California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[JonoBN41]

I understand your post.

"It challenges peoples' notions of traditional families." On any given night there's something on the news that challenges my notion of traditional family, be it politicians who cheat on their wives with prostitutes or have another wife and daughter in another state, or a married man in Austria who committed incest with his daughter for 24 years and fathered numerous children by her.

"What about tax breaks?" What about them?

I thank you for attempting to answer my question, but you simply have not.

[shinerbock]

Unfortunate, but not surprising.

This is what happens when judges decide what feels right and then seek to back that up with law.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

I understand your post.

"It challenges peoples' notions of traditional families." On any given night there's something on the news that challenges my notion of traditional family, be it politicians who cheat on their wives with prostitutes or have another wife and daughter in another state, or a married man in Austria who committed incest with his daughter for 24 years and fathered numerous children by her.

O.K. You asked the question and I told you why many people feel it challenges their notions of traditional families. Whether you or I agree with it is a different discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

"What about tax breaks?" What about them?

I thank you for attempting to answer my question, but you simply have not.

I thought you understood my post.

I began my post with the moral foundation for not wanting gay marriage and I concluded with the material foundation. Every social conflict and social inequality has a material foundation. If not for material foundations, and the belief that there isn't enough pie to share with everyone, many people would've gotten bored with fighting over morality and moved on to something that really impacts their life chances.

People who feel that any tax benefits (joint filer or dependents claims, for instance) should be reserved for a certain type of family would be opposed to people in same sex unions (for example) being able to file joint taxes, claim dependents, or get certain benefits.

While we don't pay the alimony, it doesn't stop people from feeling that any monetary exchange (and legal costs associated with separations and divorces) should only occur within a certain type of marriage because this money ultimately comes from somewhere (the belief that we're all economically connected and your paycheck isn't just about you and yours).

These are a couple of the financial reasons for the claim that same sex marriage threatens the traditional family (and its economic incentives/benefits). Again, as with every other social conflict, the battle over gay marriage has a financial foundation. You can find homosexuals who want their partner to be included in employee/spousal benefits/etc. and you can find heterosexuals who do not want this to happen (partly because they feel there simply aren't enough benefits for everyone).

You don't have to agree to understand the moral and material roots of the conflict.