Althouse: "The Supreme Court ruling tells every gay fifteen-year-old living out in the middle of nowhere that he or she is as good as any other dope who wants to get married."

September 21, 2015

"The Supreme Court ruling tells every gay fifteen-year-old living out in the middle of nowhere that he or she is as good as any other dope who wants to get married."

"To me it was a slightly mixed message, like saying we’re all equally entitled to wear Dockers to the Olive Garden. Then I spoke to my accountant, who’s as straight as they come, and he couldn’t have been more excited. 'For tax purposes, you and Hugh really need to act on this,' he said. 'But I don’t want to,' I said. 'I don’t believe in marriage.'"

In the new issue of The New Yorker — subscription required — David Sedaris takes on same-sex marriage: "A Modest Proposal/Just when you thought you’d never get married."

56 comments:

Eric the Fruit Bat said...: I try to bear in mind that a license used to be required before you were allowed to have sex.; 9/21/15, 9:50 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "These days, we feel social pressure to accept and act appreciative of unfunny comedy that makes reference to subject matter that we believe we're supposed to take seriously."

"...like saying we’re all equally entitled to wear Dockers to the Olive Garden."

I am Laslo.; 9/21/15, 9:50 AM
Roughcoat said...: Don't care about gay [sic] any more.

David Sedaris = *yawn*; 9/21/15, 9:54 AM
tim in vermont said...: It is undeniably in the interest of the polity of the United States to extend the same benefits to these guys that the nation extends to marriages that can potentially produce children because.... Love Wins! I forgot!; 9/21/15, 9:54 AM
tim in vermont said...: I thought the Dockers line was kind of funny, actually.; 9/21/15, 9:55 AM
MayBee said...: I love David Sedaris and I can't imagine ever stopping.; 9/21/15, 9:56 AM
William said...: Fifteen year old boys are far more interested in getting laid than in getting married.; 9/21/15, 10:18 AM
Chuck said...: He lives in Paris. Nobody in Paris cares about getting, being, or staying married.; 9/21/15, 10:22 AM
Wince said...: Are we supposed to feel good about his warped motives, avarice, bullying of his partner, bigotry and spite?; 9/21/15, 10:27 AM
Carol said...: Single workers really do get the brunt of the tax laws, if that's what it's about.; 9/21/15, 10:47 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Unless you think you need to be married to have sex, the #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic. The Supreme Court case postures all over the place to avoid embracing this simple, obvious fact, but I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't realize this.; 9/21/15, 10:50 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Single workers really do get the brunt of the tax laws, if that's what it's about."

Not necessarily. You have to do the math for your particular situation. Don't assume.; 9/21/15, 10:50 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: ... but I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't realize this.

Now I feel sorry for Meade.; 9/21/15, 10:53 AM
tim in vermont said...: Marriage is about doing the math. It all makes sense now!; 9/21/15, 10:56 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: After reading that I think we've finally reached "peak Althouse" on the topic of SSM.; 9/21/15, 10:59 AM
MarkW said...: "Not necessarily. You have to do the math for your particular situation."

Yep. There's a marriage penalty for dual income couples like my wife and me. We'd have saved a boatload of money over the years being able to file income taxes as single rather than married.; 9/21/15, 11:01 AM
Farmer said...: Ann Althouse said...
"but I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't realize this."

No, you don't.; 9/21/15, 11:02 AM
dbp said...: I love his honesty:

"That said, I was all for the struggle, mainly because it so irritated the fundamentalists. I wanted gay people to get the right to marry, and then I wanted none of us to act on it. I wanted it to be ours to spit on. Instead, much to my disappointment, we seem to be all over it."; 9/21/15, 11:09 AM
Lyssa said...: I've never really read David Sedaris before. That was pretty darn funny. I don't think that it really said anything of great note, but it was an amusing read.; 9/21/15, 11:12 AM
JAORE said...: "... the #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic."

So the #1 reason for NOT marrying also economic? Should we ask the "parents" of all those kids born out of wedlock? Somehow I doubt if those women universally think they made a great economic choice.

(And, uhhh, Professor, I'd HATE to think Judy married me for economic reasons. How sad. Of course we take it in the shorts every tax season due to the marriage penalty, so there is that.); 9/21/15, 11:12 AM
Birkel said...: I neither got married to allow sex nor out of some economic motivation.

Althouse seems sad and bitter in that comment.; 9/21/15, 11:15 AM
JAORE said...: Did you keep the spread sheet you used when deciding whether to accept Meade's proposal? Is it framed on a wall or included in the wedding album; 9/21/15, 11:21 AM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Ever since the issue of SSM reared its ugly head, I've predicted that once it's writ in stone and can never be rescinded, gays will completely lose interest in marriage. Hell, straights have pretty much given up on it already, why should gays be any different?; 9/21/15, 11:22 AM
JAORE said...: Oh yeah (piling on now because you made such a sad, sad comment) I thought it was all about LOVE, Love, love.

It would be instructive to see the parts of the ruling where a justice says. "Love? I pity the fool.... it's all about the Benjamines.."; 9/21/15, 11:23 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: I thought the main reason to get married (absent religous conviction) was to provide the resulting children with stability and security.

