The recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that declared a state law banning same-sex marriages unconstitutional has raised consciousness of all Americans to the question of whether same- sex couples should be allowed to marry.

The Massachusetts ruling grants the right of same-sex couples to marry in that state and has sparked a rush to amend the state constitution. Any amendment would not take effect before 2006 thus opening a window for gays in the Bay State to legally marry.

There is sharp division among Americans with respect to the question of gay marriage. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans oppose allowing gays to legally marry with a smaller percentage opposing some sort of civil unions that stop short of marriage.

Most of the opposition, I believe, stems from personal religious beliefs and from history rather than a logical analysis. Many Americans hold deep-seated religious convictions against gay relationships. I will defer that issue to the Deity. Some opposition may very well be simply a result of change being frightening to some.

I must admit that it has been a very long time since I have found myself as ambivalent about an issue as I am on this one.

I cannot think of a good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to legalize their relationships if they so choose. I also cannot think of a compelling reason gay marriages should be sanctioned by the state.

I have tried to determine a position on this issue based on how it would affect me personally. Frankly, if a gay couple lives together in a single household, I can't imagine how it would affect me one way or the other whether or not they have a piece of paper (a marriage license).

From a financial perspective, marriage licenses cost money so each county would receive some income from license fees. That would be a plus for me. If gay marriage were legalized, the wedding industry and all related industries would benefit, which would, in turn, provide a boost, albeit small in the grand scheme of things, to the economy. Another plus.

The death of one partner of a legally married gay couple would exempt the surviving partner from estate taxes so that would be a net negative from my perspective. Of course, the President has the goal of eliminating the "death tax" so that may not be an issue.

On the issue of taxes, the income tax code still includes a "marriage penalty" although, once again, the President wishes to have this eliminated. As long as a marriage penalty exists, gay marriages would result in higher taxes for a married couple than if each were single. Another plus for me.

With respect to contractual obligations, two individuals may enter into contracts in much the same way as a married couple, so there doesn't appear to be any advantage or disadvantage from that perspective.

A married couple would be able to share health benefits from one partner's employer, although "domestic partner" benefits are available from some companies today. This could have a negative effect on me if my employer's insurance costs were to rise as a result.

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next