Althouse: "I get that Sendik's Fine Foods wants to keep its customers happy and sell lots of groceries, but did it really need to block a tame Milwaukee Magazine cover showing two brides getting married?"

March 14, 2014

"I get that Sendik's Fine Foods wants to keep its customers happy and sell lots of groceries, but did it really need to block a tame Milwaukee Magazine cover showing two brides getting married?"

Asks Jim Stingl at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The "tame cover" is one that says: "For love & money: Same-sex marriage is big business and Wisconsin is losing out on millions."

One customer complained and the store put a black covering the offending text and photo (which of course set off other complaints).

What was offensive about the cover? I can think of more than one way! If you support gay marriage out of a sense of justice and fairness, you might be offended to see it pushed because it's good for business. And if you think good for business is a great argument, don't you lose the high ground for arguing against the store, if it's just doing what it thinks is good for business? Or maybe it's all about throwing economic weight around, and the supporters of same-sex marriage struck back, expressing their offense at the black coverings, causing the store to read the business advantage the other way around?

Ah, so much of it is only about money anyway! The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to.

The most boring argument against same-sex marriage — which I'm sure my commenters will not be able to resist restating ad nauseam — is that marriage is a word with a definition that restricts it to one man and one woman. To put that more simply: Please address the new issues raised by this post.

Also: The pretty wedding location in the cover photograph is the Milwaukee Art Museum.

226 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 226 of 226

SGT Ted said...: I get the negative incentives of welfare dependency that discourages marriage by subsidizing single motherhood. It's pretty straight forward, economically. Replace the breadwinner daddy with Uncle Sugar.

How is gay marriage a negative incentive for hetero marriage?

The way I see it, straight marriage or union is the incentive for gay people to reject a promiscuous life style for a stable, monogamous one.; 3/14/14, 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to."

What is the strongest argument to discriminate against those who have no sexual attraction?

Why do people who feel sexual attraction get tax benefits? This makes no sense.; 3/14/14, 7:11 PM
RecChief said...: and while you guys were arguing, Ezra Klein hired a gay writer who occasionally pisses off the gay mafia:

here with commentary by ace; 3/14/14, 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "How is gay marriage a negative incentive for hetero marriage?"

I'll assume we can discuss this without you accusing me of only arguing from the "ick" factor.

We currently give tax benefits to married people. But as I asked in my previous comment, why would we discriminate against those who aren't sexually attracted to one another? Once you've expanded the definition of marriage, you have to question why the definition doesn't continue to expand. Which eventually leads to the ultimate conclusion of, why do we give benefits to married people? It won't make sense anymore if everyone is married. This then hurts those who were originally being encouraged.

But there is so much more to this than tax advantages. There was an article recently here at Althouse about a woman who got married and noticed peoples attitudes toward her change after she got married. This acknowledgement of married people goes away once we define marriage into absurdity. Which I'm sure you don't believe is going to happen, but we do. We see no legal reason for the redefinition of marriage to continue once the dam is broken.

Or how about immigration? Right now, we have an issue with fraudulent hetro marriages in order to help people immigrate to the united states. If a soldier stationed overseas falls in love and gets married, we allow him to bring his spouse back home with him. But let's suppose fraudulent marriage gets out of control. To the point that we can no longer prove a fraudulent marriage for the sake of immigration because we have defined marriage into a legally meaningless term. That has a serious effect on those overseas, like someone in our military, who gets married but cannot bring their spouse with them back to the states.; 3/14/14, 7:22 PM
Anonymous said...: We see no reason for the redefinition not to continue. Apologies for the error.; 3/14/14, 7:40 PM
SGT Ted said...: What I have experience with is that gay partnerships are the same as far as two people in love desiring the intimate family home life that they grew up with. Some came with kids from a previous marriage, some had no kids. They wanted what their hetero parents have, but aren't attracted to the opposite sex.

Welfare destroys families because it incentivizes the opposite.
The tax code should encourage commitment to a family for those willing to make it, especially if there are children involved. The tax incentives I received when I was raising my step-kids as a married man should be available for any committed parent, gay or straight.

