works, sure. If both are working it's a wash, by design.

Nobody says

This seems to shrink our education system etc more.

Gay people are great for education. They overwhelmingly have fewer children than heterosexual couples (adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination are all very expensive), but they pay the same in property taxes.

Nobody says

Also, the company has to pay extra for the health insurance benefit (some may already do, but I don’t really know)

My employer provides benefits to gay couples, and they've said repeatedly that the average cost for a heterosexual employee is greater than that for a homosexual employee, mostly because homosexual employees tend to have spouses who work and get insurance through their own employer, whereas heterosexual employees are more likely to have a non-working spouse.

Nobody says

I am not sure how it can boost the economy. Can someone outline them?

I'm pretty sure it will have zero real impact on the economy one way or another. Anyone making claims along these lines is being ridiculous. Gay marriage should be legalized because we live in a free society, and in a free society you should have the right to live your life the way that you want as long as you aren't harming anyone else.

Kevin says

I’m pretty sure it will have zero real impact on the economy one way or another

I beg to differ. If gay marriage were to be legalized, some of the ceremonies would surely be lavish and the monies spent would benefit someone in the wedding biz. I believe that's what the OP meant.

But gay marriage isn't a financial issue - nor should finances be taken into account in this argument either way. It's a social issue, and an equality issue. justme says

There are other reasons, such a businesses not wanting to have to provide health benefits to gay partners, especially considering the much higher prevalence of AIDS and the cost of AIDS treatment among the gay male population.

We need to get past this issue. Anyone can get AIDS; altho certain behaviors do lend themselves more to exposure. IV drug use is a great example, as is sex without a condom.

justme says

Once Bill and Bob show up in family court, the legal system is going to have to contort itself in a major fashion in order to appear fair and balanced, and this will have effects on how hetero marriage contracts and divorce are enforced.

In this example, the man would surely be treated more favorably. :)

Nobody says

This seems to shrink our education system etc more.

I would be surprised to find any correlation between gay marriage and the demise of our education system. But please do go on.

justme says

Very soon, the next step of contention will be whether a soldier’s gay domestic partner (or spouse, where legal) is entitled to health benefits, pensions and other survivor benefits.

Gay & Lesbian partners should be afforded all of the legal rights of any committed couple. They should be free to marry, divorce, adopt and/or have natural children. They should be treated like - well, people.

That's a novel idea.

Kevin,

I c. Thanks.

I don't really care who marries who. My friends are gays and lesbians. I have fun hanging around them, not in the sexual way. If they ask me to support it, I think I would in the name of freedom and friendship. Though I wonder if you really need a legal institution to declare marriage.

In regard to the claim that legalizing gay marriage has a positive boost on the economy, I suspected this is not a factual claim.

In regard to adopting, surrogacy etc, I wish more homosexual couples can adopt. Some of them are qualified and capable of being an awesome parent. It's not actual child making, but nurturing and giving children the right education and the wisdom would impact our economy in the positive way. One of my homosexual friends loves to babysit my son. She teaches my son violin for free. It's great. My son absolutely loves her and her partner. So from that stand point, I guess that it does have a boosting impact on our economy and our future.

Legalizing gay marriage is a feeling good type of proposition (because it is probably the right thing to do), but this claim of "legalizing gay marriage boosts economy" seemed dubious.

justme says

An example: A school friend of mine is currently living in an extended-stay type hotel because his wife “kicked him out of the house”.
How could she do that? Well, she basically threatened him that if he did not leave voluntarily, she would file for a restraining order against him, on some false grounds. The net effect of this would with high probability be that the judge would say that said male spouse would not be allowed to live in his own house, because it would be “better for the children and their mother to stay together”, and by the restraining order he could not stay near them.
This is the reality of marriage and “family law”, in the US, today. There are literally millions of men getting this kind of treatment.
I should add that said friend is a kind-hearted, gentle and religous man that would never hurt a fly,

FYI, there are two sides to every story. Yes, this man sounds like he's getting screwed - but he left because his ex threatened him? In most cases its difficult to get a restraining order without some proof of why it's needed. He needs to get a lawyer (Kev's right) and handle it.
All that you know is what this man has told you - and I'm willing to bet there's more than you don't know. It doesn't pass a smell test.

artistsoul says

Patrick, with your last name you are probably a good Irish Catholic. One who likely interprets lessons from the bible rather than taking it literally.

I was indeed raised Catholic because of my Irish-American father, but I'm not a believer. I do think that Catholics are one step closer to rationality than fundamentalist Protestants, because Catholics interpret the bible rather than just taking it all literally. So Catholics can openly believe in evolution, and interpret Genesis as allegory.

The Catholic Church is also slightly nicer to gays, in that they don't accuse them of choosing evil like the Protestants do. But they still condemn any actual gay sex as serious sin.

ellimae,

You can file a temporary restraining order on any grounds. It is so easy, all you have to do is go to court. They will assist filing and serve the order without any cost, if you don't have any income. And the judge is so willing to do it these days, you can pretty much convert it to permanent as long as you show up at the court. I should know, especially in California and New York.

Hey
By the way, my son is 6 and he has no idea that they are lesbians.

Nobody says

ellimae,
You can file a temporary restraining order on any grounds. It is so easy, all you have to do is go to court. They will assist filing and serve the order without any cost, if you don’t have any income. And the judge is so willing to do it these days, you can pretty much convert it to permanent as long as you show up at the court. I should know, especially in California and New York.

