The majority of arguments against same sex marriage take the form of promoting specific religious beliefs, appealing to tradition, or demonizing homosexuality by positing the idea that “normalization” of homosexuality is detrimental to society at large. Unfortunately, those arguments tend to be riddled with fallacious logic and flawed methodology. What I will be presenting today is a research based argument against same-sex marriage that focuses on two major aspects of same sex marriage: 1. The danger that same-sex marriages pose to those who participate in them, 2. the unfair advantages that homosexual couples would enjoy as compared to their heterosexual counterparts if same sex marriage becomes legalized.
A recent study performed by same-sex marriage advocates Frisch and Brønnum-Hansen (2009) showed that men and women in same sex marriages have a higher mortality rate compared to national averages. Their data showed that this increased mortality rate was still present even after adjusting for increased HIV/AIDS medical treatment. Another study by Mathy, Cochran, Olson, and Mays (2011) showed that men who were in same-sex marriages had a suicide risk that was eight times as high as men who had traditional marriages. Overall, married men of either sort were at a higher risk for suicide than their unmarried counterparts, and twice as high compared to unmarried men (Mathy, Cochran, Olsen, & Mays, 2011).
While these data may be influenced by potential unknown confounds, the fact remains that there is clear evidence that there may be elevated risks due to unknown factors related to same-sex marriages. It is conceivable that the marriage itself could be a causal, or perhaps compounding, factor in these increased mortality and suicide rates. Enough places have passed SSM laws for there to be some serious longitudinal research done in the near future which can allow us grant ourselves the assurance that we are not following those nations down a potentially dangerous path. At the very least, these data indicate that caution, rather than charging full steam ahead for change, is the prudent course. It is also important to note that both sources for these dangers are taking a pro-SSM stance, rather than the typical anti-SSM sources that are commonly used to support an anti-SSM stance. These are not data which have been tampered with to receive the results they wished to receive, but instead the only potential risk which exists is that they were tampered with to minimize the effects that are noted.
Taking a prudent “wait and see” approach to SSM would also allow time to prepare for (and potentially eliminate) the significant unfair advantages that legalizing SSM would grant homosexual couples over their heterosexual counterparts in the workplace. The Harvard Law Review (2013) recently noted an increasing trend among employers to take it upon themselves to “right” the inequalities that same-sex couples experience due to DOMA and other allegedly discriminatory policies against same-sex couples. This phenomenon is called “grossing up”, and it involves elevating the incomes of same-sex couples to adjust for things like the health care tax (If a same sex person places their partner on their health care plan, they are taxed for this while married OSM couples do not pay taxes for doing this). The problem is that there are no plans in place to eliminate these existing adjustments if same sex marriage becomes legal. If such laws pass, these couples will not only now have full access to the same benefits that their traditionally married counterparts, but they will still have the pre-existing “grossed up” income levels, meaning that they will be being paid significantly more in their take-home pay than their hetero counterparts simply because they are homosexuals. Some might argue that this would be a reparations-type action for the years of oppression and discrimination that homosexuals have experienced, but it will more than likely create additional animosity between the heterosexuals placed at an unfair disadvantage and the homosexuals who will receive these unearned benefits.
While this argument does not qualify as a traditional argument against SSM, especially when it comes down to long-term considerations, it certainly presents a strong case against the immediate passing of permissive SSM laws. The data show that there are increased mortality and suicide risks associated with SSM and that legally recognizing SSM would create unfair advantages for a significant portion of the SSM population over their traditionally married counterparts. These data indicate that caution should be exercised, and the status quo should be maintained, until such time as the full effects of these factors can be understood and addressed.
References and links
THE BENEFITS OF UNEQUAL PROTECTION. (2013). Harvard Law Review, 126(5), 1348-1369.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol126_the_benefits_of_unequal_protection.pdf
Frisch, M., & Brønnum-Hansen, H. (2009). Mortality Among Men and Women in Same-Sex Marriage: A National Cohort Study of 8333 Danes. American Journal Of Public Health, 99(1), 133-137. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.133801
Mortality Among Men and Women in Same-Sex Marriage: A National Cohort Study of 8333 Danes
Mathy, R., Cochran, S., Olsen, J., & Mays, V. (2011). The association between relationship markers of sexual orientation and suicide: Denmark, 1990-2001. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46(2), 111-117. doi:10.1007/s00127-009-0177-3
The association between relationship markers of sexual orientation and suicide: Denmark, 1990