Persuasive Essay: Gay Marriage

“‘Kristin, you may kiss your bride, Kayla’” (qtd. in WCIV 1). These were the words that officially announced Kristin Anderson and Kayla Bennett the first same­sex couple in South th Carolina on November 19
, 2014 (WCIV 1). The historic day was filled with love and support

from families around the country and the community in general. It was also a day where they found a peace of mind after the stress they received from the previous month where they had the marriage license and the wedding date set, but only to be taken away by the state’s Attorney
General once he filed appeals against the marriages. “‘We were so excited to apply for the marriage license so when they took it away from us, it was like pulling the rug out from under our feet. Everything we were excited about just came crashing down’” (qtd. in WCIV 1). But then the wedding proceeded which allowed the couple to feel like they are truly married and finally allowed to have a family of their own (WCIV 1). Changes like these are happening all over the country, but the heated debate still goes on. One of the most common arguments is that people should not have their taxes going towards something they strictly believe is wrong
(Marcellino et al. 1). Once gay marriages are legalized, benefits going to heterosexual couples would naturally go to same­sex couples. Those benefits include claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. While this is true, the taxes the people will be spending legalizing same­sex couples will eventually come back and help the state or country economically
(Marcellino et al. 3­5). A decade long study by M.V. Lee Badgett and other economists concluded that planning marriages would make at least $1.5 billion dollars because of all the necessities of a wedding ceremony (Badgett 3).

Legalizing same sex­marriage should not be about believing what people think it is

morally wrong or right, but factually based on the better of the economy and for the country as a whole. At UCLA School of Law, researchers studied the economics of those 11 states where same­sex marriage is prohibited (Chokshi 1). The results were shocking and saw that the states would make more than $464 million in their first year of legalizing same­sex marriages (Chokshi
1). Based off of real life situations, New York’s Marriage Equality Act brought $259 million to the city after only a year (Covert 3). Given these reasons, the South Carolina Supreme Court should legalize same­sex marriage because it would bring financial gain to federal and state governments, allow same­sex couples to receive the same insurance benefits as heterosexual couples, and make it easier for same­sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care.

Economic stability is the key to a successful and generally satisfied nation. During hard

times, governments need all the money they can get to steady the economy and provide better living conditions for the less fortunate. The government is turning a blind eye to the problems same­sex couples are currently facing just to make more money. For example, the U.S. government was sued by Edie Windsor when her wife passed away because of the expenses she had to pay, which was about $363,000 in federal estate taxes (Badgett 2). The government would have collected less federal estate tax revenue if their marriage was official under the federal law.
(Badgett 2).
In reality though, the government can accrue more money from various taxes if they acknowledge same­sex couples and marriages. Logically thinking, not all same­sex couples would be a perfect match for each other like any other couple, so divorce would probably end up

increase tax revenues when the marriage penalty is collected by the federal income tax system
(Badgett 1). In the same study done by Badgett, he predicted that legalizing gay marriages could further bring money to the state and the federal government because a lot goes into planning a wedding ceremony. If the couples were to be officially wed, thousands of couples would not hesitate to plan a wedding with the minimum flowers, food, and entertainment. As stated earlier, the purchases would at least bring in $1.5 billion and without a question in doubt, it would make millions in sales tax revenue for both state and local governments (Badgett 1). The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) held a meeting in 2004 that analyzed the outcomes of what would be if the federal government declared same­sex marriages legitimate (Covert 2). They looked at the benefits of marriages, especially the big ones like Social Security and federal taxes.
The CBO discovered that an extra $10 billion in the budget would exist for the next ten years if the federal government recognized and legalized same­sex marriages in all states. They also predicted that tax revenues would increase from $500 million to $700 million yearly from 2011 to 2014 (Covert 2). It is not only the country that would see these results, but also the states.
Maine conducted a study on marriage equality in 2009 and in that study they discovered that if states allowed the marriages of same­sex couples, the state could increase their budget by $7.9 million a year (Covert 2­3).

Once a couple is married, they will receive all the insurance benefits of being married as

it states in the introduction. This rule does not quite reach the homosexual couples, which can cause complications for the couple:
The federal Defense of Marriage Act denies members of married same gender households access and benefits equivalent to those available to households headed by married parents or different

genders, such as (1) Social Security and related programs, (2) housing and food stamps, (3) federal civilian and military service benefits, (4) employment benefits, (5) immigration and nationality status, (6) remedies and protections for crimes and family violence, and (7) certain loans and financial. (Pawelski et al. 827)
Based on a study done by two New York Times reporters, about $500,000 will be taken from same­sex couples just because they cannot get married, which keeps them from getting employers’ spousal health insurance along with many other drawbacks (Badgett 2). Therefore, same­sex couples will remain uninsured and later when they have a complication that needs treatment they cannot afford, it eventually ends up costing all the tax payers (Badgett 2). Then in early 2014, a new policy was passed authorizing same­sex couples that were married in the 17 states and the District of Columbia to an unbiased use of spousal coverage (Andrews 2). This policy does not take into account where they currently reside or their current policy, like other heterosexual couples. Although this policy was a big step towards equal rights for all couples, it does not, however, apply to those in domestic partnership or civil unions (Andrews 2).

