According to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office, there are 1,138 statutory provisions “in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving ‘benefits, rights, and privileges.’” Once a straight couple gets “married,” they become eligible for a range of benefits including the ability to file jointly on their income tax returns as well as being able to inherit an unlimited amount from their deceased spouse’s estate without being subject to the estate tax.Not that I'm holding my breath, but the times they are a-changing.
As long as those laws relating to marital status are on the books, then marriage will never be equal.
So here’s my radical idea:
Since there are at least 1,138 statutory provisions relating to marital status at the federal level alone, how about we repeal every last one of them. What I’m suggesting is that we strike the words “marital” and/or “marital status” from all one-thousand one-hundred and thirty-eight federal statutes, rules and regulations. In its place, we add two simple words; “civil union.”
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Legal Equality Coming to Georgia?
Uh, no. Nevertheless, Andre at the conservative Peach Pundit dreams up a "radical idea" on civil unions. Apparently he isn't aware this option has been discussed for years, but give the man credit for coming to a common sense conclusion on his own:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
When you see civil unions gaining purchase in the heartland (certainly on legal grounds, if not also on political grounds), the sea change isn't coming - its already here. What comes next is simply playing out the conclusion. Of course, it will take a while for the playing out to reach Georgia.
Sometimes Andre forgets to take his meds. not sure what his excuse is this time. The word "marriage" has a very specific meaning...and my thoughts on this require much more than a comment on a blog to make clear. I will note, however, that I think it is perfectly legitimate and right for government to grant special recognition to marriages as they are the only such arrangements that have proven to perpetuate the species for the past, oh, few thousand years.
A little context is in order as well. Since 1998, 30 states have added marriage amendments to their state constitutions via democratic vote - including Georgia fairly recently. That the Iowa court and 3 New England legislatures have decided to do otherwise does not indicate to me that 2,000 years of practice is about to be thrown overboard.
JB, This is certainly not an easy issue, and blog posts and comments notwithstanding, most people have a nuanced stance, myself included. But as you said yourself, people have been perpetuating the species for thousands of years, and I don't think that would change, regardless of what the government calls it or the tax benefits granted.
I'm not so sure about your assertion that the species would be perpetuated regardless. Well maybe the species per se would be, but not ordered society as we know it. For instance (and I don't have the data at my fingertips), every country in Europe where marriage is no longer is afforded unique status has seen fecundity drop so precipitously that adult couples are no longer reproducing enough to replace themselves. Could be correlation only, but I doubt it.
If I had to look up fecundity, can I still read this blog?
If someone would just prescribe some meds that will cure my liberalism, I could be the conservative I so want to be. Or would a frontal lobotomy work just as well? :)
JB, please read carefully: nowhere in my post does the word marriage appear. That was not accidental. So I don't see how the discussion of the purpose of marriage is relevant, unless you weren't directly responding to me.
The "data" from Europe (if we can call it that) is anecdotal at best. Marriage, procreation, and state action are all complicated matters that can't be boiled down to the analysis of two trend lines. But nice try.
The argument about "the past, oh, few thousand years" is a chicken-egg argument. Has procreation increased because of state-sanctioned marriage, or is there state-sanctioned marriage as a result of increased procreation? Or could it be that population growth is a geometric function that, as it reaches the upper limit, begins to oscillate around equilibrium? Neither JB nor Dr. RR can answer that question, (but Dr. RR did take biology in high school).
Finally, the motivation behind my post wasn't to start a political argument. It was based on my reading of the Iowa Supreme Court case and others like it. These decisions aren't made on political bases, but are based on an application of the Constituion (specifically the 14th amendment) to a very narrow legal question: is state legislation that confers benefits on one group while simultaneously excluding a another group constitutional? In what I judge to be well-reasoned opinions, the courts have repeatedly said this is unconstitutional. If the courts are reviewing these matters coolly and impartially, and with similar results, what was wrong about my analysis that the sea change has already occurred, at least in jurisprudence?
But it was interesting to watch JB turn this into a political argument. It certainly was entertaining, as usual.
