An Odd Silence on Gay Marriage

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
This article describes the author's attempts to get leading opponents of gay marriage to make predictions about the societal upheaval to be expected in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire now that those states allow gays to wed.

Not surprisingly, he got three strikes for three pitches.
I contacted three serious conservative thinkers who have written extensively about the dangers of allowing gay marriage and asked them to make simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators—marriage rates, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, child poverty, you name it.

You would think they would react like Albert Pujols when presented with a hanging curveball. Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states.
Supporters, on the other hand, had no problem declaring a lack of impact. I think they're wrong, in that I think there will be some major long-term positive impacts. I'll explain why later, after others have weighed in.

So what's your take? Will allowing gay marriage in the six states have any major impact on the rest of society, positive or negative? This is a "think outside the box" exercise. :)
 

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
I live in Massachusetts, we've had gay marriage for years. So I have to ask what societal upheaval?

I mean sure things have gone bad here, the Sox lost to the Rays in the playoffs last year.

Oh, you meant fire and brimestone and all that crap. Sorry, didn't happen
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Well, Massachusetts gave us the Kennedys, too, but the timeframe's all wrong to blame that on gay marriage. :ROFL:
 

Albedo

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,363
Reaction score
2,924
Location
A dimension of pure BEES
One positive will be that the establishment of gay marriage as just another thing will eventually cause the other dominoes to fall, and if the cultural pressure of USA helps bring equality to the rest of the world then the already indefensible position of this country's major parties will look ever more arse-backwards. When Australia starts to lose investment because people from the rest of the West will find their marriages invalidated if they move here, maybe the Laborals will finally cast off the fundie influence and emerge squinting into the modern era.

I can hope, can't I?
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
This makes sense. I've said all along that the longer we have gay marriage and the more places we have gay marriage, the harder it gets to make the kind of specious, fear-mongering arguments that we have heard from opponents.

When some Massachusetts legislators who had opposed gay marriage were asked why they changed their votes to protect same-sex marriage, several said flat out, on the record, that years of same-sex marriage convinced them that there was nothing to fear, no negative impact. Some said it was good for Massachusetts.

I'm not able to look up a bunch of quotations and link to cites at the moment, but it would be interesting exercise to look at what those named in the article have previously said on the subject.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Well, Massachusetts gave us the Kennedys, too, but the timeframe's all wrong to blame that on gay marriage. :ROFL:
I'm thankful every day for the Kennedys. I've personally benefited from things they have done, and it's a safe bet to say so have you. It's such a shame to see people demonize a whole family of people who have done a mountain of good out of partisanship or ignorance or just for cheap laughs on a message board.
 

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
This makes sense. I've said all along that the longer we have gay marriage and the more places we have gay marriage, the harder it gets to make the kind of specious, fear-mongering arguments that we have heard from opponents.

When some Massachusetts legislators who had opposed gay marriage were asked why they changed their votes to protect same-sex marriage, several said flat out, on the record, that years of same-sex marriage convinced them that there was nothing to fear, no negative impact. Some said it was good for Massachusetts.

I'm not able to look up a bunch of quotations and link to cites at the moment, but it would be interesting exercise to look at what those named in the article have previously said on the subject.


One who changed his vote was the Rep from Manchester-By-The-Sea, one of the few Republican strongholds in the state. He said he changed his vote because so many people in that town called his office and said if he voted against gay marriage again, they would vote him out of office.

So much for all Republicans being against gay marriage.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
reddog, very cool.

This is my favorite quotation from just after the June 14, 2007 vote that kept the question off the ballot:

Senator James E. Timilty, a Democrat who last year supported the amendment, also changed his mind.

"When I looked in the eyes of the children living with these couples," Mr. Timilty said, "I decided that I don't feel at this time that same-sex marriage has hurt the commonwealth in any way. In fact I would say that in my view it has had a good effect for the children in these families."
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
One who changed his vote was the Rep from Manchester-By-The-Sea, one of the few Republican strongholds in the state. He said he changed his vote because so many people in that town called his office and said if he voted against gay marriage again, they would vote him out of office.

So much for all Republicans being against gay marriage.

And so much for the idea that we can't really change anything by speaking out.
 

AyJay

Luv's Conscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
631
Reaction score
57
Age
54
Location
NYC
Website
andrewjpeterswrites.com
The longer term impact of same sex marriage is the greater enfranchisement of lesbian, gay and bisexual people and likely (though not definitely) the increased stability of same-sex relationships. I'm a bit conservative on the latter point. I think everyone should certainly have the right to walk out of a marriage, especially when abuse is involved, but without the legal commitment, it's too easy for couples (gay and non-gay) to call it quits and not do the work to make it last. I guess Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell disprove this theory, but I think of them as the exception to the rule.
 

DavidZahir

Malkavian Primogen
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
268
Location
Los Angeles
Website
undeadwhispers.yuku.com
Well, divorce lawyers might make a tiny bit more income as a result of same-sex marriage. Ditto those involved in marriage arrangements--caterers, halls and churches to rent, etc.

Some companies will have to fork over some more money as more people are covered under various forms of insurance.

Disputes over matters of children, visitation rights, living wills, etc. will be streamlined once same-sex relationships are under the legal umbrella of "marriage."

