Posted by
voice_of_reason on Sunday, March 04, 2007 11:30:07 AM
Disclosure#1: I am a happily married, heterosexual, conservative male. Socially, I don't have a
personal stake in this debate. What is the significance of this disclosure? In our polarized country, it is assumed that only Gays or liberals care about Gay Marriage and that all straight conservatives oppose it. However, conservatives too believe that there has to be fairness and equality in our policies.
Disclosure#2: Due to my
political atheism, I choose to ignore the religious viewpoint that opposes gay marriage or any other issue. If a conservative (or libertarian) position can't be defended based on fundamental rights, the constitution or objective law, then it is lost anyway! As I have mentioned before, that does not constitute an anti-Religious sentiment. What it
does mean is that I accept the reality that issues cannot be decided in modern America on a religious basis alone.
I find that the secular, conservative viewpoint opposing Gay Marriage is weak. Most of the points that are raised by secular conservatives can also apply to heterosexual marriage as well. Therefore, conservatives who oppose Gay Marriage typically fall back on the argument from tradition or religion.
What if:
- heterosexual couples also received a Civil Union document along with their marriage license
- gay couples could also obtain Civil Union documents
- the word 'marriage' had religious and traditional connotations, but no financial or civil benefits
- all Civil Unions were treated identically by the state
While on the subject, why not assume that:
- taxes were 'flat'
- married couples did not get any special treatment under the tax laws
Would gays still agitate for the right to marry if there were no economic benefits involved?
It took a Civil War to end Slavery -- perhaps Civil Unions will end the the 'War' on Gay Marriage?
Since many people throw out analogies & examples on this subject, here is a parallel that hasn't been made before (I think). Homeowners are allowed to deduct their housing cost (mortgage interest) for tax purposes; renters are not afforded the same privilege. Although this might be beneficial to the real estate market as well as the lenders, it seems unfair to the renters. TH readers are smart enough to figure out that homeowners in this example are analogous to heterosexuals - while renters are analogous to gay couples.
So, should renters also get a tax deduction for their housing costs? In fairness, they could certainly make such a case. The reasons that there hasn't been a taxpayer revolt on this issue are (a) most renters eventually aspire to become homeowners (b) landlords are not as organized as real estate professionals (c) due to the numbers, there isn't enough financial or political motivation behind this issue
My solution: repeal this deduction and lower taxes for everyone - clearly the Govt doesn't need this money, if they can give it back selectively!
I invite thoughtful comments from readers, preferably along non-religious grounds. Why? Because it usually ceases to be an intellectual debate when one injects Religion into poltical or social debate.