Through my travels I have had the opportunity to learn a lot about equality. I have lived in Japan where society treats women as second class citizens, and I have lived in Harlem where roots and memories run deep and it is a common to see a Black Panther tattoo on the older residents as it is to find a hipster with a pair of Rayban’s in Brooklyn. I am a straight white guy, but I have been treated as a second class citizen for years as I struggled living in Countries as a non-Citizen resident Alien. I have set up companies in the US, employed Americans, trained them, and yet couldn’t vote.. strange feelings to face as someone who is not equal.
For me, when I look back on where my vision of equality stemmed from I have to look at this image:
A white guy. Without getting into the details of if this gentleman ever existed (I don’t want to spoil it for you) it is clear that the image to represent the concept of him is a white guy. It could have equally have been just a symbol, but as soon as there is an image in human form it becomes a matter of equality. The white man is the representation of God, or his child, or whatever else it may be. This decision to have an image allows society to devalue both Women, and non-white people in one simple strike. And for me it is no surprise that even today women and non-whites are struggling for equality. Laws have been enacted to empower the equality of such subsections of our race, long standing stereotypes are a lot harder to break.
I know that I started out with the concept of equality for Gay people, the digression into religion, sexism, and racism is natural for me, because I believe that these are all equal forms of discrimination, and Gay people are currently fighting for the same legislative rights that women and non whites sought, not too long ago.
Why fighting for equality is wrong
As I see it, the problems facing the equality fight in America stem from the interlacing of state and church, that religion can have legislative impact, and that this is compounded in the US by there being both a federal and state legislative power. If we are to assign inequality for things like Taxation, Estate planning, immigration based upon Marriage, then we have immediately failed, since you are building legislation on weak foundations, the litmus test for legislative protections cannot be as simple as driving through a 24hr Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas.
On Marriage
I’m a practical kinda guy, so marriage to me comes down to these factors: cost, convenience and value. For you old romantics it may have many other things to offer, but these are the ones for me, let’s look at them:
Tax Rates
Two people who are married pay different taxes from two people who are single. Interestingly married people actually get a penalty over two single people in that they pay more income tax overall. It could be argued about the pro’s and con’s of marriage and taxation, but the simple fact that marriage can change the rate you pay, isn’t right.
Tax Credits
Some credits are tied to asset sales, the most well known is the Section 121 credit (the 250K/500K exemption for selling your home) which is a capital gains exclusion. The asset (Primary Residence) must be held either by one person or the married couple, and the amount of appreciation on the property that is excluded from tax can be doubled if the couple is married.
Family Benefits
Employee benefits frequently do not extend to no traditional couples, it takes a conscious effort to implement a program that does cover these relationships, and isn’t standard, that means that many firms wouldn’t extend healthcare, and in some states, if it was the employee who was covered and they had an medical emergency, the partner may be refused visitation rights, this happened recently with a well publicized case of Roger Gorley. This can still happen in states that do not recognize Gay marriage, even if the couple was legally married in a state that allows it.
Immigration
Any American Citizen who is unmarried and of legal age is able to sponsor the immigration of another person through Marriage. That an uneducated, immature yet heterosexual is able to sponsor the immigration of a member of the opposite sex, but an educated professional cannot due to their sexual preferences makes absolutely no sense for the concept of immigration that adds value to America.
Social Security
A legally recognized couple is able to grant survivorship payments of Social Security. This was extended to same sex couples in certain circumstances as per this statement. It is getting closer to equality here.
Rights of Survivorship and Intestacy
As a married white guy I have default legislation in place to support us in the event that we omit basic estate planning. If I was to die, my wife would receive my wealth by default if no will was in place, but if you are not married you are not extended the same protections of the law. Therefore, by restricting access to marriage you are restricting access to the protections of the law.
Progress shouldn’t be discounted
This year has seen great leaps forward in the battle for equality, and I do not want to belittle those efforts, however I think that the real problem we face is rather than trying to gain acceptance for non traditional couples into a broken system, we should fix the system and stop it from creating legislation based on archaic concepts from days of old.
The reason why I think we should take that approach is that if you try to play by the rules of their game, then some people will always use the rules to exclude you, instead we need to break the rules of the game, sever the connection between church and state, and create a level playing field for success for everyone. This is even more evident in a dual State/Federal legislature where local law makers are leaning on biblical interpretations in order to create modern day tax legislation. And what’s more, if a person is married in a state that is Pro Gay Marriage (now up to 17 States) but moves to a State that has banned Gay Marriage (33 States) they will not be recognized under that States law. So until you change the rules of the game, they just won’t let you play in their backyard, despite you being ‘legally’ married.
I will leave you with this, from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church, January 1st 1802
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
The reference is to the third article within the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This refers to what is called the Establishment Clause, intended to delineate the Church and the State, yet any argument against Gay Marriage I have heard is that it is a biblical notion that cannot be changed. I am all for people being allowed to ‘do their own thing’ so sure, if your Church/Temple/whatnot doesn’t want to see ‘the Gays’ come through its doors then I think that is fine, but you cannot say it is fair to restrict access to the legal protections that marriage affords simply because it offends your beliefs, because that means you are projecting your beliefs into the realm of the State, which is unconstitutional.