Those are the first tangible results that come to my mind.
 

Fran

Slate grey mole person
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
10,028
Reaction score
855
Location
Paisley, Scotland
I'm sure it's completely impossible that the 'opposers' don't care one way or another and are just saying whatever they think their voters want to hear.
 

darkprincealain

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
1,925
Location
Nowhere. Now here.
I'm not so sure of that. But there are a mix, I'm guessing. There have got to be a few who do care, and don't want gay marriage for their own reasons. It's complicated, since the two party system lumps a lot of people who agree on an outcome together, despite why they believe that outcome is best. So I prefer, for my own sake, not to guess at motives and just wonder how Iowa got futher left on this issue from say, Hawaii, California or New York...
 

Fran

Slate grey mole person
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
10,028
Reaction score
855
Location
Paisley, Scotland
I think if they DID care they'd have some answers to the questions, that's all. If they can't give an argument against that's not based on the Bible I don't see what credibility they have. But as I've said before nobody listens to the right-wing religious in the UK, so it's undoubtably not as simple as that.
 

darkprincealain

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
1,925
Location
Nowhere. Now here.
I think if they DID care they'd have some answers to the questions, that's all. If they can't give an argument against that's not based on the Bible I don't see what credibility they have. But as I've said before nobody listens to the right-wing religious in the UK, so it's undoubtably not as simple as that.

Agreed. We listen to our right-wing religious here. I would prefer we listen to them on some of their morals and not much else, but my tastes seem to differ with at least some...
 
Last edited:

Bartholomew

Comic guy
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
8,507
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Kansas! Again.
I think there will be positive impact; the debris from the explosion of Fred Phelp's head will absolutely, positively hit something.

In the long run, I think that allowed homosexual marriage will help kill the stereotype that homosexuals aren't monogamous, or that they go through partners like a chain-smoker goes through spare lungs. I also think that having their relationships recognized by the established government will slowly kill some of the homophobia that's infected our culture.

In the short run, homosexual couples will be able to take advantage of the economic benefits of marriage, which will make the homosexual community a little healthier and wealthier.

Also, there will come birth of same-sex marriage scams, wherein two heterosexual men get a quiet, legal marriage so that they can share dental insurance. :p
 

Bartholomew

Comic guy
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
8,507
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Kansas! Again.
You're not married, are you?
:)

Har. No, not yet, though it won't be long now.

I meant the tax benefits, the benefit of being able to put one's spouse down on insurance instead of paying two premiums, and... well, that was about it.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Well, there's also benefits that go to surviving spouses, like Social Security and military benefits. Pensions. There are all kinds of financial benefits to being married. The thousand plus benefits of marriage include a lot of financial ones.

Maggie Gallagher was just on CNN (and she's had columns out...I wonder why she wouldn't comment on the article in the OP). I was half-listening because she bugs me, but her argument was what it often is. That gays shouldn't get marriage, because marriage is about procreation and children need a mother and father (which...single parents, anyone?). I always find this odd, as my husband and I had didn't procreate and no one suggested we not marry, and because several of my gay friends have children...many have biological children that they got the same way my husband and I would have had to get them if we wanted kids. I wonder if she thinks stigmatizing and discriminating against gay people is going to make them go out and get married to members of the opposite sex and have kiddies.
 

Deleted member 42

Ben--

There are no tax benefits for most married couples. You pay more taxes not less, especially if both are wage earners.

Treating same-sex marriages legally as heterosexual marriages will increase the tax base.

I'm not sure how the insurance will end up--but as far as I can figure, the insurance companies always win. Mostly, the primary insured person has to pay an additional amount from salary for spousal coverage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bartholomew

Comic guy
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
8,507
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Kansas! Again.
Ben--

There are no tax benefits for most married couples. You pay more taxes not less, especially if both are wage earners.

Treating same-sex marriages legally as heterosexual marriages will increase the tax base.

I'm not sure how the insurance will end up--but as far as I can figure, the insurance companies always win. Mostly, the primary insured person has to pay an additional amount from salary for spousal coverage.

Didn't know any of that. o.o

Who's Ben?
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Maggie Gallagher has answered Chapman (who she accuses of playing "gotcha" because he asked) after all. Her predictions for the negative things gay marriage will do are here.

I like #2, which is that public schools will teach about gay marriage. Well, it exists. Why shouldn't schools acknowledge it? I'm sure she's fine with schools teaching about heterosexual marriage.
 

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,864
Reaction score
4,639
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
In the long run, I think that allowed homosexual marriage will help kill the stereotype that homosexuals aren't monogamous, or that they go through partners like a chain-smoker goes through spare lungs.
And Elizabeth Taylor loved being an advocate for monogamy so much, she married eight times, two of those marriages to the same man.
I also think that having their relationships recognized by the established government will slowly kill some of the homophobia that's infected our culture.
Just like it's helped eradicate racism in our country, I'm sure.
In the short run, homosexual couples will be able to take advantage of the economic benefits of marriage, which will make the homosexual community a little healthier and wealthier.
If I were to add my boyfriend Peter to my insurance I get through work, my portion of the premium would increase by a factor of 3.5. And that's a pre-tax benefit. Having less in my gross pay to be taxed at the current rates would make me wealthier...how?