Gay Marriages(BackgroundTaskAnalysisGay Marriages• One of the hottest topics of 2004 and of the presidential race is that of homosexual marriages. Tempers flared on both sides of the debate concerning the moral, religious, and other judgments concerning such marriages. There’s nothing scientific one can say about value judgments—all we can conclude is that, if you agree with us you’re right, and otherwise you’re wrong! However, we can use microeconomic analysis to (as objectively as possible) analyze what are some of the economic effects of marriages and divorces for any couples. Background U.S. marriage laws historically have been determined state by state. The battle over homosexual marriage began in 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state could not deny same-sex couples the right to marry unless it found “a compelling reason” to do so, and ordered the issue back to the state Legislature. Hawaii court’s ruling followed the reasoning in a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states could not bar people from marrying without good reason. That ruling struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which the court also said violated 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection. In the absence of clear guidance on the gay marriage issue from the nation’s highest court, courts legalized gay marriages in Alaska, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Rather than confer full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, the Vermont legislature signed civil union legislation into law while Hawaii and Alaska passed amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Massachusetts high court ruled out the possibility of creating a separate system of civil unions and required that gay marriages start in May 2004. The Massachusetts legislature cannot enact a Constitutional ban until 2006. At least 37 states have passed pre-emptive laws forbidding gays from marrying and, in many cases, also barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which states that States do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions despite constitutional guarantees for full faith and credit. DOMA also effectively bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions by defining marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” According to the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-gay marriage laws violate the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” This clause was intended to permit people to move freely from state to state and that each state would respect others’ laws. The current, vehement debate was ignited by the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in November, 2003. Just before Valentine’s Day in February, 2004, Gavin Newsom, the new mayor, ordered the San Francisco city clerk to start performing gay marriages. These well publicized marriages inspired officials in New York, New Mexico, Oregon and New Jersey to begin performing similar weddings. Many of those states and Washington State were sued by cities or couples seeking freedom to marry. By mid-March, same-sex marriage has been stopped • © Jeffrey M. Perloff, March 2004everywhere but Oregon. The Oregon state attorney general announced that banning gay marriage probably violates the state’s constitution. By doing so, he effectively transferred the issue to the state's highest court. All the Democratic presidential candidates supported giving some marriage-like rights to gay couples, such as civil unions, though not necessarily permitting gay marriages. On February 24, President George W. Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The president said the Constitution must be changed to keep the “meaning of marriage from being changed forever.” Senator Kerry announced that he opposed the proposed amendment, but he also stated that he opposes gay marriage. According to a California Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), Senator Kerry told him that would grant “all 1,049 federal rights to same-sex couples in whatever legal union their states recognize.” Vermont, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are the only states that extend any form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. Canada (2002) and Belgium (2003) followed the Netherlands in allowing gay marriages. Germany and Zurich, Switzerland have granted some forms of legal recognition. Presumably, if gay marriages are eventually permitted, gay divorces will soon follow. Arguing that marriage and thus divorce is only between a man and a woman, a conservative advocacy group and six lawmakers asked the Iowa Supreme Court on Monday to overturn a ruling that dissolved a Vermont civil union obtained by two lesbians. (Judge Jeffrey Neary, who granted the divorce, claimed that he did not notice he was ending a same-sex union.) What are the economic effects of extending marriage and divorce law coverage to homosexuals? We discuss six of these effects. First, many protections and rights are afforded to married couples (and to those in civil unions). These include protections that facilitate joint investments (such as in housing), obtaining cost-effective medical insurance, receiving survivor insurance including social security, and others. Upon receiving these rights, people often change their behavior. For example, as the cost of health or life insurance falls, people tend to buy more insurance (and are less likely to call on society for assistance during periods of crisis). See Chapter 17 on risk and insurance (especially pp. 606-611). Other protections may increase the financial and other security of children raised by gay couples. Second, legal guarantees provided to divorcing couples under marriage laws facilitate investment in education (see Chapter 16, Human Capital, pp. 573-576, and Chapter 17). One spouse may work to support a second spouse’s education confident that she or he will receive compensate for that investment if they later divorce. Without the guarantee that the working individual will
View Full Document
Unlocking...