In this post, the goal is to let insightful writers to inform readers about issues relevant to current legal and political trials of marriage both at the US Supreme Court and around the world. To accomplish this, a brief comment about about an article or blog will be presented along with a link to the entire writing.
In the blog article “The Trial of Marriage,” Sheila Reports presents a overview of both the current US Supreme Court cases dealing with same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act as well as large public opposition to same-sex marriage in France. One problem noted is the domino effect of redefining marriage already occurring outside the United State.
A very interesting response to Shelia Reports blog comes from Alice C. Linsley. In her Ethics Forum blog, Linsley lists nations that currently permit same-sex unions without threatening the still globally supported unique institution of marriage–the union of one man and one women. The push for legalizing same-sex marriage is not really about equality under the law. Rather, it is about redefining marriage.
Linsley made an intriguing comment about the big push for same-sex marriage in America. She said, “Follow the money trail?” Writing for Fox Business News, Gail Buckner wrote an informative piece about the trail of tax dollars as motive behind the big push. One of the major financial issues is estate tax. Other taxes that will effect federal revenue include those related to joint income tax deduction and social security.
Buckner failed to mention that those institutions and businesses supporting the same-sex marriage agenda have a relatively large gay and gay-supporting consumer base whose income is higher than the average American household. Many of the same businesses, political and social organizations have been bank-rolling this agenda for a long time.
Some commentators like NBC’s Tom Curry are predicting the US Supreme Court justices will create space for citizens within their states to decide the same-sex marriage issue. If so, they will have acknowledged the right of 41 states and their citizens to affirm by legal definition the pre-Constitutional institution as marriage between one man and one woman.
In a Times Dispatch Op-Ed, Victoria Cobb makes essentially the same argument for marriage that the French opposition have been making:
“Government should continue to protect marriage between one man and one woman because it is the bedrock of society and the structure through which children are best protected and can most likely mature into emotionally, educationally and financially successful adults — something that is in our government’s best interest.”
A part of the government interest is more productive citizens, more growing businesses, and more tax revenue.