Quite often I come to this column after a few weeks away to find myself faced with a tsunami of sex happenings. With the Kendall Jenner’s/Selena Gomez’s of the world showing bare breast flesh at an ever-increasing frequency (check out the upcoming GQ and V Magazine respectively), the sensual mayhem of Game of Thrones and just about every other publisher or adult toy maker still trying to ride the Fifty Shades Of Grey wave (did you see that Anne Rice is releasing the 4^th book of her purely erotic Sleeping Beauty series, that is certainly more greyer than 50 Shades-this month?), it is hard for me to keep up with the latest news. This week I’d like to tackle some legal ramifications of same-sex marriage as the question of its possible ‘federal’ legality is coming up to the Supreme Court on April 28th (besides, it’s probably a more important issue than if Kendall did or did not show some nipple.)

In what seems a rather far reaching slippery slope, Utah lawyer Gene Schaerr just filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of “100 scholars of marriage.” Schaerr’s claim is that “nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying. This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.”

“On the surface, abortion and same-sex marriage may seem unrelated,” Schaerr acknowledged in his Heritage Foundation website post espousing his treatise, adding: “the two are closely linked in a short and simple causal chain.”

Schaerr’s point is that legalizing same-sex marriage devalues marriage, in this breakdown:

Same sex marriage causes fewer heterosexual couples to marry (why hetero’s are affected by homo’s marrying I don’t know). Fewer hetero marriages of course leave a larger number of unmarried women in the world. And it has been proven that unmarried hetero ladies who get pregnant have abortions at higher rates than married women.

Schaerr does concede that: “It is still too new to do a rigorous causation analysis using statistical methods.” Maybe we should question his conclusions?

Beyond the religious or political party grandstanding over this issue, attacks like Schaerr’s stand in the way (if the Supreme Court recognizes Schaerr’s amicus brief) of homosexual couples enjoying some very real simple fiscal freedoms. One of the very real hard hitting realities is that with only 37 states recognizing same-sex marriage, those men and women who are for all intents and purposes married in other states, need file their taxes separately as if they are single. These couples cannot take advantage of tax benefits married straight couples can.

Now there’s something that hits directly into the pocket book.