One of the ongoing reporting memes that amuses me in covering marriage-related news is the ever-changing number of "rights and benefits" that married couples supposedly enjoy.
Take, for instance, this paragraph in the Middletown Journal (Ohio):
"Roger Conner, owner of Flowers by Roger in Middletown for the last 37 years, said gay men and women, if they want, should “have the opportunity” to get married. Married couples have more than 1,400 rights and benefits that same-gender couples are denied, according to a federal tally. Conner mentioned three: next-of-kin status for hospital visits and medical decisions and tax returns."
1,400? I've seen numbers as high as 1,700 and as low as 1,100. So maybe Mr. Conner thought it would be safest to pick a number halfway between the two.
Problem is, all of these numbers are suspect, as Politifact Rhode Island found out when they looked into this claim:
"Given the number of times the 1,100 number has been tossed around, we expected to see a specific analysis of each law cited, or at least some indication of what "right" was at stake.
Instead, we were surprised to discover that the GAO had simply done a search of the U.S. Code to identify laws that use words or word fragments like "marr" (for marriage), "spouse," "widow" or "survivor.""
In other words, the only way a number as large as 1,100 (let alone 1,700) would be to use it in the phrase "marriage and related words are mentioned this many times."
But of course, that's not a very effective figure to point out so instead we are treated to literally hundreds of news reports claiming that marriage confers over a thousand "rights and benefits" (sometimes you see the adjective "responsibilities") without anyone really stopping to fact-check the claim.
Moreover, long before Politifact took a look at this question recently, the institute for Marriage and Public Policy investigated these types of claims back in 2004 and found them wanting. Obviously, most individuals pushing gay marriage didn't get the memo.
Finally, in states that do allow full civil unions with all the rights/benefits/responsibilities, etc. of marriage, that is still unacceptable to activists bent on redefining marriage.
So maybe it's time to drop the 1,000+ rights and benefits canard and get back to debating marriage.
31 Comments
I don't generally use politifact because I find them to be as reliable as wikipedia(not at all) but this is something to look at.
If it's even one right being withheld from lesbian and gay people because of their sexual orientation, then it's wrong.
@Garrett
It's not because of that. There is an article about a devout mormon who claims to be homosexual but he's married to a woman and he recieve all the rights and benefits of marriage. He hasn't been denied a thing.
Individuals with same sex attraction have the very same marital rights as everyone else. There is no discrimination.
No state has a box on their marriage license which one must check swearing that they do not have same sex attraction.There is no discrimination.
Equal rights is not what is being sought here, for everyone already has equal rights.
Alter marriage to cater to the desires of one small group in society and no longer will we have equal rights. For if one group can alter marriage to suit their particular desires, making marriage *not* about the union of a man and a woman, but rather *instead* about the union of two people who love each other, then we need to alter marriage for other groups also to suit their desires, to not do so is discriminatory.
Changing marriage to include same sex unions so that those with same sex attraction can marry whom they love, then we need to change marriage to also include incestuous unions, or polygamous unions so that *everyone* can marry whom they love.
It is discrimination if we do not!
That's right, Paula. And you're certainly not the first to say so.
In fact, that is exactly the argument given to support miscegenation laws: they impacted everyone the same whether black or white.
That ruling which allowed Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving to marry was catering to the desires of one small group in society. It just ruined marriage for everyone.
Well, for everyone who was racist anyway.
Zack,
Funny thing about that homosexual guy... he actually makes his living advising gay people to marry straight people; he's an ex-gay therapist.
But I have one question for you: would you want your sister to marry a gay man?
@ Timothy...
Also, the big religious argument before Loving V Virginia, was that "God does not intend to mix the races". Big religious argument here, ("homosexuality/sin") yet gays marrying EACH OTHER have nothing to do with the people yelling at them at the ballot box, "NO!".
Thank you, Thomas Peters.
The iMapp Policy Brief was boring to read, I won't lie. I skipped right to the conclusion, which sums it up quite nicely:
"...federal marriage laws are unlikely to act as an important economic incentives to marry. Couples who marry expecting to receive “1000 federal marriage benefits” are likely to be disappointed."
I live in Ohio, and it bothers me that, despite our constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman (affirming natural law), we still have debates about this and small uprisings in the blue counties thinking they can reverse it.
On another note, if I wasn't already married, I'd propose to you, Mr. Peters. lmao
Tim & Davey: Time and time again on this blog your side has been told that the Loving decision was consistent with marriage since the people involved were a man-woman couple and it was good riddence to the racism involved. SSM redefines marriage outside of the man-woman coupling and is completely inconsistant with what marriage is. Keeping marriage's traditional definition has nothing to do with racism or any violation of your civil rights which are based on you being an individual. There are no couple rights. You're wrong, so stop saying it already!
“miscegenation laws: they impacted everyone the same whether black or white.”
Actually, they didn’t. They were quite varied about what “races” were considered non-white and whom non-whites could marry. In fact, what constituted a “white person” make no sense biologically (see the “one drop” rule), nor was it symmetrical. One bit of black ancestry made you black, but one bit of white ancestry did not make you white.
