Monday, February 27, 2006

The Fiscal Aspect of Gay Marriage

As a result of the recent Alaska Supreme Court decision requiring public sector employees to extend spousal benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees, the debate over gay marriage has reignited. Lost in the rhetorical shuffle is the clear breach of separation of powers committed by the Court. Instead of adhering to its traditional role of interpreting the law as a co-equal branch of government, it has intruded into the legislative function, implicitly directing financial appropriations, and acting as the preeminent branch of government. State Senator Fred Dyson is proposing a legislative solution to this particular problem and he can use our support.

The moral aspect of gay marriage has been adequately debated elsewhere. However, gay marriage could cost us as a society additional money. If gays are allowed to legally marry, they could then file their Federal income taxes under the filing status of "Married Filing Jointly", and pay a lower tax rate. This would require the rest of us to implicitly subsidize a practice considered an emotional disability by many and an outright perversion by a few. It is not appropriate to ask society to subsidize perversion.

Gay marriage is also a red herring. It permits nothing that isn't already permitted by law. Gays are currently free to move in together and "play house". Potential probate problems can be addressed in advance through proper construction of wills and other related documents. Other related problems can be addressed legislatively as needed, without legalizing gay marriage itself. Consequently, gay marriage isn't really about love; it's about money and bennies.

It appears gay activists are not satisfied with mere tolerance; they demand accomodation and even celebration. This isn't gonna happen. If the gay community continues to push this issue, they risk a backlash which could rapidly escalate out of control and engender physical consequences. Gays - take what you have now, make it work for you, and wait until society is better prepared to consider this extreme step.


  1. This is strictly a test of the Comments function.

  2. in the beginning, blacks were not allowed to marry whites. what if the argument against biracial marriage was that taxes would go up? that doesnt make sense. in your blogs, u talk about oppressed people. you tell them to wait. gays should wait. black people should "chill out." once they take action, you have a problem with it. you are not a nice person