Freedom to Marry Week: Day Two

There are many reasons for supporting same-sex marriage, but to my mind, they all boil down to three basic arguments. I’ll be highlighting one each day this week (with a break on Wednesday for my Freedom to Marry Blog Carnival. Saturday, I’ll tackle why civil unions and domestic partnerships are not enough, though they may still play a role in the changing landscape of human relationships.

I realize much of this may be old hat to many readers. I hope, though, that some of those who wander by may find something new. I also hope that as we, the LGBT blogosphere, collectively exercise our minds about relationship recognition, we can enhance and strengthen each others’ arguments.

The first reason (not necessarily the most important) for same-sex marriage is an economic one. Marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of our society. By denying it to same-sex couples, the government weakens that foundation.

Same-sex couples bear extra economic burdens. We still pay federal income taxes on our employers’ contributions towards our domestic partners’ health insurance. We do not have the right to each other’s Social Security benefits. (See the Economics of Equal Marriage Fact Sheet (PDF) for additional examples.) We incur costs in money and time as we set up contracts to mimic married relationships—contracts that cover only part of marriage’s rights and responsibilities. This extra economic pressure hurts our families directly. It also means having less time and money to give back to society, through, say, volunteer work or charitable contributions.

Members of same-sex couples may also find we have fewer options for job transfer and career growth than our straight, married peers, with some jurisdictions recognizing our relationships and others not. Successful Americans mean a successful America. In this competitive world, we shouldn’t restrict anyone.

Marriage is not just about rights. It’s about responsibilities. Married people have a responsibility to care for each other, particularly in situations of medical need, when the state would otherwise bear the burden. Marriage, as opposed to non-legal partnerships, also provides automatic protection for children. The state should therefore have a vested interest in securing the relationships of any loving, responsible couple wishing to give children a home. By restricting the number of people who can marry, we restrict the number who can carry out these responsibilities, or we make it more difficult for them to do so, with the extra economic encumbrances mentioned above.

Marriage equality has other net positive effects on the economy. UCLA’s Williams Institute (PDF link) reports:

A Congressional Budget Office analysis found that if same-sex couples could marry in all fifty states, and if those marriages were treated like all other marriages in federal law, the policy would add almost a billion dollars per year to federal coffers.

Increased state revenue most often results from two primary sources:

• States would spend less on public assistance, since family-level income thresholds associated with some means-tested social programs would reduce the eligibility of some same-sex couples and their children if they are treated as a family unit.
• The increased spending on weddings noted earlier would also generate sales tax revenues.

An additional positive effect is that domestic partnership or marriage equality would reduce the number of uninsured people. A recent study shows that people in same-sex couples are almost twice as likely to be uninsured as those in married couples. If employers treated same-sex couples as married, then more people would be insured, which would lead to improved health,
reduced state and federal Medicaid expenditures, and reduced government spending on uncompensated care. Reducing the number of uninsured people would also likely reduce pressure on health care costs for employers.

Those who claim they are “defending” marriage by denying same-sex couples the right to wed do not realize they are “defending” that institution to the detriment of society as a whole.