Dr. RosenRosen points finger at self and says "YOU EEEEDIOT!!" I see now that "marrage" appears in Andre's post. Of course, Andre's point wasn't about marriage, but rather about the tax, property and survivors' rights affized to the state-sanctioned status of being married. These are the kinds of issues wrapped up in the Iowa, Mass and Califorina cases. So ignore paragraph 2 of my post above. Or address it. Or ignore all of my post(s).
Still, if you have those anti-liberal pills Andre needs, I'd love to get my hands on them...
Dr. RR - aside from Andre's post (which was decidedly about policy), you should also go back and re-read your first comment, which seemed to introduce the political question. I figured a little context would help provide a little more clarity. I don't understand the snarky criticism (which I don't mind at all) that my comments made a political argument where one didn't exist, but I sure am glad they were amusing. Still, I'll sit it out if responding in good faith turns me into a caricature. Beats the alternative.
If all you want to talk about is the jurisprudence, that's fine too. I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as you seem to think. Statutes related to marriage actually do treat every citizen equally. Only recently have the acrobatics required to read them as contrary to the 14th Amendment become common. All we are arguing about is semantics and benefits for same-sex couples. I think we are kidding ourselves to argue otherwise (and believe it or not, I am pretty sympathetic to the complaints of same-sex couples).
I thought about this a little more over the weekend, and on the civil union question I think the libertarian response is too glib by half. Seems to me the better argument would be to eliminate the favorable treatment of marriage altogether and stop there rather than extend the same to all civil unions. By what logic does the extension of benefits stop at a couple? Are civil unions with siblings disallowed? Clarifying questions abound. I am sure there is a thoughtful answer to each one.
Lastly, as regular readers of Peach Pundit know, Andre is prone to get a case of the vapors about relatively minor things from time to time; hence my jibe about his meds. Had nothing to do with his ideology, which (shocker) ain't mine.
JB, about the most appropriatte Libertarian stance on this issue, you wrote - "Seems to me the better argument would be to eliminate the favorable treatment of marriage altogether and stop there rather than extend the same to all civil unions."
I completely agree, and said as much on my original post on the topic a few weeks ago. Ideally there would be no special financial benefits conferred on any marriages or civil unions, as it should remain a social contract outside the reach of government's scope of influence. There is a use for government to record marriages/civil unions for information purposes, but that is about it.
The next best option, though, would be to call everything a civil union and treat them all the same. Does that potentially open the door to polygamy or man and pygmy goat unions somewhere down the line? Perhaps, but that may be what is needed to make the no Government role/benefits option a reality.
WARNING - CONFESSION: I have to say I caused this mess and I take full responsibility. Mainly because I mis-read Justus' post and then compounded my error by misreading JB's comment.
So essentially, this all started because someone* whose job is to read carefully couldn't be the bothered to do just that on this blog. * Someone = Dr. RosenRosen
That said, my initial point (perhaps inarticulately stated) was that the courts are out in front of this issue, and I think its a matter of time before the law in most jurisdictions reflects the current state of the law in a few jurisdictions. So I'll leave it at that.
And I'll take my meds now. I find they help with the snark.
Since I am currently in the hospital, are there any particular meds I can pick up for anyone?
I am generally in agreement with JB here. Moreover, the contrary positions expressed here seem to suggest that, because relative newcomers seek to equate same-sex marriage with heterosexual marriage, we should diminish the latter to establish equality with the former, such as in your example of removing favorable tax treatment.
There are a couple of different issues being conflated here, so I will try to separate them out in future posts, but there was a time when those seeking equal rights for women or blacks in this country were relative newcomers also.
Just because incentives, if structured properly, can work, there are several areas I would prefer the State not play the role of puppet master. Not only do I sincerely doubt the government's ability to incentivize effectively, I hold that there are areas that simply should not be within the government's scope of influence, religion and family chief among them.
So yes, I do think marriage related incentives, along with a host of others, should be done away with, regardless of how long they have been around.
The unequal conferment of those benefits to different groups of people, all of whom should be equal under the law, just brings to light a new problem of such government interference.
Fair enough, except that race and gender are morally neutral, whereas homosexuality is not.
Also, an irony to consider....black turnout as a result of the Obama candidacy is arguably what pushed Prop 8 in CA over the top. Discuss.
Post a Comment