OCR Text |
Show OPINION THE UNIVERSITY JOURNAL• SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVIRSITY • MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1998 I MAGGIE GALLAGHER I COMMENTARY NATHENTOFF I Government to vote on equality in marriage When Lorna Wendt first learned "You can deviate from this how the law would likely treat her presumption for principled reasons," co ntributi ons t o he r 31-year Fineman argues if one spouse is marriage, she was shocked. "When h andicapped, say, or squandered we told he r that, under existing assets "but in my opinion the.fact Connecticut law, you probably that someone has a lot of money is won't get h a lf, she was really not a principl ed reason his wife surprised," says her divorce lawyer, shouldn' t get half." Sarah Oldham. To jump-start the debate on the Equally surprising to Lorna was nature of marriage, Lorna Wendt the national response when she recently created a new foundation, decided to, as she put it, "stick up Equality in Marriage, which hopes for what's fair to me" and insisted to educate judges, sponsor legal on her right to half the fruit of her research and provide a forum for the long partnership with her husband. conversation already swirling "Every day there's a new stack of around Lorna Wendt's, experience. mail from people "Primarily the say ing thank you goal is to create a for what you are dialogue in society • 1 doing. I wi sh you about what do we had done this 10 • mean by marriage years ea rli e r; I today?" says Loma. might have benels marriage a full fited, " she said. partnership? Or Lorna and her does th!! money, now ex-husband, .a. i like the home and Gary, began with the kids, belong nothing and then only to the one who amassed a fortune earns it? worth somewhere • . • One place this between $50 and kind of dialogue is $100 million . The desperately needed is in Washington, divorce settlement her husband offered in the debate over how to eliminate her- $10 millionwas substantial, but the tax code's it wasn't half. marriage penalty. So when the judge One way, which recently ruled that is embraced by the she was entitled, at 1 Republicans, allows the very least, to ,~._ married couples to half the hard assets file as single indiviof the marriage and ..______________, duals, in effect awarded her $30 million, it was a denying the marital partnership for victory not just for Lorna, but for tax purposes. This ill-conceived the principle that marriage is an approach also creates a new equal partnership. "homemaker penalty," imposing And it was a rebuke to those who sharply higher tax rates on onebelieve, as Gary Wendt testified, earner than two-earner families. The other, far better, solution, that a homemaking wife "was only very marginally in any way spearheaded by Sen. Kay Bailey connected with the financial success Hutchinson among others, would that I have." instead permit "income-splitting." As it happens, there is a large body All married couples could divide of economic literature showing he is their income (regardless of who wrong . University of Chicago earned it) in half and get.taxed on Professor Linda Waite points to their half at the lower rate. That research that married men make benefits all married couples, not just about 30 percent more than those where both spouses work fullbachelors with similar education time. and experience. Not only does Sen. Hutchinson's But in a way, that's beside the bill eliminate the marriage penalty point . Marriage is a profoundly without creating a homemaker productive institution. As Professor penalty, but it also permits the tax Martha Fineman, who testified as an code to reflect and support, rather expert witness, points out, "There than simply deny come April 15, are many different kinds of things one simple but very important idea: produced in a marriage: children, Marriage, whether wives work home, emotional support, income outside the home or not, is a full and property, for example, are and equal partnership. produced." The law,, she believes (and I agree) should presume the Maggie Gallagher is a nationally marital property is split 50-50. syndicated columnist. 'T'hi·s 11_ COnCe1Ved approach also C'·eates a new homemaker penalty;, imposing Sharply higher tax rates on one-ear.ner than two-earner lArni•1i·es. II COMMENTARY Summer soldiers of the First Amendment In 1989, I began to understand which way kept winding up with the First the wind was blowing-when Canetta Ivy, Amendment in its corner." Yale law professor Owen Fiss is also a leader of the student government at Stanford and a major in African-American among the liberal trimmers of the First studies, declared: "We don't put as many Amendment referred to by Floyd Abrams. restrictions on freedom of speech as we "To serve the ultimate purpose of the First Amendment," says Professor Fiss, "we should." Not long after, an ecumenical letter may sometimes find it necessary to restrict appeared in the Stanford Daily signed by the speech of some elements of our society the African-American Law Students in order to enhance the relative voice of Association, the Asian-American Law others." Fiss was speaking of the need for Students Association and the Jewish Law Students Association. They sternly called restrictions on campaign expenditures. But for harsh penalties for offensive speech. who will draw these exclusionary lines Traveling to various campuses, public determining who can express his or her and private, I heard from students who had view by contributing? The trusted stopped asking such questions in class as government, of course, against whom the whether affirmative action should enfold First Amendment was intended to provide the children of black middle-class parents. protection of expression. Another believer in These students preferred to escape into silence using the good-faith rather than be called offices of government to racist. Some of that is O "enhance" the distristill going on. t ,,,1 bution of free speech by The relentless trackers C government regulation is of bad speech, on the University of Chicago faculty and in the student ..a law Professor Cass body, were and are pre- • t t Sunstein. dominantly liberals. O According to Sunstein, the government should ... In my younger days, punitive contempt for the eir a1m ·lS 1.0 be permitted to require wrong kind of speech f the news media to came from such warriors provide a 'right of reply to dissenting views'; and of the right as J. Edgar Hoover. When I finally ;_f, to impose in public got my FBI files, they 0 A univer-sities significant were full of articles I had rr &. :.u U.& ~ limita-tions on 'hate written, and petitions I O'PtS speech' on campus, II had signed against the .u. ' - ' " o'-' wrote Floyd Abrams. Vietnam War-some of For government to them sent directly to the O mandate that the press ever-vigilant director of provide "a right of reply" the bureau with sulfurous - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. requires government notations from field agents about my involvement in the content of the press. This prospect might well win a large offensive language. These days, the political and religious majority vote from the American people, right still attacks offensive expression. but the First Amendment was not intended They make themselves vigorously heard to be subject to a vote-or to a revision by concerning books in school libraries that a law professor. As Chief Justice Warren tear asunder family values; inflammatory Burger said in Miami Herald vs. Tornillo rap recordings; and perniciously infectious (1974), the First Amendment forbids television programs. Some of these government "intrusion into the function of watchdogs say they don't intend to censor; editors." Floyd Abrams, aware of the decline in their aim is to censure. But they clearly want to censure their targets out of liberals' understanding of the First existence. Amendment, emphasizes: "It is at the very Meanwhile, liberal critics of the First heart of the First Amendment to deny Amendment are growing in number and government the authority to pick and influence. In a recent issue of the choose among speakers and messages, Columbia fournalism Review, Floyd determining that some may and others Abrams-who has litigated many First may not be heard-and how often." In 1989, Canetta Ivy, insisting that the Amendment cases in the Supreme Court and is a sturdy supporter of James First Amendment is too generous in its Madison-has written "Look Who's protection of speech, may have been Trashing the First Amendment." anticipating a bipartisan Zeitgeist. He cites a declaration by The Nation-a Conservatives and liberals-though proudly liberal magazine-that the First different in their priorities and strategiesAmendment is being used "to thwart are uniting in wanting to restrain freedom progressive reforms such as caps on of expression. For the greater good of the campaign spending, public access to the greatest number, of course. airwaves, and regulation of cigarette advertising." In all these battles, The Nat Hentoff is a nationally syndicated Nation complains that "the wrong side columnist. 'SOme f th eSe wa b.uogs say they do,nif m end censor; , th • • • ., censure. Bu they c·'ear.ly Ce.'"S"".. the.·:.. .,.,,.... out f eXJS • ·t ence. , 'U7ant .. 1 1 |