When Heterosexual Men Marry (Each Other)
That's the title of a Men's News Daily piece by Tom Purcell about what gay marriage in Canada has brought. I don't have a problem in the world with gay marriage; in fact, as the magnet on my refrigerator says, "Let gay people marry. They should suffer like the rest of us." (Well, I'm not for the suffering part -- and I actually don't think making a lifelong commitment to somebody at, say, 22, makes sense for our times...but if straight people get to marry, gay people should get the same rights.) What I am, however, opposed to for everyone, is "marriage privileging" -- giving people who are married special tax incentives. And, maybe, only when this guy (who, to me, sounds anti-gay marriage) lays out how it works when two heteros marry, does the unfairness of marriage privileging for anyone who marries really come clear for people:
The law of unintended consequences always produces interesting results. Here’s a doozy.Two heterosexual fellows in Canada, invoking their rights under Canada’s recently passed same-sex marriage legislation, have announced their intentions to marry. Drinking pals Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, intend to marry not because they are gay but for the tax breaks.
News of the pending engagement didn’t sit well with same-sex marriage activist Bruce Walker, a Toronto lawyer. He complained that marriage should be for love.
Well, who is Walker to criticize? He used to argue that if two consenting adults of the same sex wanted to marry, it was nobody’s business but theirs. Now that two fellows of the same sex want to marry – perhaps to qualify for family discounts at the neighborhood pub -- what business is it of his?
Where Canada is concerned, marital preconditions are over, and good riddance.
It used to be that marriage was sacred. A man would leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife as one flesh. It was a powerful commitment, a duty, an institution. What’s worse, it meant you weren’t allowed to see another woman naked for the rest of your life.
It used to be that governments gave breaks to married folks because it was ultimately good for society. The family has always been the building block of a healthy society, and encouraging family life was good for everyone.
It’s true that heterosexual men and women have made a mess out of traditional marriage. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce – and that only pertains to folks who bother marrying. Many heterosexual folks prefer cohabitation, as it provides many of the goodies of marriage without the hassles.
But cohabitation frequently fails and men and women become so suspicious of each other, they end up living alone. That means millions of single women spend their free time playing with their two cats, while millions of single men are slumped over a bar stool.
That’s why those two heterosexual Canadian fellows may be on to something. Perhaps more people should marry their buddies.
If single heterosexual women married their female friends, they’d avoid the loneliness of single life, while enjoying the benefits of marriage. If one was a member of a country club, for instance, the other would be able to join as her “spouse.” The only downside of women marrying their friends would be a significant increase in four-cat households, but then you can’t have everything.
Single heterosexual men could enjoy similar benefits from marrying their buddies. They would never spend their weekends window shopping at the Crate and Barrel with their “spouse,” but business would be brisk at the Keg and Barrel.
The guy is onto something -- an issue I haven't brough up for a while. Marriage, no matter how popular it is with the optimistic, is a lifestyle choice, so is having kids. If you want to have kids, you should wait until you can afford it, then support them yourself -- which includes paying, fully, for their schooling. Sorry, but there should be no such thing as publicly funded education except for poor children. You have a child, you educate it -- and teach the kid some manners, will you? More parents feel entitled to let more little brats tear around screaming and banging things in adult places these days. Then they're suprised, hurt, and angry when adults trying to enjoy coffee and a newspaper in an environment that doesn't sound like a poorly run nursery school turn and give them funny looks.
But, beyond the fact that the generation of children being underparented now are likely to have some serious issues related to the lack of rigidity in manners and etiquette training by their best friends/"parents," there's no reason anybody should be getting tax incentives for any kind of lifestyle. Let's support gay marriage (how weird to judge people on how they have sex -- do we get to rate straight people in bed to decide if they do it right before they get rights and privileges?)...but let's end the idiocy of tax breaks for straight people and gay people who marry.
