Follow the Money

The other day Rob Reiner (remember “Meathead” in that old TV series, All in the Family) said that same-sex marriage was a “civil right” and that such decisions “should not be left to the will of the people.”  What?  First of all, same-sex marriage (or its equivalent) might be the proper thing to do, but it clearly is not a “civil right.”  This effectively is a semantic contortion to entice those younger voters, who can’t think their way out of a paper bag, into supporting this proposition.  Saying that suppressing gay marriage is the equivalent of Jim Crow laws makes no sense whatsoever.  To be brutally honest, the legalizing of gay marriage is primarily an economic issue.  Here is a listing of the considerable benefits that accrue to “married” couples… please click on: Nolo Listing to see a fairly complete list.  Looking through these 32 benefits, I count 21 being financial and 11 being what I call social benefits.  These benefits have been gifted to “married” heterosexual couples by our society in return for the implicit promise to procreate and to "civilize" their issue ... an expensive proposition both financially and emotionally.  This social contract is not as frequently entered into by same-sex partners.

We should not kid ourselves into believing that same-sex marriage is an issue of social justice.  The social benefits that are most often noted by proponents of same-sex marriage are hospital visitation rights and making burial arrangements.  These can be granted in a trice.  However the financial benefits are far-reaching and disproportionate … often running into the tens of thousands of dollars per year.  Same-sex married partners could benefit from the same favorable inheritance laws and government benefits (joint federal tax return filings, claiming a spousal exemption from estate taxes or collecting Social Security survivor’s benefits, etc.) as heterosexual partners.  So, while the Obama administration is, with one hand, attempting to raise more revenue by closing tax loopholes … it is, with the other hand, opening up the generous federal coffers to millions of potential Democrat voters.

So, the Supreme Court has (because of its charter) not much delved into the economic implications of same-sex marriage.  But, lurking behind the ersatz curtain of “social justice” is this elephant in the room ... the far more important economic issues.  And, weighing their decisions in these matters, the nine black robes should eschew Meathead's advice and instead listen to the counsel that was proffered by Deep Throat during the Watergate investigation and “follow the money.”  Maybe the proper solution would be to eliminate the financial benefits from heterosexual marriage?  Now, wouldn't that be the Solomonic solution?

Afterward:  For another slant on this issue see: The Diplomad Blog 

After Afterward: Actually the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case in the Supreme Court does have, as its base, an economic issue ... a $363,000 estate tax on Edie Windsor which she would not have to pay if the government recognized her Canadian marriage to Thea Spyer ... see the details: HERE  (A real heart-string strummer.)