As far as fraud goes, you bust the fraudsters. Just like we bust the drunk drivers, rather than banning booze.

n.n. I have to say that while I don't always agree with your arguments, at least you do make intellectual ones on this issue, as opposed to "ick" emotionalism.; 3/14/14, 7:46 PM
Fernandinande said...: The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages ...

The best argument against homosexual marriage is that it's not fair to exclude single people from the tax advantages, etc. In which case the homosexual marriage marriage question becomes: is it less fair or more fair to have more married people subsidized by single people?

The gov't shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing some peoples' personal lives.; 3/14/14, 7:55 PM
Gahrie said...: The population of those 30 states that banned fag marriage is less than the population of the states that have gay marriage.

thx to lawyers and judges thwarting the will of the people, they are often the same states......; 3/14/14, 8:01 PM
Known Unknown said...: Why does Inga have to change her name/avatar every 6 months?

I don't get it.; 3/14/14, 8:09 PM
Renee said...: "The best argument against homosexual marriage is that it's not fair to exclude single people from the tax advantages, etc. In which case the homosexual marriage marriage question becomes: is it less fair or more fair to have more married people subsidized by single people?

The gov't shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing some peoples' personal lives."

It subsidizes children with schools and the elderly with social security. We are all one big family anyways.; 3/14/14, 8:42 PM
Anonymous said...: EMD, some of like to move the furniture around a bit. Is it important to you somehow?; 3/14/14, 8:44 PM
Known Unknown said...: EMD, some of like to move the furniture around a bit. Is it important to you somehow?

Feels disingenuous. Especially without a profile.

Just my .02; 3/14/14, 8:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Oky doky then.; 3/14/14, 9:00 PM
Fen said...: Why does Inga have to change her name/avatar every 6 months?

Because she burns her credibility up in 3.; 3/14/14, 9:05 PM
Bob Ellison said...: The Professor said, "Ah, so much of it is only about money anyway! The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to."

There is a framing problem here. You see it, don't you, Professor? You frame it as an equal-rights issue. Others frame it as a definition problem.

A truly objective analysis-- what do you call it? cruel objectivity or something like that?-- would admit that both sides have something to say.; 3/14/14, 9:16 PM
Rick said...: Shouting Thomas at 10:55 has it exactly correct.
The social engineering, sanctimoniously support here and at better law schools around the country, has spilled over into our (obama's ?) military, to its substantial detriment. Putin is watching.; 3/14/14, 9:22 PM
chickelit said...: Feels disingenuous. Especially without a profile.

Yes. I agree. MadisonMa'am needs to post a neck to waist profile.; 3/14/14, 9:24 PM
n.n said...: SGT Ted:

Well, that's a start. I think it would behoove us to identify and promote objective, reproducible standards. I am not so much concerned with the "slippery slope" possibility, as I am with arbitrary discrimination when standards are either selective or progressive. Ideally, the principles our society adopts will be internally, externally, and mutually reconcilable.; 3/14/14, 9:44 PM
sunsong said...: The makers of Sam Adams and Heineken beer say they are withdrawing their sponsorship of St. Patrick's Day parades because organizers exclude gay groups.

Boston Beer Co., Sam Adam's brewer, said in a statement Friday that it is disappointed that an agreement couldn't be reached between the gay rights advocacy group MassEquality and Boston parade organizers that would have allowed gay veterans to march.

Meanwhile, Heineken USA said it was withdrawing from the New York City parade, and told CNBC on Friday: "We believe in equality for all. We are no longer a sponsor of Monday's parade."

The decisions came a day after a bar in Boston's South End said it would no longer serve Sam Adams beer because of the brewer's affiliation with the parade, which is scheduled for Sunday.

Mayor Martin Walsh has been trying to broker a deal that would have allowed a gay group to march, but those negotiations broke down.

Ford Motor Co., meanwhile, remained as a sponsor of the New York parade and said in a statement to CNBC: "No one person, group or event reflects Ford’s views on every issue. ... Ford is proud of its inclusive policies. Every member of the Ford team is valued, and we provide employee benefits regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.”

