Marriage Doesn’t Matter

The liberal Tucson City Council believes city employees don’t have to be married to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. On Wednesday, the council voted to allow between 75-160 new sign-ups to the city’s benefits policy. (Arizona Daily Star)

Expanding benefits couldn’t come at a worse time – when cities across Arizona are strapped financially to make budget. Cost estimates range between $220,000 and $360,000.

But the more important message the City of Tucson is sending is that marriage no longer matters. This is the slippery slope we predicted some time ago – that opening the door to a redefinition of marriage allows anyone with an agenda to hijack the institution’s longstanding purpose.


  1. City of Phoenix has been offering this for years.

  2. Well actually it is the fact that gay marriage is illegal that is leading to this result. If you allowed gay marriage then the city of tucson would not have to allow unmarried couples to receive benefits when their goal is really just to allow married gay couples to receive benefits.

  3. The slippery slope started a long time ago. It started when the government started giving any kind of preferential treatment to individuals based upon their marital or non-marital status.

    The thing is– this particular “marriage protection” issue only comes up in the public sector. In real life it is rare to find a company that is going to provide for your spouse and family–unless the employee wants to cough up some extra premium–and in those cases no one should really care whether that extra person is their wife, lover, Mom or sister.

    That leads to the second slippery slope.

    And it started when the city of Tucson started granted anyone healthcare benefits, which, along with Medicare and and a mismanaged Medicaid, is the cause of our healthcare woes.


  4. I’ve heard Becky’s point about government getting “out of the issue of marriage” argued by liberal intellectuals who are in fact married themselves. Shall we then stop referring to their spouses as husband or wife and instead substitute “domestic partner?”

    Marriage does matter. Government is a part of the issue because the government is nothing more than a servant of the people who have consented to be governed.

    I read an old chestnut the other day, the 7th commandment, that makes a strong case for why marriage matters. Without an understanding of what marriage is, how can there be an understanding of what a breach of that relationship is either?

  5. So you equate a fellow taxpaying American citizen with “anyone with an agenda”? How insulting! Perhaps you should meet some real flesh-and-blood “domestic partners”. You’ll find folks who are more like you than not.

  6. Kralmajales says

    How can a party that sees the government as such an evil think that the government should sanction marriage. I think Becky’s point is right on and brilliant frankly.

    I see it as a religious freedom issue. If my church sanctions marriage between same sex couples and your faith doesn’t, fine and dandy. Let your church and my church deal with it internally. The problem is that government is sanctioning and providing benefits on the basis of one set of faiths and not others. Call it “tradition” or whatever, but there is no getting around this issue.

    If the government was out of the business of marriage this would not be such a problem. We would only need to determine who benefits are offered to and who they are not offered to…we will have that argument based on budgets, money, families, and that would be it.

  7. Kralmajales says

    Oh and Carol…of course marriage matters and of course we can call our spouse wife or husband in the tradition of our religious/ethical traditions. And of course I think it is a good thing. I want my gay and lesbian friends to be able to be married also. If they choose a church or civil ceremony that provides them holy or civil wedlock, wonderful. Why should government provide benefits to one set of marriages under X church and not under another church that might believe contrary?

    Isn’t that the very nature of religious freedom vs. establishment of religion?

  8. If you would be interested in a copy of a proposal to change the tax laws to promote marriage, unlike the tax laws that have increasingly undermined marriage over the last few decades, e-mail me and I will send it to you.

Leave a Reply