Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  PAPER CHASE

Times Analyst Makes Good Case About Gay Marriage In Dollars—But Lacks Some Sense

We’ve been fighting the forces of evil so long we sometimes forget that most Americans don’t really have a strong opinion about marriage equality—or really understand its significance.

In Saturday’s New York Times Richard H. Thaler, professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago lays down a fiscal argument in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage that’s almost perfect for emailing to that friend or relative who may not be blinded by bigotry but just doesn’t get “what the big deal is.”

• If Pat and Chris want to form a business partnership in your home state, should their sexes play any role in determining whether that partnership is legal?

• Should the government play any role in deciding the rules regarding religious ceremonies like christenings and bar mitzvahs?

If you answered “no” to both questions, you are on your way to solving the same-sex marriage debate in the United States.

He goes on to explain discuss the rights—”more than 1,000,” he reminds readers—that legally wed couples enjoy:

Spouses may give each other unlimited bequests tax free, and they are permitted to file joint tax returns. If one spouse is a citizen, the other can become a citizen, too, and spouses get special treatment from Social Security.

For some couples, a lot of money is on the line. That’s why you are reading this column in the business section.

The mistake Thaler makes, and it’s one many well-intentioned heteros make, is he thinks those on the other side of the argument are just hung up on semantics. That if we called marriages “domestic partnerships” and let everyone have all the same federal rights, the problem would solve itself.

Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this problem, one that, based on their stated views, both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney might support, along with anyone else who answered “no” to my two opening questions.

Congress should amend the Defense of Marriage Act to [state] the following: “Wherever the word ‘marriage’ appears in any federal statute, replace that word with the phrase ‘domestic partnership between two people valid under the laws of the state where it was obtained.’ ”

I am not a lawyer, so I will not try to spell out all the details of how this would work. But here is a rough outline of a plan: In my ideal world, all states would follow the federal lead. 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.)

And anyone who believes in freedom of religion should support this proposal, because religions would have complete freedom to decide their criteria for marriages. One church could decide to marry only heterosexual members, while another might choose to marry only same-sex couples who are Cubs fans. Our founding fathers would be proud.

It’s sweet Thaler thinks it’d be that easy but as we’ve seen in Arizona, New Hampshire and elsewhere, our enemies don’t want to just stop us from getting married. They want to ban or repeal civil unions, benefits for domestic partners, anti-discrimination ordinances, anti-bulling programs—basically anything that grants LGBT people any measure of equality and protection. (It’s also a little galling that Thaler would allow states to deprive gays of their rights by saying, essentially, “well just don’t live there.”)

Thaler admits he doesn’t “expect the current Congress to pass [his proposed bill] anytime soon, and we don’t want to sound like we don’t appreciate someone trying to defend marriage equality from a business standpoint. But maybe this is a sign we need to remind those people not really invested in the issue one way or another how dangerous our enemies are.

Actually, looking at what’s going on in Congress right now, what would really stir our hetero allies to action is getting them to realize that it might be our rights on the line, but they’re next.

Photo: WeddingCollectibles.com

By:           Dan Avery
On:           Feb 20, 2012
Tagged: ,

  • 6 Comments
    • Mark
      Mark

      My partners children want us to get married – that’s exactly what they asked – Papi, when are you and dad going to get married?

      Feb 21, 2012 at 12:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      Keep marriage for everybody… and if your church feels the need to make a distinction and can’t figure out how to add an adjective before the word “marriage,” let them come up with some other term.

      Feb 21, 2012 at 12:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joetx
      Joetx

      Well, U of Chicago economics profs gave us neoliberalism & the resulting deregulation that lead to the financial crisis, stagnant/falling wages, loss of jobs to outsourcing, etc., so I could give a damn what one of those profs “thinks.”

      Feb 21, 2012 at 1:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Love is Love
      Love is Love

      @hyhybt: There already is a word for “church weddings” — it’s called Holy Matrimony. Also, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. only “sanctify” those marriage which can only be granted by the government. The so-called Churches do not and can not grant marriage. They only officiate during some shamanistic rite of Holy Matrimony which is purely symbolic and, considering the state of divorce in this country, probably generally pointless in regards to the “till death do you part” aspect of the ceremony.

      By the way, a federal “Domestic Partnership” nomenclature might cause one problems while traveling abroad in most countries where the word Marriage is viewed in a universal legal context as applied to opposite-sex nuptial contracts (as well as same-gender marriage where recognized) and how those relationships are viewed as lawful. In other words, a stupid idea from stupid people who just don’t get it — that is, marriage is broadly recognized for what it is, we don’t need to create more confusion.

      Marriage is meant to be portable and has legal precedence to back that up — civil unions and domestic partnerships do not. And because marriage is supposed to be portable from state to state there lies our best argument to overturn DOMA and state bans on marriage equality. Why muddy the water with something that only serves to obfuscate the issue and serves no purpose other than to appease bigotry?

      Feb 21, 2012 at 2:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      Sorry, but no, that won’t work. Here are just a few of the obvious reasons:

      1. The word “Marriage” is known and understood not only by 400 million Americans, but also by billions of people around the world. Re-educating ALL of them to understand, much less accept, that their own “marriage” no longer exists, simply cannot happen.

      2. The Supreme Court, and other courts and governments worldwide, have repeatedly declared that “Marriage is a fundamental right”. The word “marriage” is not just in law. It is in numerous international treaties. Each individual treaty has it’s own individual amendment and ratification process. Most simply CANNOT be amended, at all.

      3. The United States has bilateral treaties with many other countries, in which each nation promises to recognize marriages (and divorces) made in the other. It is not simply a matter of US law and US treaties. It also requires changing the laws of numerous other nations.

      4. I can just imagine the shrieks from NOM and Maggie Ghallagher, when she learns that ALL marriages are to be repealed…

      If we just allow same-sex couples to marry, and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, the first three issues are not a problem. Maggie Ghallagher is going to shriek in any case. It is far easier to ignore one idiot, than it would be to educate every person in the world, and actually change the laws and treaties of every nation in the world. That one idiot is going to continue shrieking in any case, as long as she can make money by doing so.

      Ultimately, there is only one approach that can work: Government must recognize marriage of all couples who choose to be married. Churches may decide for themselves, which marriages they recognize. And, each may ignore the choices made by the other. Individuals and corporations engaging in Commerce, must obey law regarding marriages, and accept those marriages that are recognized by the Government. Individuals making personal decisions, for themselves, may act according to their religious beliefs.

      Feb 21, 2012 at 3:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the other Greg
      the other Greg

      Easy correction, Dan:

      “We [upper middle class gay people who own real estate] have been fighting the forces of evil so long we sometimes forget that most [gay people] don’t really have a strong opinion about marriage equality—or really understand its significance.”

      Feb 21, 2012 at 8:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.