I think we are fighting the wrong fight, empowering those who have established laws and rules and asking permission to play by them, rather than breaking free from the small mindedness of them, but perhaps that is the only battle that can be won today, and we should fight that battle hard.
I changed the title of this post as the original title was too offensive to some gay people, and caused some harm. My intention was to create a discussion on finance and equality, and perhaps that missed the mark, my apologies.
Although I am a college educated gay man, I am perplexed by your articled today Matt.
I have read it twice and I cannot tell – are you really against equal rights for Gay people?
Interesting. If you were being impartial, what would you take from this article, leaving out your orientation and what you think my position on the matter is? Would you say that the article adds value to the Pro Gay marriage, or the Banning Gay Marriage movement? EDIT – I realize that wasn’t necessarily your question, so let me ask this – based on what I have said here, does it seem that I think it fair that Gay people don’t have equal rights, or unfair?
From reading the article (twice) I think Matt is in favor of marriage equality. Though I believe he thinks the current system should be scrapped, and perhaps the government (not sure if he means both federal and state) should get out of the “business” of marriage. Civil libertarians have held this opinion for quite some time (not saying Matt is a libertarian).
I am 100% in favor of marriage equality. I am torn on whether I think the government has any role in legislating this “contract” between consenting adults.
The struggle many people have in understanding this particular demand for equality is that this group argues that they were born to behave in a certain way. Once you head down that road, there is no limit to what behavior you have to legitimize.
I personally don’t care if they were born this way or not, I don’t see the relevance that sexuality has with tax, laws and equal treatment. Could you help me understand?
For example, an elderly couple may likely not be sexual at all, whether that are gay or straight, so you could argue many relationships become somewhat plutonic in advancing years. What is it then that affords rights to a couple that is of opposite genders but not to one of the same?
What about a purely plutonic friendship between two war buddies, say they lived together for many years and kept themselves safe and shared living costs but never found the right lady. After 40 years of living together purely as pals, if one fell sick the other would be denied access- is that right?
What about if they had an agreement where the survivor got to keep the house they built together, but the law decided that the interest cannot pass between ‘friends’ and must go to family? What if it was titled in the decedents name and the survivor was told their deal meant nothing?
The survivor could be evicted and the home they built sold by people who are legally related, but doing this would go against the wishes of the former owner.
These are the challenges that same sex couples face, because the law is correlated to a family structure and doesn’t recognize the wishes as equal human beings.
My argument in this post is that we should seek instead to break the correlation between church and state as it enables a perspective of the family, inheritance, tax, wealth transfer and basic human dignity to be controlled by a non elected body, subject to manipulation. The fight shouldn’t need to be fought, the correlation between religious concepts on family and those of the law should be segregated.
Society is bound together and held in place by certain anchors. Today’s social “progress”, a banner raised mostly by those younger than thirty due to the general indifference by their stoned baby boomer parents, has led many to call into question those anchors. Dangerous ground to tread, but I’m afraid we’ve reached the point of no return. One thing that appears to be a commonality of our younger generation is the lack of a historical perspective. No complete fault of their own, as our education system modifications have little appreciation for accurate history and prefer at some points to suggest revision.
A very fascinating yet currently unpopular study would reveal common denominators of civilizations throughout time that have fallen. I can tell you one common denominator, but I would be called a bigot by the uneducated.
Hi Matt,
I find myself in agreement with commenter Bob above – Maybe you might update the post by putting this near the top of it:
“My argument in this post is that we should seek instead to break the correlation between church and state as it enables a perspective of the family, inheritance, tax, wealth transfer and basic human dignity to be controlled by a non elected body, subject to manipulation. The fight shouldn’t need to be fought, the correlation between religious concepts on family and those of the law should be segregated.”
PS – I think you meant platonic!
Further clarification – I did indeed get that you meant what you summarized in the paragraph I quoted above, but I did find myself wondering a bit as I read the post the first time….
Hey Elaine – question for you, what would adding that achieve? And sorry for my spelling I’m running around the city replying on my phone, and my spelling sucks at the best of times!
Just that new readers (and maybe existing ones) could find the provocative title and long post a bit off-putting, thus never getting to your overall point, which you express so well and succinctly in the comment above. Your call, your post 😉 !
Here was the thinking…
I knew I was going to get a bunch of inbound traffic from a rather right wing republican source, I thought it would be good timing to release this post that has been on my mind for some time (with the same title) so as to ‘capture’ that audience.
I felt that the casual reader who already is against equal rights would read along, and because I positioned the argument seeming in favor of inequality they would be more open and receptive to the concepts, despite them being actually very much in favor of equality.
Now, I thought that both new and existing readers who are in favor of equality would read this twice, because they would be scratching their heads, or they would be getting angry that I was promoting a non equality concept, but I thought that most of them would have strong feelings about this, so would read it enough to actually realize the point I was making.
Make sense?
Did it work, I don’t know, but I know we are having discussions here.