Many of my a-religious friends moved from 'living together' to 'married' at the point where they decided to have kids. Their employment situations and financial situations hadn't changed, but there was a sense that children deserve married parents who've made a lifetime commitment to each other.

However, it makes sense that the most vocal SSM supporters would assume that the main function of marriage is tax breaks rather than procreation. Because if the reason for marriage is related to procreation, it's harder to defend SSM as 'necessary for fairness."; 9/21/15, 11:28 AM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: I thought marriage was about love and social approval.; 9/21/15, 11:49 AM
AlbertAnonymous said...: The Professor said:

"Unless you think you need to be married to have sex, the #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic. The Supreme Court case postures all over the place to avoid embracing this simple, obvious fact, but I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't realize this."

How sad for you professor, if that is, indeed, what you think. How sad.

Was that true in your first marriage? Was that true when you married Meade? Or have you become bitter?

And I know a lot of your posts scream "I know better than all of you" with their arrogance and over confidence, but you "feel sorry" for anyone who "doesn't realize" your bitter view of marriage? Wow! Just Wow!; 9/21/15, 11:51 AM
Gusty Winds said...: ...the #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic

I can see some truth in that statement as working trough life as a married couple helps, but the bills remain high...especially after you have kids. When my wife and I were Dual Income No Kids for about 4 years, we thought we were rolling in money.

But #1 reason being economic? I don't know about #1.

I married a girl from a poor family in rural Illinois. There was zero financial advantage. I was love sick and couldn't sleep if she wasn't around. I wasn't thinking about money at all.

Interesting that only sex and economics are mentioned as if both are not somehow benefited by the intangible aspect of love.; 9/21/15, 11:52 AM
Nichevo said...: ...the #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic

...so you were Richard's whore, and now Meade is your whore?; 9/21/15, 12:10 PM
Bobby said...: dbp,

Hahaha, exactly! It reminds me of when my brother applied to a certain university (I won't say which) for the sole purpose of being able to reject them for his preferred "better" university... And then this certain university rejected him (not even wait-listed!), and he "had" to go to the "better" one. I thought his anger had reached even his limit- until a couple years later when my sister and I (both of whom were inferior to him in every way, don't you know) both got accepted there outright, and his fury came back in spades!; 9/21/15, 12:12 PM
Roughcoat said...: I wanted gay people to get the right to marry, and then I wanted none of us to act on it. I wanted it to be ours to spit on. Instead, much to my disappointment, we seem to be all over it.

Wow, what a charming guy.; 9/21/15, 12:13 PM
MayBee said...: he #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic. The Supreme Court case postures all over the place to avoid embracing this simple, obvious fact, but I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't realize this.

Now I feel sorry for you.; 9/21/15, 12:14 PM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: Spock's dad married Spock's mom because it was the logical thing to do and I'm okay with that!; 9/21/15, 12:19 PM
Anne in Rockwall, TX said...: Unless you think you need to be married to have sex, the #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic. The Supreme Court case postures all over the place to avoid embracing this simple, obvious fact, but I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't realize this.

Try telling that to Mary Katherine Hamm. I'm sure the gofundme page will make up for her loss.; 9/21/15, 12:29 PM
Static Ping said...: Fruit Bats can be funny? Who knew!; 9/21/15, 12:40 PM
Brando said...: "Try telling that to Mary Katherine Hamm. I'm sure the gofundme page will make up for her loss."

What happened to her?

I wouldn't say it's solely economic--except to the extent that all legal protections are ultimately economic. There's also a bit of social convention there too--e.g., a parent who will not let a couple stay over in the same room if they're not married.; 9/21/15, 12:42 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: My decision was based 100% on tradition, 0% on economics. Getting married was what you did when you found the person you wanted to have a family with. Period. Full Stop.

Now that I am older and wiser I can see that there are a multitude of reasons, mostly focused around the welfare of children, that a lifetime commitment is the right choice, and a public recognition of that commitment helps to enforce it.

This is why tradition is important. It lets us know what we are supposed to do before we are wise enough to figure out what is the right thing to do.; 9/21/15, 12:53 PM
Static Ping said...: Actually, the #1 reason to get married is the survival of the species and civilization, given that it works so much better for child rearing than the alpha male running around impregnating everything he can find and taking no responsibility. (This is unlike Laslo, who helpfully puts his genetic material in less productive openings.) Of course, humanity being what it is, this perfectly logical arrangement for society is not necessarily the perfectly logical arrangement for the individual. And so the institution of marriage has been blessed with a variety of sweeteners such as economic benefits, social benefits, religious benefits, etc.

