First of all, why in the world should I give a damn what this Rabbi Shafran thinks? Was he one of the Founding Fathers? Is he on the Supreme Court? A member of Congress, at least? I can find plenty of people who hold the opposite view to his; should their opinions in any way sway those opposed to same-sex marriage?
Second, even if one acknowledges (as I do) the existence of natural law, what bearing does that have on same-sex marriage? So far as I can tell, it’s the same natural laws that govern the emotional bonds that homosexuals form as that govern those of heterosexuals. If anything, an appeal to natural law supports same-sex marriage, not opposes it.
I’ve always been puzzled by the SSM issue - if you’re gay, ok; I understand. But this is a taxation issue. I could (as a straight dude) have a male roommmate and decleare him to be my spouse if we allowed SSM/civil union to go unchecked. The purpose of marriage (in the traditional sense) is to encourage the creation of future taxpayers/workers.
I just don’t see a cause for subsidizing same-sex unions (extra expense to everyone, no additional taxpayers created). FWIW, I get irritated that women in places I’ve worked get three months off for having kids… dads get 1-2 weeks. Yay equality.
So old people aren’t currently allowed to get married? What about the infertile?
Looking strictly cynically at marriage, it’s [state] purpose is to facilitate more expendable income and anchor people geographically making it harder for them to relocate out of state. Procreation is a benefit, but further down the list. Besides - shouldn’t that be an argument FOR gay adoption?
:dubious: I take it you’ve never heard of the ‘marriage tax’? Assuming that you and your roommate have fairly comparable incomes, your income tax for ‘married filing jointly’ will be higher than your individual income taxes would have been. Now if he’s unemployed, and you’re working to support you both, then there would be a net tax advantage to you. But a lot less than would be needed to cover your costs for supporting him. And there’s a case to be made that if you’re taking care of him like this, then you are married, and if you’re not getting regular oral sex, then your roomie isn’t pulling his weight in the relationship.
Seriously, the gay couples pushing for this aren’t looking for tax advantages. To the extent that there’s any economic side to this, it’s about getting family plans on health care from employers–but that battle’s very close to over, as most large companies offer domestic partner benefits, presumably because it helps them be competitive at recruiting employees in the labor market. What they’re looking for is recognition of their status as next-of-kin by hospitals, government agencies, in probate court, and for adoption.
This last category is actually relevant to your claim, actually. There are hundreds of thousands of children in foster care in the United States. Two-parent families are considered more desirable placements than single-parent families; and married couples provide secure guarantee of a continued two-parent family. Allowing same-sex partners to marry will drastically increase the number of optimal households for placement of foster children–although these will always form a small percentage of overall marriages, gay couples are considerably more likely to build a family via adoption rather than conception. (I know–thank you, Dr. Obvious. )
Speaking of being puzzled, I’ve never understood this line of argument. You could, as a dude, have a female roommate and declare her to be your spouse for the same reasons, but no one uses that as an argument against straight marriage.
And also, who the fuck would be dumb enough to do this in the first place? Think back on all the roommates you’ve had in your life. How many of them would you trust not to eat your Ben & Jerry’s out of the freezer, even though you wrote your name on it and everything? And you want to risk giving this guy half your stuff when your lease runs out?
Of all the imaginary problems with SSM marriage, this ranks slightly above, “What if a guy wants to marry his dog?” but just below, “God will drop an asteroid on us if we allow it,” in terms of credibility.
Y’know, there is jack-all in the Constitution about marriage either way. What there is, is language about establishment of religion and equal protection of law. ISTM the nature and purpose of marriage can change and evolve w/o having to touch a single comma in the Constitution, just as long as equal protection is given, and the policy is not dictated by religious doctrine.
Good luck convincing me those two conditions are met by continuing to advocate against gay rights.
)