Yeah, Matt, but what kind of discussions? I don’t read your blog or your site for politics, in fact the travel/savings subsets are a nice vacation from the Faux idiots that seem to permeate every news/opinion site.
Your site, your business, your rules. I’m okay with that. But if the site turns into a team cheerleading competition then you can count me out. Bit I’m an empirical evidence type, so let’s see….
Yep, let’s see. I certainly wanted to write something different that ‘first Friday’ for the CSP, and I do believe that the financial aspects of same sex couples including tax and estate planning are relevant fodder for discussion and exploration, unfortunately I do feel politics will come into play when discussing financial concepts as many of the revolve are tax legislation.
@Bart I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying. But, you are entitled to you opinion. However, I disagree. What kind of behavior would have to be legitimized that you are afraid of?
Same-sex couples should have the same rights as non-same-sex couples. Why? Why not? Discrimination of any kind is not a great virtue but as a person, everyone is welcome to their own likes & dislikes; however, the state should never discriminate. The majority of the opposition to same-sex rights comes from religious fronts.The separation of state and religion particularly addresses it and yet some people throw that out of the window.
Like @Matt mentioned, I don’t care if they are born that way or chose to be that way. Either way, it’s none of my damn business. Nature has a balance between sexes and one could argue that since a man and a women alone can reproduce and continue life, this is not how nature intended. I agree but, again it’s not my place to make decisions for other people against their will. All the issues @Matt mentioned make sense that there shouldn’t be discrimination in taxes, spousal benefits and anything else.
@Matt Your title is misleading and reading your post doesn’t answer the self-posed question of “Do you support being gay?” as opposed to “Do gay people have equal rights?”.
You probably are thinking correctly about what I am saying. And I thank you for allowing me to have that opinion; you are welcome to yours as well. The vitriol that follows such discussions is something I prefer to distance myself from, although the derogatory comments directed toward the silent (or murmuring) majority are suited to go in both directions.
Matt’s post is thought-provoking, although it may not be the thoughts he intended, but I would hope he is not interested in being the thought police. He suggests that we decouple from our traditional Judeo-Christian values, and I counter that this would be a grave mistake. It’s my opinion, and one that I share with a majority of Americans, that the very building block of our society and one that has been in place since our nation was established is the family consisting of a mother, father and children. We have seen a drastic erosion of this building block, to the point where those in our youngest generation of adults think it is now the norm to blow such a model into oblivion.
Again, my opinion.
Bart,
I think you raise a valid concern, but could I ask you to hold that thought for just a moment. Can I ask you instead to address just what I attempted to focus on in this post:
Tax, Immigration and the right to be treated as an equal with a loved one in situations such as the emergency room?
I believe these can be addressed distinctly from the concept of the Nuclear Family.
Matt, that is the most polite way of telling someone to shut up I’ve ever seen. Well done!
Ha! No I really agree that it is a very valid point, I just wanted to focus on the others first and see if we could get closer to an agreement before going down the rabbit hole.
Hey Sriki
I didn’t pose any question of supporting of being gay or if they have equal rights. I said ‘Why I am against them’ and the reason why I am against them is that I think getting both gay people and straight people to play under the current rules is the wrong way to get equality, because it means that you aren’t severing the tie to the church, who’s most ardent supporters will reject equality.
I don’t get the sense that you are actually against equal rights for gays, so maybe the title of this post has something to do with this: “Saverocity Finance welcomes its new readers from Fox Business”.
While I don’t disagree that the whole system needs an overhaul, I don’t think that is a good reason NOT to fight for equality in the current system.
It was a way to lure them into a talk about giving equal rights to the gay folk… you got me 🙂
@Matt – This article could use some proofreading. I too had to read it twice, then read the comments, to figure out the point.
I also think that there are reasons other than those rooted in religions why legislation in this country favors the married over the unmarried. Stable families and spousal support for one another come to mind. A host of research demonstrates that two-parent households are more stable and more financially secure, which produces desirable social outcomes.
@Bart – You’re entitled to your opinion, but not entitled to your own facts. First, contrary to your statements above, a majority of Americans don’t agree with you; Washington Post/ABC News in March found 59% in support of marriage equality.
Second, your beliefs don’t seem to be rooted in any type of clear causal explanation on how a) knowledge of history would lead one to oppose marriage equality and b) why allowing same-sex marriage will lead society to crumble. Support for same-sex marriage is in fact positively correlated with level of education, highest among those with post-graduate educations (Public Religion Research Institute 2014). If you can please clarify those points for me, I’ll pass them on to the happily married same-sex couples that I know and tell them to stop being happily married.
Harvson, I don’t know how well it worked in practice, but my concept was to intentionally convolute. Can you try to ignore the impression you received based upon your preconceived idea, and instead look at this objectively as if you were excited to read why another person was against equality?
My goal was to shake things up, I may have missed the mark.
