Gay Marriage Debate

I am writing in response to, "For Better or for Worse", an editorial written by Mary Ann Glendon in the Wall Street Journal. In this article Ms. Glendon opines that there should be an amendment to the U.S. constitution defining marriage as a solely heterosexual institution, that if not protected would threaten religious freedom, the rights of children, and even the democratic process. Ms. Glendon has a right to state her opinion, but we must not get distracted from what is essentially: an issue of the equal rights guaranteed to all Americans.

Why should homosexuals be denied the privilege of marriage when extending it to them would do no damage to anyone else? Conversely, allowing gays to marry would have many positive benefits to society. Due to current tax laws, married couples tend to pay more taxes than singles. In a 2000 article in the National Tax Journal, James Alm and Leslie A. Whittington, economist, known for their work on the tax effects of marriage estimated the benefits to federal income tax if same-sex marriage were legalized nationally. They determined the result would be, "an annual increase in federal government income taxes of between $0.3 billion and $1.3 billion, with the likely impact toward the higher range of the estimates."

That the social institution of marriage is troubled, there is no doubt, but no case can be made that it is gay people who threaten it. U.S. census findings tell us that a majority of people, whatever their sexual and gender identities, do not live in traditional nuclear families. Similarly, the idea that a ban on gay marriage would somehow serve to fortify traditional marriage is unfounded. Same-sex marriage would strengthen social stability by increasing the number of couples that undertake serious, rather than passing commitments, and provide support and structure to those people who live this lifestyle regardless of shifting legal code. Should these couples decide