Those laws also contracted Acts 17:26 and Galatians 3:28 if one is looking for religious arguments. The court properly stayed out of religious arguments on both sides.
In any event Baker v. Nelson came after Loving v. Virginia. The SOCTUS rejected the notion that sex is just like race. See also Hernandez v. Robles (2006).
I also note no one is defending the number 1400.
Publius:
"In any event Baker v. Nelson came after Loving v. Virginia."
True, but Baker is over 40 years old. Since then SCOTUS has upheld the right of states to ban sodomy (Bowers v. Hardwick) then reversed itself in Lawrence v. Texas. While that certainly doesn't ensure they will rule for marriage equality when and if a case reaches them, but it shows how much times have changed since Baker.
Old Supreme Court cases used to be considered settled law, not documents written with disappearing ink. The privacy and sodomy cases are not on point regarding marriage as the court made quite clear at the time, which should mean something.
And no one is defending the 1400 rights claim, the issue that is on point for this thread.
@Timothy
What do you have against people who want a specific word to name the man woman union? If you could answer without any prejudices, thank you.
@Timothy
"But I have one question for you: would you want your sister to marry a gay man?"
Sure, if he's a good man, bright future and well established and can provide a good life for my sister I'd be all for it.
Yet another hackneyed Alinskyite talking point bites the dust.
Umhh Paula- people who want to marry people of the same sex tend to be gay.
Sure Zack, but are you sure your sister would be down for it? Maybe you should ask he her if she's down with with the down low.
Actually, Woody, you might have suggested that Timothy direct his question toward the sister.
But he didn't.
The question Timothy actually asked, is the question Zack answered.
Very well indeed.
@Timothy
" Maybe you should ask he her if she's down with with the down low."
It would be entirely her choice.
Typo: I meant to respond to Woody
Sorry.
The so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” did not pass. The American people decided not to de-gender the whole legal system, and rightly so. To get all the 1400 "rights," every gendered term (husband, wife, mother, father, etc.) would have to be expunged or redefined in the legal code. This would affect everyone’s marriage both now and for all future generations. In the long run this would be bad for women. For example, steps to de-gender the military including the integration of women into the ranks have lead to scandalous levels of rape and abuse. Allowing abortion for sex selection has led to the increased termination of births to females. This is the real war on women.
As for denying rights, the SCOTUS settled in Baker v. Nelson that the traditional definition of marriage did not violate the 14th amendment. They did not quote scripture to reach this conclusion. The court was and is a secular court.
Michael,I'm not religious.The indefensibility of same-sex sexual relationships is determined by the fact of our species having evolved two sexes,and no claim of a "right" to violate the opposite-sex norm is worth any attention.
"So maybe it's time to drop the 1,000+ rights and benefits canard and get back to debating marriage."
Wait - nothing in your essay debunks the 1000+ rights number. And in Minnesota there are 514 laws and regulations. You simply cannot "debate marriage" without including these rights and regulations in the debate. And in states were there was civil unions - it has been determined that they simply don't work and are unequal.
Ummm, Tim.
It usually helps to actually read the article before commenting in such a way as to disclose your ignorance of its content.
".....we were surprised to discover that the GAO had simply done a search of the U.S. Code to identify laws that use words or word fragments like "marr" (for marriage), "spouse," "widow" or "survivor."
The true "discrimination" here, is the biological reality that our species is constituted in two genders.
It is this discrimination against which the pseudo-marriage lunatics continually seek remedy at law.
I'm curious about the author and commenters' reactions to this illustration.
It shows 2 rights being denied a same sex couple.
2 is not a high number. It's a number you can count on one hand. But the end result of their denial is... effective, to say the least.
Do you have any emotional reaction to it at all? Or does it leave every one of you soundly unmoved in any manner? Or maybe it even hardens your hearts?
http://www.damnlol.com/against-gay-marriage-maybe-this-will-change-your-mind-21111.html
Emily,
My response is disgust; as in:
How dare you hold everybody else responsible for the choices you made; what a disgusting thing for you to do.
Disgusting: completely unacceptable or disgraceful
The emotional appeal worked for civil unions, but that ship has sailed and now everyone sees you for the fraud you really are.
Go spit.
I don't understand.
You link to a cartoon where a female makes a choice to become romantically attracted to another female.
Obviously, this relationship is different in fundamental ways from marriage, which involves the union of the two complementary genders of our species.
How, possibly, could such a cartoon be relevant in any way to marriage?
Emily: don't listen to Rick or Randy...they are a couple of self-hating closet queens who spend their time obsessesing over the gays.
@Michael - 'I'm still looking for the quote from Jesus where he condemned same-sex marriage--could someone point that out to me, please).
Here are a few:
Jn 10:30 - I and the Father am one.
Jn 17:21 - ..that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
If Jesus and God are one, then Jesus/God told Moses to write Leviticus, which condems homosexuaity