When a poll comes out that suggests that Obama is doing a good job I scoff at that as well. Biases show, questions are leading. If you don’t stir the soup well, your taste can misrepresented as too salty. Look, here’s the deal: we are not yet to the point where the majority of Americans believe weirdness is normal. I do grieve with the idea that we are heading in that direction, but we are still too influenced by the “greatest generation”, men and women who generally didn’t put up with nonsense. The right to equality for all men has nothing to do with behavior, but who we are. Whether a man, a women, old or young, black or white or red or green, tall or short, come as you are, you are equal. But to argue a separate class based on their decisions in the bedroom is laughable. You want to know what other behaviors we are to legitimize if we head down this road? This will get the gay crowd really riled up: pedophilia. A man states he is born attracted to young boys, and gets the young boy to say that he was born attracted to older men, and voila! Another group that demands equality. And who you are “bigots” that would deny them, since they were born that way?
There are many, many people who have opinions that some here would not like, but prefer to keep those opinions to themselves because in our current day you are vilified by the shouting minority as a bigot and homophobe. You are laughed at in the very sympathetic hollywood crowd, and reported on in the hollywood butt-kissing media. But don’t worry, relative morality is firmly rooted and is being well watered in our education system today. You’ll get what you want; just be patient.
Okay, here’s the exact wording of the question, from the Washington Post-ABC News, published March 5, 2014:
“Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?”
59% Support, 34% Oppose
As DP Moynihan said, you’re entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. The rest of your comment does not warrant a reply.
Well, after a week of intense focus on the shakeup in the MS world, this is an odd, but welcome, break!
Been watching the Beatles Anthology series – a history of them produced by them (less John) in 1995. I am one who watched that first Ed Sullivan broadcast, and wore bell bottoms. I must have blinked, or slept long and hard, at some point along the way.
I look around this country and ask, however did we get here from there?
Long time reader here as well and very perplexed by the article. As others mentioned, seems very patchy with a sensationalistic-sounding title to grab attention and cause controversy ie more comments and page links ie higher google ranking. At least that’s the impression I get because the content itself is certainly not up to Saverocity standards I became accustomed to.
Hi Dima
I thought that the concept was sound, and I did use a tactic to draw people in, but the goal was to draw in those against equality and share ideas why it’s not such a bad idea.
Perhaps the subject was too touchy to be handled in this way, but I felt if I did a pure ‘why am for equality’ post it might have made those in favor of it happier, but wouldn’t have reached those against it.
Took a risk, sorry if it didn’t work for you.
I’m with Dima on this one. The title of the post was pure click bait and while you may have wanted to engage readers, it is hard to do so when you have annoyed them and done a swticheroo right off the bat. Sensational headlines, sure to do offence, just to show off your open-mindedness …. sorry, doesn’t work!
Just my two cents – I like most of your stuff but just hope you’d think about what is bothering most of the commenters here (basically the headline, not the substance).
Thanks Neil, I’ve heard what you said here and will consider it for the future.
I admit it, I did click on this particular post, thinking, ‘NOOOOO. You seem like such a nice boy, Matt.”
(Disclaimer: if you are older than my oldest child, who’ll be 36 at the end of this month, you are permitted to change “boy” to “man.”)
While I don’t disagree with the idea that a broken system is best replaced, rather than mended, I don’t think that it’s particularly feasible to do so. Especially when, as you noted, there are 50 different flavors of marriage laws out there.
One of the benefits of now having 17 states where same sex marriage is now legal is that, sooner or later, a majority of the other 33 will cave, for purely economic reasons. If you KNOW that you and your spouse will not be able to live as a married couple in, say, AZ, you won’t accept a transfer there, even with a raise. You won’t send your kids to college there, where they won’t be first exposed to the post-college job market, etc, etc.
Uncoupling church and state, OTOH, that is a seriously important endeavor, and one that has, as you pointed out with the Jefferson quote, history on it’s side. (That bit was for our new friend Bart.)
The older I get, the more that I realize that I don’t have the answer for everyone, just for me. And maybe my husband. OK, and my kids and grandchild. But still…I’m all for you having your own opinion, no matter how radically it differs from mine. What I am not ok with is you believing that, because you think that history, or a falsely claimed majority, or whatever else causes you to believe that your side is better, you have the right to impose your opinion on the intimate workings of my life, or someone else’s.
Lucky me. I’m white, I’m heterosexual. Unlucky me. I’m female, and was born in the 50’s, when even the valedictorian of my HS was told to become a teacher, because that was a good job for a girl. If those who are offended at the thought of same sex marriage would remember that no one is espousing coupling in the streets, maybe they could calm down a bit.
Great comment thanks MickiSue, thanks for your insights here. I agree that the notion I present of breaking the church and state for the betterment of equal rights is likely too lofty a goal, but I hope the post sheds light on that issue and how it impacts things overall.
My issue with the 33 states that don’t accept it is that yes, they will eventually change providing enough attention is given, but I think that likely some may not if they have the option, and in some ways that makes it even more of an issue since people might start becoming complacent to these matters and make an error – they do now already do this with regard to traditional or non-traditional couples moving to community or quasi community property states.
Thanks again for your story from your own experience as a woman on this too.
We must remember the core of this article is to drive traffic to a blog using controversial material that is currently in the public eye. Kudos – well done on the marketing front!