A TRO is time-limited, and I've had experience with domestic abuse in both small towns & larger cities. You're right - anyone can file for one but that doesn't meant it will be awarded. There needs to be grounds. That guy needs a lawyer.

Nobody says

Hey
By the way, my son is 6 and he has no idea that they are lesbians.

Why would he?

ellie,

I am putting that sentence in to eliminate other idiots from thinking something sleazy from my previous comment. Not to you in particular.

I know judges and DA. They are so willing, so they can show the record of the number of PRO awarded and number of DV conviction to keep their jobs for the next election. I wonder if the judicial system is meted out objectively. But we are not living in the dream world. We have to live with the reality.

Kevin says

It’s a mixed bag. Those who have a spouse who did not work were made to remain responsible for their children and former spouse’s well being for a period of time. Those who have a spouse who did work got an even split.

But how often does a man have the luxury of staying home and be provided for? There is always some examples of this, but it is very far from the norm. And I can bet you if a man announced before the wedding that he was planning to be a homemaker after marriage, the bride would quickly be running in the other direction in a very large fraction of the cases.

And if he becomes a homemaker sometime after the wedding, expect divorce papers to be served very soon. Most of the time. Have you not seen this before? Usually the stated reason will be something else than "the man has to work", but look under the surface for the real reason.

Look, there is no equality in marriage. Equality applies only to one of the genders (to get a little Orwellian here). The other gets very little of it. There are always some counterexamples, but that does not the general case or an average case make.

Nobody says

I am putting that sentence in to eliminate other idiots from thinking something sleazy from my previous comment. Not to you in particular.

No offense taken. But you said that "One of my homosexual friends loves to babysit my son. She teaches my son violin for free."

To which I say that there's too much sax & violins these days. ;)

justme says

Kevin says

It’s a mixed bag. Those who have a spouse who did not work were made to remain responsible for their children and former spouse’s well being for a period of time. Those who have a spouse who did work got an even split.

But how often does a man have the luxury of staying home and be provided for?

I do not know a single stay at home parent who considers this job a "luxury". In every instance of every person that I know who stays at home, male or female, it was either a financial decision (cheaper for one parent to stay home than to pay a baby sitter), or a quality issue (poor school district, one parent stays home to home school).

Again, your bias is showing.

There is always some examples of this, but it is very far from the norm. And I can bet you if a man announced before the wedding that he was planning to be a homemaker after marriage, the bride would quickly be running in the other direction in a very large fraction of the cases.

This goes both ways. If my wife tried to tell me that she was just going to stay home before our wedding, I wouldn't have married her. That's how marriages work. It's not the 1700s.

And if he becomes a homemaker sometime after the wedding, expect divorce papers to be served very soon.
Most of the time. Have you not seen this before? Usually the stated reason will be something else than “the man has to work”, but look under the surface for the real reason.

In any marriage, if one spouse suddenly said that they were going to stop working (rather than mutually agreeing to such an arrangement for the previously mentioned financial / quality of life issues), the result would probably be divorce.

Wives don't get to unilaterally decide what they will or won't do, nor are husbands. You can't move without agreeing on it, you can't make a major purchase without agreeing on it, you can't have a child without agreeing on it, and you can't make a radical change to your lifestyle without agreeing to it.

So if I am to believe the original premise of this thread, the real reason that the economy isn't at full employment (defined as 5% unemploymet by former President Clinton) is because of gays? Personally I think it has a lot more to do with HB-1 visa's, immigration, outsourcing, and our free trade and energy policies.

Kevin says

I do not know a single stay at home parent who considers this job a “luxury”. In every instance of every person that I know who stays at home, male or female, it was either a financial decision (cheaper for one parent to stay home than to pay a baby sitter), or a quality issue (poor school district, one parent stays home to home school).
Again, your bias is showing.

Agreed. My wife stays at home with our two kids and I think it's fair to say that many (most?) days she would trade with me. And I know that I wouldn't make that trade. 3 yr. olds are very good at knowing exactly what to say and do to drive you to drink.

Kevin says

Wives don’t get to unilaterally decide what they will or won’t do

That is probably the funniest thing I've read this year!

elliemae says

In this example, the man would surely be treated more favorably.

I can see it now:

Bill: Bob, you the man!
Bob: No, you the man, man!

Oh wait, that was backwards. Bob wouldn't say that.

Kevin says

Again, your bias is showing.

Isn't this just a generic put-down? What is that supposed to mean exactly? Are we having a contest about who can write the most stuff without "showing" their "bias".

Hey, Kev. Love ya'. We can agree on a lot of things about housing and markets and politics. Gender relations just isn't one of them, I suppose. But no need for this particular put-down. I know I said you were perhaps a bit young and a bit idealistic, but that is not a put-down. Maybe just a reference to myself being once young and naive at the height of theoretical gender equality, only to find out later that the terrain is in fact very different than the map of that area.

EightBall says

Kevin says

Wives don’t get to unilaterally decide what they will or won’t do

That is probably the funniest thing I’ve read this year!

+99, and NOT a put-down of anyone

Do we have big enough gay population among us to boost economy by letting them marry?

I'm convinced that the real reason liberals want gay marriage so much is because lawyers are big supporters of Democrats and they want that lucrative divorce business.

zzyzzx says

I’m convinced that the real reason liberals want gay marriage so much is because lawyers are big supporters of Democrats and they want that lucrative divorce business.

Haha, yes, there is a small grain of truth in this.

seaside: They say about 10% of the population is GLBT. So, I would say so!

Wow, I just came back to check this thread - thanks for all the discussion so far!