Amy - While I don't always agree with your attitude toward children and child-rearing, I do enjoy the way you put your opinions. I also do struggle mightily to ensure that mine are polite and well-behaved in all environments, not just adult ones. (One of the first sentences I said to my baby girl must have been, "Now, sweetie, we never ever kick the airplane seat.") But I'm curious. Do you really see no benefit to providing a decent free public education for all? The payback, as I see it, comes in creating future taxpayers who can hold jobs and prop up our Social Security payments, (fingers crossed) help hold together a civil society, become road-building engineers and cancer-curing doctors, efficient car-designing environmentalists and great advice-giving columnists, well you get the idea. If people without kids don't contribute to the system, by your thinking shouldn't they then be denied the benefit of any advances made by all the private school students whose parents footed the bill for their educations? Oh, and I agree with you on the marriage tax.
Newcomer at August 15, 2005 8:12 AM
I see a benefit to paying for the education of the very poor only. Just as it's your job, if you reproduce, to clothe your children, it should be your job to look after the rest of your needs. Great, there might be a few kids who are building society instead of sucking up its resources in rehab and jail (where I see a lot of these brats heading, and blame mommy and daddy for being their friends instead of their parents...I love when I hear a parent negotiating with a child over something. I don't negotiate with my dog. I'm a fucking fascist. Which is why I can take her anywhere, and nobody ever knows she's there). Nevertheless, if you can't afford the full bill of having kids, you shouldn't have them.
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2005 8:23 AM
OK, now I know where you stand. Still, my question goes unanswered. How then do you justify benefitting from contributions these children go on to make? And let's face it, fare more are going to end up contributing members of society than in jail or rehab. (Living in L.A. skews our perspective on spoiled brats, to be sure, but there are whole swaths of the Midwest -- you know, where the fat folk live! -- where manners still matter for many.) I'm just curious how you justify not wanting to pay a cent of the bill but reaping any rewards.
Newcomer at August 15, 2005 8:36 AM
1. Love reading your blog and columns. You are tops on my "daily reading" list.
2. I am having trouble reconciling your statements of "if you can't afford the full bill of having kids, you shouldn't have them," and "I see a benefit to paying for the education of the very poor only." Who are 'the poor' who get a break from "if you can't afford the full bill of having kids, you shouldn't have them," which seems to me to be an absolutist (I'm OK with that) statement. All or nothing.
3. I am yet learning about the concept of the FAIR TAX, but it seems like one of it's advantages is that marital or parental status would no longer have a bearing on government collection of money. I would be glad to see if I can find a link if you are interested.
4. If your dog (what a sweety!!) could negotiate with you, you could make a lot more money with her than you probably do now!! I bet France would give you instant citizenship with a talking dog! (This is said in enjoyment of your point and a love of France, and not at all sarcastic.)
AdoringFan at August 15, 2005 11:14 AM
Well, being the unrepentant lefty that I am ;-) I have to jump in here to say that it's my belief that "equal opportunity" is meaningless without equal access to education. Now I don't pretend to believe that we've achieved it, but I do believe that it's a laudable goal. Without equal access to education, there is even less chance for people to break the cycle of poverty. I also believe that a vast, uneducated swath of the population is just what the fundamentalists (of every stripe) are counting on in order to install a theocracy. The first thing any fundamentalist regime does is close down the schools, except for the select few. And there is the (valid, IMO) point that we ALL benfit from an educated populace.
I do agree with you on the manners thing, though. Even my 8 year old son (who is developmentally disabled) understands that there are certain standards of behavior in public places. But then again, I run into a lot of *adults* these days that seem to have not been taught much in the way of manners and common courtesy.
deja pseu at August 15, 2005 11:40 AM
I pay for a lot of senior citizens now. Somebody might end up paying for me. I hope not. Shit happens. But it's right to expect to pay for what you use in life -- or bring into the world. And if you have a crisis, other people will pick up the pieces; it's the humane thing to do. But don't expect the rest of us to finance your kids from the start.
I didn't get a dog until I could afford to stay home with her for two months and train her, and account financially for any health care needs, etc. The same should go for kids. I don't want kids, but if I did, I wouldn't have them unless I had the money to do so.
I'm all for equal access to education, which we do not have now, by the way, just a vast pit into which we're pouring money. If parents were paying, you'd better believe it would be much better than it is. I will pay a lot, without complaint, to educate the children of destitute people. But, if you're middle class and you pump out a few carbon copies of yourself, you pay their way, okay? Next thing you know, I'll be asked to kick in for their shoes and socks. I mean, if school, why not clothes and summer camp?