The LGBT community isn’t after equality. They are after the accepting of their beliefs and the desecration of any beliefs contrary. See “Mozilla CEO”
Hmm… No actually the core of this article is to raise awareness of the inequality and to also posit on the flawed logic of joining a broken system. I did title it to draw the eye, but the title isn’t the core of this post.
Could there ever be equality? Does anybody really want it if there could be? I don’t believe so, I believe anybody who fights for “equality” is actually fighting for superiority for their faith, whatever that may be. As someone who spent most of my life well below the equal line, I see the struggle for equality to be a method to keep certain people down in order to elevate another group. The complexity here is not that gays should have equal rights, but should gays have special rights because their lifestyle does not conform to the establishment.
Matt – In response to your statement “As I see it, the problems facing the equality fight in America stem from the interlacing of state and church, that religion can have legislative impact, and that this is compounded in the US by there being both a federal and state legislative power.” Let me be clear I am on your side of this debate and do not have any religious beliefs. However our entire society, right or wrong, was based on church concepts. Marrriage itself and other laws (thou shall not steal is very much a religious concept). Would you argue we need to strike away such laws as theft because clearly they demonstrate the influence of the church on government was/is too great? There is no denying it is rooted as a religious concept, just like marriage. Yet everyone would answer no and apply some moral logic as to why it should be banned. Point is – we very much ‘hand pick’ the influences of religion that we disagree with as point to them as exhibit A and exhibit B while we ignore the fact our entire system, in essence, is based on the influence. Citing the bill of rights, then ignoring the clear religious context to which it was born is again not a strong position.
Further your constant inclusion of married ‘white’ guy in an argument that applies to all married people regardless of skin color completely displays the built in bias and strongly diminished the argument on the surface. Seems a little comical to ask people to look at the ‘post objectively’ when such comments destroy any myth of objectivity of the author.
And to effectivlye argue racism because Saint Nicholas of Myra, the German God Odin, Sinterklaas in the Netherlands et al are white…. perhaps just maybe it is because (a) they were white in the case of 1 and 3 and (b) the populations that made up their surroundings were 98% white? Or are your attempting to argue the evolution of a figure from 400AD was purposeful to ensure he was white? I just don’t understand this argument.
Again I am on your side of the argument on this one, but not for the rationale (and apparent white guilt) that drips from this post.
Probably best to stick with what you do well instead of trying to bombastically draw the short term gain of readership. Just a thought but it is your show.
Hey thanks for the comment, I think there is a reason that the figure used to represent certain things was a white guy, but that’s just my schoolboy reasoning.
Frankly, I don’t know what I do well. I write about what matters to me and my view on it, and it so happens that a very relevant part of my life right now is estate and tax planning for same sex couples as it is something that I am studying in some depth as part of my CFP course. To say I am better or worse at something is hard to guage when all of this is new to me, I have only blogged for about 2 years, I have only used points for travel for about 4 years and I have only invested for about 6 years – so what you read and think is good is all something that is evolving as I find my voice.
Ultimately I think that there are certain concepts and principles within religion that are great positive forces for the gelling of society and should be kept, I think that a positive family unit that takes the time to care for the upbringing of a child is a wonderful thing – I disagree when it must be a heterosexual couple for no other reason than because someone interprets it to be the will of a deity.
Rather than to say so many good things came from the Church, we could also explore that perhaps the church took many good things that came from society and codified them in order to protect them, but in doing so perhaps was influenced and biased towards certain rules and regulations that require upheaval in the world we are in today, or as I would prefer, leave them to it, but sever the cord between faith, religion and the rule of law.
Matt – Your response “Ultimately I think that there are certain concepts and principles within religion that are great positive forces for the gelling of society and should be kept, I think that a positive family unit that takes the time to care for the upbringing of a child is a wonderful thing – I disagree when it must be a heterosexual couple for no other reason than because someone interprets it to be the will of a deity.”. Absolutely don’t disagree with you…. and as I said I am on the same side of this argument, but your quote raises my point “concepts and principles within religion that are great positive forces… that should be kept”. That was my point – Anytime it is something we don’t like that can be traced to religion, we tend as society to cry for separation of church and state, yet these concepts and principles that have been great forces – we ignore where they came from and the basis for why they were included in our society. Again I am very far from a religious guy, but I don’t think it is fair to look at the small minority of factors where religious influence has not been beneficial and thus proclaim the need for separation while ignoring the vast majority of the influence that has been positive. To me that is trying to have it both ways.
