With the recent California Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on same-sex marriage, the only certainty is that the debate will rage on. In, arguably, one of the more liberal states in the union, many advocates of same-sex marriage are highly disappointed at the independence displayed by the California high court. And as the debate rages on, one advocacy position is that some others same-sex marriage has no effect on you. However, a careful and logical scrutiny of such negates that as a reasonable argument.
As the federal government, most states, and many cities and municipalities levy a financial burden on the wealth and labor of the American citizen's liberty and pursuit of happiness, certain policies are proscribed to affect the pursuits of the state. One policy is that tax breaks are provided to married couples filing jointly. Same-sex marriage would compel governments to provide said tax break to individuals who would otherwise pay higher, single tax rates negatively affecting the state's projected bottom line revenues. This shortfall cannot be made up without levying further financial burdens on all those outside of the same-sex marriages, whereas, in theory, the tax breaks given to the traditional male/female marital unions pays dividends due to the high likelihood of procreation.
The taxes generated from the enormous amounts of money pumped into the economy by the high cost of raising children more than makes up for the traditional male/female marriage and per child tax deductions. Since the likelihood of procreation will be near zero in same-sex marriages, the shortfall in revenues generated by the tax breaks given to these couples would have to be made up by levying taxes and/or fees on others.
Same-sex marriage can also negatively affect those outside of such unions in another manner. The private insurance industry, life, health and auto, operates based on age, gender and marital status among other components. If insurance companies are compelled to give the decreased premium rates usually afforded married couples to legalized same-sex unions,who would normally pay two single person rates, it could substantially decrease their profitability. The responsibility to the shareholders of those companies could very well compel the industry to increase premium rates, decrease benefits, lower amounts of coverage, or all of the above.
Arguing that same-sex marriage will not affect the opponents and those fence-sitters on this issue is a false premise and those who base their advocacy on that particular fallacy need to find a much better argument.