Susan Young is a teacher, author and active community member talks about her support for her openly gay son, and how laws should afford him the right to marry just as any other couple would:
We have a gay son. He has a distinct masculine identity, dark two-day unshaven scruff. He loves fast cars. He drinks Starbucks. He argues vociferously. He can act bull-headed, and bite like a scorpion. Like the rest of us, he works, plays, sleeps and eats. He calls almost daily and I end each conversation, “I love you, hon.”
He echoes, “Love you, too.”
If my son ever loves a man enough to want to be a husband, I’ll take their commitment as one more strand to strengthen the institution of marriage. How could their bond possibility destroy the one I have with his father? I don’t get that. And to answer Zac’s kindergarten question, “Can boys marry boys?”
The New York Times does an in-depth analysis of all the higher costs for same-sex couples as opposed to heterosexual couples, including health care, estate and income taxes, pensions and retirement acounts.
And for years, we’ve heard from gay couples about all the extra health, legal and other costs they bear. So we set out to determine what they were and to come up with a round number — a couple’s lifetime cost of being gay.
Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.
These numbers will vary, depending on a couple’s income and circumstance. Gay couples earning, say, $80,000, could have health insurance costs similar to our hypothetical higher-earning couple, but they might well owe more in income taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. For wealthy couples with a lot of assets, on the other hand, the cost of being gay could easily spiral into the millions.
Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage. One exception is the cost of having biological children, but we felt it was appropriate to include this given our goal of outlining every cost gay couples incur that heterosexual couples may not.
In challenging economic times, same-sex couples should be afforded the opportunity to invest in businesses to help grow the economy, not burdened by higher costs.
Theodore B. Olson’s office is a testament to his iconic status in the conservative legal movement…But in a war room down the hall, where Mr. Olson is preparing for what he believes could be the most important case of his career, the binders stuffed with briefs, case law and notes offer a different take on a man many liberals love to hate. They are filled with arguments Mr. Olson hopes will lead to a Supreme Court decision with the potential to reshape the legal and social landscape along the lines of cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade: the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide.
The lawsuit comes as societal views on same-sex marriage are rapidly evolving. Six states have now authorized gay couples to marry, and the politics of the issue increasingly defy convention. President Obama, for example, has said he opposes same-sex marriage, while former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, supports it.
Even so, Mr. Olson’s involvement stands out. As one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of his generation, he commands wide respect in the legal community, and his views carry considerable weight with the justices, according to Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern University and a leader with Mr. Olson in the Federalist Society, a hothouse for conservative legal theory.
A Federal Judge has set a date for Olson’s case to go to trial in January, leaving open the door for equal access to marriage for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.