Now I will say you are hitting on an interesting note when it comes to taxation. Yes, for tax purposes we have an arbitrary system that allows preferential (usually) tax treatment if you are married and narrowly defines what being married is for tax purposes. But taxes do that in a thousand ways also. Head of household… extra deductions for having more kids… age bias deductions…. preferential tax credits for a multitude of social reasons. A school teacher can deduct $250 of costs towards his/her classroom expenses, while a regular employee would need those expense to breach 2% of AGI and then get that excess and so on….Nothing is fair and equal in taxes… by design. By social engineering. I find it ironic those who tend to take most issue with the economic bias towards limiting this status tend to be the ones most wildly in support of the other social engineered credits/deductions etc… for other ‘minority’ groups whether that be age, economic status etc…. Your argument seems most sound with the concept of abandoning marriage all together. Why allow anyone if all cant do it… why arbitrarily limit it to 2 people? Why no immediate family? What is the basis for that? And if we did eliminate that and made it all equal (as the only way it is going to be equal and truly free is to abandon the concept all together) otherwise you will have some limitation. Now please don’t interpret what I am saying as a correlation between gay marriage (which I support) and polygamy and incest – but again if equality is truly the objective, where do we draw the line and virtually all of us agree the line needs to be drawn somewhere – we just disagree where.
Well, I could be wrong, but the only real difference I see is that you assign the positive aspect of religion within a society to religion whereas I say they come from before religion, were absorbed by it, and diluted by the baggage that comes from a non elected body.
Yet this topic, you are gladly assigning the negativity towards homosexuality towards religion when such condemnation predated religion and has been a component of the moral code with the other good stuff before religion. If we say stealing predates religion thus it is fine, why are we not saying the same on this topic (unless the argument is everyone was A OK with it until religion butted in which doesn’t correlate to my understanding of history).
I assign the good and bad of our moral code to religion (good and bad is judgmental to the individual but still is associated with religion – you and others appear to be saying if it is good and I agree with it then it predates religion and was diluted by it, and if it is bad (and predates religion) we ignore the predate and say that it is all religions doing). That is in essence my point in my cake and eat it to argument. I think moral code predated religion but was enhanced and codified by it, in some ways great and other ways bad. But on this topic… religion didn’t ‘change the answer’ from the previous code before religion – the act was condemned then (before religion) and was condemned now (until recently).
Perhaps you are more in touch with the subject than I- could you share some examples of where homosexuality was frowned upon without a religious context?
Soviet Union era for one. They were atheist and highly condemned it.
Ancient Israel before the formation of Judism.
Samurai era in Japan (although Buddishm was beginning) where with a child was OK but not ‘of age’ etc….
Counterarguments against me would include possibly ancient Greece (although Plato had a lot to say against it and there was religion) and ancient china seemed to suggest the tolerance of activity.
The challenge with your question is there is limited well documented history before religion of some form took hold including all the ancient religions. Now apparently there is enough history for everyone to conclude the ‘good things’ were there before religion but not the bad. So I guess I should ask you the same question. Outside the current generation, where historically was homosexuality not frowned upon in a non-religious context?
Again we are on the same team here on the final answer, I am just not willing to scapegoat religion (or specifically modern Christianity) for the beliefs that have existed for thousands of years before hand.
Well, you were the one who brought up as a fact that homosexuality was condemned before religion, and even should we focus that on modern Christianity we can cast our eyes back 2014 or so years for Christ – which clearly predates Soviet Russia (formed in 1922 after an uprising against the Russian Orthodox Church) the Samurai era in Japan (1600s) which was quite religious with the Shinto religion being established for centuries prior.
To look back truly before religion is not easy, which is why I challenge you on the factual nature of your position.
@igoringa: Actually, the base rules of society that we think of as having come from religion predate religion. Do you really think that, prior to Moses and the exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt, it was considered OK to steal? To have sex with a person not your spouse? And if we start with the “ten commandments” where do we end? The rules that Moses claimed to have carried down the mountain number 613. For me, I don’t want to have two full kitchens, so I can avoid mixing meats and dairy in the same bowl, or cooking them on the same stove.
You seem intelligent, so I’ll assume that you understand the argument. In the US, because the religion professed here is overwhelmingly Christian, with some Judaism, and a rising percentage professing Islam, many believe that all the laws flow from their god. But in states and parts of the world where that particular god is not ascendent, there are still rules for comporting oneself in that society. In parts of the world where there has been no, or very little, contact with religion at all, there are still rules for comporting oneself in those societies, as well.
Laying claim to the authorship of rules for living in a society is merely one of the many ways that religions attempt to gain, and then maintain, their hold on human beings. So long as we understand that our actions do not occur in a vacuum, and that we impact others, every time we make our choices, AND we hold those who injure others accountable, no matter their religion, their race, their gender, their bank account, our society can prosper.
If I may, I don’t think anyone here is taking us back to ancient times. Our country, the laws of which are being discussed here, began in the late eighteenth century. Anything prior has little relevance. While our founding fathers weren’t all saints, I don’t think it is up for debate where the mind of those men were, collectively. For every episode where you might cheer to find a signer of our Declaration of Independence having too much liquor to drink, I could show you copious pages of correspondence and documentation clearly indicating the belief system of the time.
613? Could you support that with a Bible reference? Just curious.
Bart,
If I may, you were the one who brought up a lack of history in the perspective of this generation. To then follow up with restricting the history simply to a period of the founding fathers seems a little overly construed. I’m not sure you can have it both ways, when talking of religion, society and legislation I say this as British guy, who by nature has experienced history education that predate the founding fathers considerably since our ‘story’ has been around somewhat longer.