The Boston parade organizers' phone went unanswered Friday.

— The Associated Press and CNBC

NBC News; 3/14/14, 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Do the polygamists get to march in the parade also? What about the ladies who married their dog and that dolphin?

Until they want to include everyone, you're not fooling me.; 3/15/14, 12:08 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Sgt Ted,

What have you got against arranged marriages? Yes, there were plenty of problems in that age, but look around at our disastrous current marriage scene, and tell me it would be worse???

Lyssa @ 2:55pm,

You're asking wrong question, and definitely using the wrong people to exemplify it. Things always decay at the margin. You and your husband aren't where the rot will set in, but it will set in.; 3/15/14, 12:27 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Actually, that should say "further rot", it's not like there isn't plenty already.; 3/15/14, 1:34 AM
Kirk Parker said...: EMD,

I take it as Yet Another Mark against the basic stability of the personality.; 3/15/14, 3:26 AM
Renee said...: @sunsong

Maybe Saint Patrick Day festivities should revolve around Saint Patrick and his life, and not corporate sponsors or political breakfasts. Bring back the Church sponsored events at our parishes. These parades and breakfasts are not sponsored by the Catholic Church.

It's not about all things green, being Irish, or drinking beer.

I have no idea why the Mayor of Boston interjecting himself into the parade on behalf of MassEquality, if he didn't want to walk he could of just declined. The former mayor never walked for 20 years.

You can be gay and Catholic, in fact the Catholic Church supports unjust anti-discriminatory laws against homosexuals. But gay or straight, we're all called to the teaches of the Church. Gay people have a mom and dad too, that's pretty much the Church's teaching on our boring definition of marriage. We're totally cool with companionship between two people of the same sex. But we're all called to chastity and respect for human sexuality in our actions. That applies to straight people, as well.

These parades are usually run by Irish cultural organizations and not religious ones. I'm not Irish, but to be honest the way the Irish speak of their culture as in being all things green, corn beef, and beer to be lacking in substance in purpose and meaning.; 3/15/14, 11:28 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Late to the party, but how is gay marriage good for the economy?

True, if gays can get legally married, they may spend more on wedding preparations and (later) on divorce lawyers.

BUT, if they're like most Americans, they're already spending pretty close to what they make. So right now, those 'gay' dollars are going into the Wisconsin economy. They're just going into other sectors.

So, the argument "gay marriage is good for the economy!" only holds if you're a divorce lawyer or a wedding planner. So, for instance, if those 'big wedding/big divorce" gay couples are currently spending their money on beer, cheese, and Packers paraphernalia, they'll have to cut back to save up for their weddings and divorces.

In addition, there aren't that many gay couples, so gay marriage isn't going to spawn a whole new industry. And most of the jobs it DOES create will be low-paying service jobs like 'bus boy' and 'flower delivery guy.'

So.. Why do liberals love gay marriage, but hate walmart? From an economic perspective, are they really that different?; 3/15/14, 3:17 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: Ann thinks that any argument against the use of the term "marriage" to descrlbe a same sex union is lame.

But there is a good reason for drawing a distinction between a legally recognized committed union between two heterosexuals and a legally recognized committed union between two members of the same sex. And that reason has to do witih a language's ability identify and name distinctions.

The more sophisticated and developed a language is, the more it is able to provide names for empirical distinctions. For example, if a language group had only one name for human beings of either sex, and another language group that divided the class of human beings into two sub-classes based on sex and gave a distinctive name to each, it is not unreasonable to describe the second language group as more sophisticated and more useful.

Assuming there is absolutely no difference in legal benefits available to the two legally recognized committed unions, an obvious distinction can be drawn between those committed unions between a man and a woman and those comitted unions between two men or two women.

What is the objection, then, for using the word "marriage" to describe the former and "civil union" or some other word to describe the latter? And if there is an objection, then Ann must admit that the argument is indeed over a definition.; 3/15/14, 3:29 PM