One of you will end up here next!
Last edited by chromium; 10-13-14 at 08:43 PM.
That the 14th's equal protection clause *doesn't* mention race leads me to believe it was left intentionally broad. It could be used gradually by the courts to achieve equality for different groups once there was sufficient support, instead of having to go thru the damn amendment process over every single issue.
Marriage Penalty). The net effect of SSM on tax revenues is fairly modest, according to the only decent estimate I've seen.
Revisiting the state and federal income tax effects of legalizing same-sex marriages Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center
Those estimates assume (unrealistically) that 100% of same sex couples living together get married, so if, say, only half do, cut those figures in half. But roughly 30 states will benefit or see no change, and 20 will see revenues drop.- Twenty-three states would realize a net fiscal benefit from legalization of same-sex marriage, the greatest gain being in New York, with an estimated $16 million in additional revenue. California would lose an estimated $29 million, and 20 other states would also experience a decline in revenue. The remaining seven states do not levy an income tax and therefore would be unaffected.
- The aggregate impact on revenue across all states would be negative, but small relative to the size of overall state revenues, ranging from a loss of $2.6 million to $18 million
- At the federal level the government would lose revenue, with the decline estimated to be between $187 million and $580 million. While not insignificant, it is just 0.02% of total revenue for the U.S. federal government in 2013, $2.8 trillion.
You're right that we've by and large thought of marriage as a hetero institution, until recently. That's simply because it wasn't seen as possible before and it was just one of several reasons to wish to be heterosexual instead. But that wasn't possible either, so there was no recourse but to feel hated and bitter about the whole thing. It's not that it was "dumb" but the institution did serve to oppress (including single heteros) who did not take part.
Now that homosexuality is becoming accepted and other rights, not just marriage, are becoming reality, a lot of the hostility and mockery of this institution can fade without accepting 2nd class status. It's no longer threatening and in fact, your suspicion answers itself since marriage really is no longer exclusively a hetero thing. The embracing of it is a reaction to no longer being excluded, go figure.
No society is better off disenfranchising perfectly good, contributing segments of it's population. Esp. segments that have not been shown to do any harm to individuals or society.
No society should support bigotry. (Again...esp, in the face of the fact that there is no harm done or shown...then it's just personal beliefs. Bigotry)
Imagine what we're hostile to that will be seen that way in another century... It's difficult to imagine that equal rights for gays isn't one such issue. But I imagine that there will be things we haven't even thought of yet that will be fundamental rights to future generations.Today, most of us indeed see those as intrinsic to any free society, but the fact it took 50 and 100 years respectively gives us a sense of the hostility to them in 1870. I doubt the 15th could have passed if it included women and unlike the 14th, it was tailored as a specific response ("race, color, or previous servitude") to specific southern tactics to undermine the 1866 Civil Rights Act ("black codes").
I agree. This is likewise why we don't need a constitutional amendment endorsing SSM. Unfortunately, we might need one to completely protect the rights of women. Too often, legislation and the courts don't live up to the promises in the 14th amendment when it comes to issues for women.That the 14th's equal protection clause *doesn't* mention race leads me to believe it was left intentionally broad. It could be used gradually by the courts to achieve equality for different groups once there was sufficient support, instead of having to go thru the damn amendment process over every single issue.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.