MickiSue – “Actually, the base rules of society that we think of as having come from religion predate religion. Do you really think that, prior to Moses and the exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt, it was considered OK to steal? To have sex with a person not your spouse?”
Playing along – and what have these base rules historically said about this topic at hand and the act of homosexuality as a whole (with very few isolated exceptions)? Again, I am playing devils advocate here and am pro gay marriage, but what you are adding to the equation here is we have had societal moral code for thousands of years that has been, depending how you look at it, hijacked or enhanced or codified by religion all over the world.
So to help me understand your argument are you saying that our moral code predates religion, yet such moral code did not include, usually harsh condemnation of the act of homosexuality, and it wasn’t until religion came around (which did nothing to add to the ‘good’ parts of our moral code) that homosexuality became an issue? Seems to me like you are saying our moral order (which would include this topic) predates religion, thus I am curious how you would get to it being a separation of church and state thing.
MickiSue is referring to the 613 positive and negative commandments found in the Bible, that is; the five Books of Moses; aka, the Old Testament.
MickiSue, I have appreciated your comments here. Sounds like we have a lot in common. Any chance you’ll be at the DO in CLT?
@igoringa: To state that religion is the source of society is to have things backwards. There are so many flavors of religion, as well as so many societies that were, at worst, neutral on same sex relationships.
It’s clear that same sex relationships are normal variants within the kingdom Mammalia; there is evidence of homosexual behavior in all mammals. A closer look at most of written history shows that many of the characters whose actions inform our ideas about the world had, at least fleetingly, homosexual relationships. Think Alexander the Great, for example.
For whatever reasons of their own, the men who wrote what Christians call the Old Testament were vehemently anti-woman, as well as anti homosexual. The passage from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Lot hands out his daughters (!!!) to be raped by the gang who wants his guest (whom Lot believes to be an angel) is just one example.
Far from being a universally benign influence on society, religion has led to horrendous wars and has been used to excuse some of most vile behavior ever engaged in by members of any society. The Inquisition. The Salem witch trials. The excesses in England under Cromwell. Kirche, Kinder, Kuchen.
But there is so much more human history that predates written history, that it’s arrogance in the highest to assume that what we know from writings is the way that things have always been. George Santayana said, “Those who do not know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.”
@ Bart: Similarly, those who do not know the length of history, and wish to curtail it to some artificially imposed period, will do the same. As will those who claim knowledge of the beginnings of their own country’s history, without examining the actual beliefs of those who founded it. Few of the most prominent of the Founding Fathers were religious people. Many were Unitarian Universalists, or professed no religion at all. Do a little study outside of Faux News, and you’ll be surprised at the wealth of history out there.
If you really want to open your mind, read the history of King James. And avoid reading conservative Christian websites, as they have much to lose by endorsing what, to them, is an odious fact.
@Elaine: Thank you for your kind words. I wish I were going to be there, but other obligations are keeping me at home that weekend. I do hope that Matt and his cohorts share some of the nuggets!
Reading all my posts I am not sure how one can construe I said religion is the source of society. I have very much said they two concepts (society and religion) are not mutually exclusive.
The fact that you have to cite mammals and anecdotal evidence of individual people to make an argument further strengthens my argument that societies in general in history, whether guided by modern Christianity, other religions or none were heavily skewed towards condemning homosexuality. Folks like to pretend like it was the standard norm until the bible came around that that is completely wrong.
Yes, the author of the bibles were anti woman and anti homosexual (even before religion, imagine that), because society in that time in ancient Israel as a whole was very much anti women and anti homosexual. That is the whole point. They did not invent or create that hate – they codified what was the societal norm at that time and slapped an explanation on it. Didn’t change treatment a bit.
Also, I never claimed religion hasn’t produced significant evil in the world. I am not the one looking at only one side of the equation. Again, this is another example where a black brush is being painted across the entire spectrum. It amazes me a non-religious individual that so many other non-religious individuals paint with this broad brush in such an ironic way when talking about religious slant!
Again, I am completely pro-gay marriage. I just don’t try to re-write history and cherry pick on significant issues like Church/State and religion in general. Both sides can point to many fantastic things and many horrible things. I just get tired of those who only look at the good or bad and ignore the rest – even if they are on ‘my side’. I am out, enjoy the last word.
@Matt quote: “I am a straight white guy, but I have been treated as a second class citizen for years as I struggled living in Countries as a non-Citizen resident Alien. I have set up companies in the US, employed Americans, trained them, and yet couldn’t vote.. strange feelings to face as someone who is not equal”
My last 2 cents before I bail and give the rest of the world the last word. Comments like the above have always rubbed me the wrong way. On 2 fronts: (1) I find it frustrating when invited guests (and that is what you are), or worse uninvited guests, purposefully and willfully choose to live here, knowing the rules and concepts and then claim inequality or the like. What is the solution – give every single person who crosses the border automatic rights of citizenry? If second class, why would anyone voluntarily stay here in a country that is not theirs, no matter what they feel they are contributing? Now please understand, from 1999 until 2008 I was you – a non-citizen resident alien, then 5 years a Permanent Resident and now US citizen as of last year. I knew the rules and the choices I was making. I thank my lucky stars I was privileged enough for this great country to give me the opportunity and privilege (not right – privilege … inferring second class makes it seem like you have given right to be here and have all the rights of US citizens) of living here for all those years and then ultimately allowing me citizenship. Did I find the process frustrating? Yes. Did I wish I could vote in those years? Heck yes – But the only extent I was ‘unequal’ was due to my voluntary decision based off all of the other plusses I got from being here versus my home country.