Not all people agree with this policy, though. Opponents argue that some people should

not have their tax dollars used to support something that is against their beliefs. On December th 17
, 2009, the CBO estimated that the cost of the federal government of extending employment

benefits to same­sex domestic partners of certain federal employees would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $320 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019
(Marcellino, et al. 4). While it is true that Social Security and the Federal Employees Health
Benefits program will cost the government more, the government will eventually diminish

spending by about $100 million to $200 million a year from 2010 to 2014 by saving money from
Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, and Medicare (Covert 2).

While this debate continues on, other real problems continue to grow. For example, the

growing number of children being left without proper parents. In the United States, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted while over 500,000 children are in the welfare system (Farr,
Forssell and Patterson 164). Currently, some states in the United States do not allow adoptions by same­sex couples at all by banning the same­sex couples or banning unmarried couples from adopting altogether (Farr 165). Prohibiting perfectly capable couples from adopting children simply increases the amount of children left without proper guardians. The ongoing debate argues that children should be raised by both a mom and a dad, and that children of same­sex couples are probably more prone to problems concerning physiological adjustment, peer relationships, and identification of themselves (Farr 165). This is a justified statement because there are a lot of studies done backing it up, but other studies done on the positive or neutral effects of same­sex parents on the children were recently concocted. A July 2010 study done at the Williams Institute at UCLA found that children of gay fathers were “as well­adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents” (Farr 175). Studies concluded that, “children adopted early in life by lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents appeared to be thriving.” The study also found that the children were properly developing their own genders stating that it did not matter if the parents were gay, lesbian, or heterosexual, boys showcased typical behaviors of other boys in that age. In these studies, mostly well­educated and financially successful families were use for of the research proving that if those parents have a stable lifestyle and are able to provide and care for the children properly, the problems that are frequently mentioned would not be as big of

an issue (Farr 165). As these studies show, adoptions should solely be based on the how well the parents can devote their lives into raising a child.

The future of a child is strongly reflective of the parent and the role they played in the

child’s life. They need the basic needs of love from a healthy and stable household with reasonable adults in order for the children to reach their full potential as an adult (Pawelski et al.
827). As stated by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),”’ children’s well­being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presences of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents’” (Pawelski et al. 827). It was discovered that 646,464 households had same­sex parents and they are raising about 115,000 children around or below the age of 18 through the 2010 US Census (Gartrell 34). Children brought up in those types of households are practically spread out throughout the whole United States with children being raised by single homosexual parents. If put together there are about 2 million children being brought up by a gay or lesbian parent. The numbers will probably continue to grow in the future, but some people are still for the ideal family properly bringing up a child (Gartrell 34). It is logical to think that children being brought up in a stable, normal house would be the safest for the children. However, 50% of heterosexual couples in their first marriage will likely end up in a divorce in about seven to eight years (Gartrell 34). With these divorces, 65% of mothers will gain physical and legal custody of their children, while the fathers do not get custody whatsoever. This means that out of those 50% who has a child, the child will not live in the ideal family that so many people push for (Gartrell 34).

A continuing study conducted by the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study

(NLLFS) found results that actually showed better outcomes for adolescents being raised by same­sex couples (Gartrell 30, 32). For example, one of the analyses concluded that “17­year old
NNLFS girls and boys were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic and total competence and significantly lower in social, rule­breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than the comparisons group” (Gartrell 32). They also showed higher levels in many other aspects of life like social skills, school/academic, and “total competence than gender­ matched normative samples of American teenagers” (Gartrell 33). This might be the case due to the commitments the NLLFS mothers made even before their child was born and after the child was born (Gartrell 33­34). Once the child was born, the mothers keenly took a part of the child’s education and stay connected to them no matter what (Gartrell 34).

In conclusion, same­sex marriage overall has a positive effect economically. Same­sex

marriage being legalized by the South Carolina legislator would bring financial success to both federal and state government, make life safer and easier for same­sex couples because they could take advantage of insurance benefits, and lastly the adoption process would be so much easier for same­sex couples which would result in fewer children without proper parents. The main disagreement is that the people who do not believe and do not support same­sex couples should not have their taxes going towards providing a safe and equal life for those same­sex couples.
Looking at the studies and the statistics, in the long run the government would be making more money through tax revenues, sale revenues, and other taxes collected from married couples by the government. Then government would use that money for the better of the country or the state. Katie Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin are a couple that resides in Lexington, South Carolina

and on January, 2014, they filed a lawsuit against South Carolina because of its ban on same­sex marriage (Katchen 1). They were the first couple in South Carolina to officially dispute the ban when Goodwin was suddenly fired from her job after the couple enrolled Jordan, Bradacs’s
13­year old, using Goodwin’s address. Goodwin was a police officer for the Springdale Police
Department and an Air Force veteran, but that did not matter when she was fired from her job.
“‘Times are changing, things are changing,” Bradacs said, “South Carolina is just slow’” (qtd. in
Katchen 4). She voices the frustrations of many lesbian and gay couples who currently reside in
South Carolina on its inequality and insensitivity towards them. If people saw the logic side to this issue and not just what they believe or hear is wrong, this argument would have a better chance of change in South Carolina. Thanks to people like Bradacs and Goodwin, judges ruled th South Carolina same­sex marriage ban to end on November 18
, 2014 (WCIV 1).

Clarity/ Wording Corrections ­
● Non­supporters of this ongoing debate continuously argues that children should strictly be raised by both a mom and a dad (Fitzgibbons 42). They also argue that children of same­sex couples are more likely to be prone to problems concerning physiological adjustment, peer relationships, and identifications of their gender (Farr 165).
●