I suppose if you intentionally denigrate the institution so as to make it merely an economic arrangement, then, well, yes, economics are the main reason to get married. It's just another government program.; 9/21/15, 1:04 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: If the main reason for getting married is economic, why were gays so huffy about buying in to the civil union model? Every single one of the economic benefits were subsumed in civil unions, and virtually every state was willing to go along with it, but it was simply not good enough.; 9/21/15, 1:09 PM
n.n said...: Assuming that The Supreme Court's ruling for congruence was based on principle, and not the State-established pro-choice doctrine, then it is incumbent upon the government to extend marriage rights to every orientation, not limited to sexual congress, or perhaps commerce.; 9/21/15, 1:32 PM
Anne in Rockwall, TX said...: Brando, her husband, a white house staffer, was killed in an accident when he was riding in a charity bicycle event this weekend. They have one child and another on the way.; 9/21/15, 1:32 PM
n.n said...: Static Ping:

The future is womb banks and sperm depositors to compensate for the reproductive dysfunction engendered by the feminist revolution and to normalize transgendered (e.g. homosexual) males and females.; 9/21/15, 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Actually, the #1 reason to get married is the survival of the species and civilization, given that it works so much better for child rearing than the alpha male running around impregnating everything he can find and taking no responsibility.

You are assuming that quality of children trumps quantity then right? And if so, why would you not want to encourage as many stable couples capable of child-rearing as possible?; 9/21/15, 1:49 PM
CWJ said...: "The #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic."

And yet civil unions, which took care of other legal as well as economic issues, were unacceptable. If we count that as 2, then reasons 3, 4 and 5 must be doozys.; 9/21/15, 2:04 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Static Ping said...

Actually, the #1 reason to get married is the survival of the species and civilization...

I think that is the reason that society should value and encourage marriage. I doubt that is on many people's minds when they decide whether or not to get married.; 9/21/15, 2:05 PM
Brando said...: "Brando, her husband, a white house staffer, was killed in an accident when he was riding in a charity bicycle event this weekend. They have one child and another on the way."

Ah--I'd heard about that but didn't realize she was the wife.; 9/21/15, 2:18 PM
MayBee said...: If the #1 reason were economic, we would let wealthy men have as many wives as they can support.; 9/21/15, 2:32 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: MayBee said...

If the #1 reason were economic, we would let wealthy men have as many wives as they can support.

I think you need to differentiate between society's reasoning and motives, and the decision-making process of the individuals deciding to get married ( or not. )

I believe the Professor is discussing the individual's decision.; 9/21/15, 2:45 PM
Static Ping said...: You are assuming that quality of children trumps quantity then right? And if so, why would you not want to encourage as many stable couples capable of child-rearing as possible?

Actually, historically this was both a quality and quantity advantage. For most of human history, single motherhood has been a miserable experience and often a death sentence for mother and child. It is difficult to convince men that they should spend their time and fortune to support children that are not their own. Also alpha male is probably spreading some awful diseases.; 9/21/15, 2:51 PM
BN said...: What she means is that, *for women*, the # 1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic.

Everybody knows that.; 9/21/15, 5:19 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: I'll have to bail out on this one. Read the first nine paragraphs at the Link, and still no clue what point the author was trying to make.; 9/21/15, 6:03 PM
DavidD said...: Static Ping,

I think BobM is trying to imply that we should be in support of gay marriage since it, too, is comprised of "many stable couples capable of child-rearing" [no Freudian slip implied, of course....]

Assumes facts not in evidence, in any case, though.; 9/21/15, 7:53 PM
cubanbob said...: Ann Althouse said...

Unless you think you need to be married to have sex, the #1 reason to get married or not to get married is economic. The Supreme Court case postures all over the place to avoid embracing this simple, obvious fact, but I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't realize this.
9/21/15, 10:50 AM "

And if you young enough the #1 reason besides sex is children which tend to follow after sex.; 9/21/15, 8:17 PM
sean said...: Most of what you read in magazines is made up, and I assume that this article is no exception. For equal income couples, there's a big income tax hit associated with being married, and the modest estate tax benefits can be equally secured by proper tax planning, and don't matter much anyway if you don't have children. Hence, it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone's tax accountant would recommend marriage. However, most New Yorker readers live under the perpetual delusion that there are big, secret tax benefits that they aren't getting, so this vignette would totally fit in with their fantasies.; 9/21/15, 8:18 PM
cubanbob said...: sean said...

Most of what you read in magazines is made up, and I assume that this article is no exception. For equal income couples, there's a big income tax hit associated with being married, and the modest estate tax benefits can be equally secured by proper tax planning, and don't matter much anyway if you don't have children. Hence, it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone's tax accountant would recommend marriage. However, most New Yorker readers live under the perpetual delusion that there are big, secret tax benefits that they aren't getting, so this vignette would totally fit in with their fantasies.
9/21/15, 8:18 PM "

Unless you have a dollar over $5mm as far as the federal death tax goes it isn't a problem. As for income tax purposes unless both spouses are in the top bracket again for federal income tax purposes one of the two will be pushed into a higher bracket instead of staying unmarried. While true its easier to get a deduction for property taxes and mortgage interest the net result is probably not worth as much as paying taxes at the lower levels. And for woman working throughout their careers it doesn't pay for Social Security benefits to get married.; 9/21/15, 8:37 PM
jr565 said...: it sounds like Sedaris doesn't really even want to get married. Thanks then for upending something that has made sense for millennium just so you can call people names for not accepting something you didn't want anyway.; 9/21/15, 10:00 PM