If it is truly a ‘struggle’, and I mean this sincerely, then why o’why would you voluntarily do this? I relate to being a foreign national; I do not relate to not being extraordinarily lucky and feeling far from second class here. If it was otherwise, I would vote with my feet just like I did when I came to this land of opportunity.
Again, this is my last word. I have always loved your blog and hope it finds it way back to the topics you tackle so well (CC, Travel and general investment/finance).
And if you ever find a way to make the tax code ‘fair’, and don’t get taken out by the thousand special interest groups on both sides of the spectrum (including many ‘protecting’ the unequal by codifying inequality) let me know and you will have my vote 🙂
I’ll leave this one be, it is an entirely different conversation, and thanks for reading!
I am not sure why you wrote all the stuff you did. Such a homophobic title no matter what your article states does not just stir up conversation. It causes hurt feelings. I am unsubscribing from your feed.
Ok, sorry to see you go.
This conversation has understandably taken a turn towards the more comprehensive understanding of “equality”, and away from the viability of the fiscal rights that marriage guarantees (which was the original direction of the post, and quite relevant to a financial site such as this).
Speaking to the original post:
I am fortunate enough to have freedom to choose how I live since I currently fall on the “right” side of the marriage laws, but do not believe that these legal lines in the sand should be drawn based on the principles of entities which exclude large portions of the population. Perhaps it is time for a “Conscious Uncoupling” between church and state.
“Coupling” has referred to romantic or sexual unions since the rise of Middle English (“couple” shares a Latin root with “copulate”). When the Book of Common Prayer was first published in 1549, marriage officiants were instructed to ask “if any man do allege any impediment why they may not be coupled together in matrimony. “Uncoupling,” meanwhile, has tended to refer to the detachment of inanimate things, such as railroad cars. When the American Thesaurus of Slang gave “uncouple” as a synonym for getting a divorce in 1942, the usage was likely tongue-in-cheek.”
To critiques of this post’s direction: To segregate a blogger’s opinions to “what they do well” seems counterintuitive to the very nature of forums such as this one. Negating someone’s opinion does not strengthen your own- however, listening does. Matt has allowed everyone to voice theirs on here freely, so why not prompt some critical thought on the issues we are trying to better understand and potentially change?
Speaking to the larger discussion, I add this:
Of course the greater history plays an important role in who each of us is today, but more personal factors- namely where/when/to whom we were born, and interactions along the way are the more prevalent indicators of behavior. My personal history has led me down a road peppered with many colors and flavors of people, all struggling to be understood to varying degrees.
My friends include homosexual males living in extremely homophobic countries, unable to come out to their families due to fear of being stoned (and not the fun kind). Some were able to flee to more inclusive environs, others not. I have gay friends in NYC who, despite living in one of the more liberal cities of the world, still carry brass knuckles wherever they go (and not just as a fashion statement).
I lead weekly reading/art projects at a homeless shelter a few few blocks from my house, hopefully providing the all-too-many children there an outlet to escape the harsh realities of their everyday lives. Their outlooks on life have already been skewed by the hand they have been dealt, largely stemming from circumstances outside of their control.
I personally have struggled while living and visiting more misogynistic countries, where the inequality ran much deeper than finances. I’ve been chased, threatened, groped…And yes, I left because I had a choice. Not everyone does.
This conversation has clearly stuck some dissonant chords, with each comment stemming from the writer’s own experiences. Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, red-headedness, big-footedness, a list too long to name…. all affect the way we see and are seen by the world. None of these are our sole identity, but they most certainly are a part of it. These variant histories should be respected and empathized with- if we can achieve that, we might be closer to a more ultimate understanding of equality.
Wonderful comment, Allison. I am so glad to see you here on this side of the site. I mostly stayed out of the fray since the conversation was going off in too many directions, so I appreciate your grabbing many of those strands and responding in such a well explained and well argued piece of prose.
Matt, I still have some trouble with the title, but I do understand why you went there, and admire your gracious replies to all the comments. I sure hope you don’t plan to run for office, since your competition will surely try to smear you with that title! I say that half-jokingly but the sad part is that it is probably true! But maybe by then some tech wizard can purge it, and all links to it, before you toss your hat in any political rings!
Thanks Elaine. It is only natural that people enter into heated debate about sensitive topics such as this one, and I hope that the “huh?” moments provided enough pause for readers to first analyze then express their own thoughts. I selfishly hope that Matt stays out of politics for more reasons than the content of this post!
Stumbled on this as I looked for another post of yours and glad to see the new title!