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2005 12:36 PM
Interestingly, I find that parents of kids with developmental problems are among the most conscientious of how their kids affect others in public.
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2005 12:47 PM
Well, it's still my contention that schools fall under the heading of "common good", much like roads and bridges, police and fire departments, public libraries, and other infrastructure that we may not personally use but that we all pay for. You want your kid to have Nike's, sure I have no problem telling you to pay for those yourself.
deja pseu at August 15, 2005 1:10 PM
One option involves the charter school programs initiated by many members of communities in which the public school systems have failed. But the teacher's unions are strong, and that has prevented more widespread adoption.
Many of these programs also allow poor and indigent people access to these schools as well, with the result being that those who can afford to pay for their children's educations wind up subsidizing the less well - off.
Dmac at August 15, 2005 2:57 PM
I suspect that the phrase "equal access to education" is meaningless. As the northern states dominate academically even while occupying the lowest levels of spending per pupil (except Michigan, which has some kind of disease, I guess), seasonal demands put learning on the front burner. This means that during the winter months, when you can die of cold just getting the mail, there certainly is appeal to young and old to look at Chaucer by the fire.
The issue is one of motivation, not "access" - a term now used to collect money, so that that bright new buses can bring kids to an impressive school thirty miles from their home, sucking up half the budget for things which and people who teach nothing.
Radwaste at August 15, 2005 3:08 PM
Amy,
All very well holding fierce opinions about the way society should function, but there seems an inherent misanthropy in your idea that public money should not be used on education for all. It's a highly civilized principle - an expression of shared values, and doesn't remotely deserve to be thrown in with shrill grandstanding like "what next - free Nikes for spoilt brats?".
But I think you sort of know that, at heart.
Jody Tresidder at August 15, 2005 3:08 PM
But wait!! Back to the two guys!! Don't marriages (regardless of religious or civil ceremony) have to be CONSUMMATED to be binding?
isa at August 15, 2005 4:06 PM
isa -- nope. That would potentially discriminate against amputees and/or old people who can't get it up.
male-female marriages without sex, for tax privileges, happen all the time -- just ask Immigration.
LYT at August 15, 2005 4:18 PM
Oh, and I don't know what tax bracket y'all are in, but Mr. Deja's and my taxes went UP once we got married. Our two incomes combined bumped us up into a higher bracket. I don't know who's getting a tax *break* from being married unless it's couples where one spouse doesn't earn taxable income.
That said, I don't think marriage should have any tax impact at all. I also believe that marriage should be divided into two parts, civil and spiritual. If you want the legal protections (next of kin, insurance coverage, etc.) you do the civil marriage. You want the blessing of the Higher Spaghetti Monster, you do the spiritual thing. In my perfect world, anyone straight or gay can do one or the other, both or neither. That way it's fair to everyone.
deja pseu at August 15, 2005 5:24 PM
Where the heck is Crid? You couldn't keep him away from this topic with a tank battalion.
Patrick, the cynic at August 16, 2005 9:13 AM
> Where the heck is Crid?
It's mid-august. Even imperialists need a break...
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at August 16, 2005 2:25 PM
I think he's on strike after one too many Bush digs.
Oops. That sounds a bit dirty. Naughty me.
If you see him, try to lure him back with promises of wine, woman, song, and Republicanism. We're good on the first three.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2005 4:02 PM
Most of your readers are Republicans. The ones who can read, that is.
Richard Bennett at August 16, 2005 9:32 PM
Richard, I would never make such statements unless I had good data backing it up. I haven't even checked this out; how the hell would you know?! There are a lot of lurkers here who never comment. Many of them e-mail me comments on the stuff here. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, and I would say a number of the people who comment here are libertarians and/or what I would call common-sense moderates.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2005 10:00 PM
Republicans are more literate than Democrats, better educated, and wealthier.
You're a Democrat whether you want to admit it or not, as anyone who reads your conformist trashing of the President can readily see.
That's OK, you can come out of the closet, accept yourself, and stop living a lie. Your fans will admire you for taking this brave step.
Richard Bennett at August 17, 2005 12:29 PM
And I should note that it's about time for you to cross over to the dark side, Amy, you being a highly-compensated media baroness and all.
Richard Bennett at August 17, 2005 6:30 PM
Leave a comment