RECENT  POSTS:  » PFOX's Quinlan says SBC leader's opposition to 'reparative therapy' is cruel » That Idaho wedding venue posts new 'rules and regulations'; will still perform non-Christian weddings » Another deceptive thing about NOM's duplicitous anti-Hagan ad » NOM trying to shape Arkansas politics without even learning state's abbreviation » Video: Focus on the Family staffer who calls homosexuality 'particularly evil lie of Satan' hangs out in Chicago's Boystown » Video: Another new NOM ad targets Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR); uses James O'Keefe video as source » What the heck is 'NOM Victory Fund'? » Video: NOM reminds North Carolinians that they, Thom Tillis forced state into unconstitutional mess » Actually no, kindness does not demand making people mad at you » Another evangelical leader comes out against so-called reparative therapy  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/08/2008

It's their world, we just get taxed in it

by Jeremy Hooper

Hey social conservatives: GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT AN ENTITY OUSIDE THE UMBRELLA OF "TAXPAYERS"!

Why are shouting this? Well, because in reaction to yesterday's ruling saying that public employers in Michigan cannot provide domestic partner benefits because of the state's ban on gay marriage, Peter LaBarbera says the following:

"The fact is government should be promoting real marriage -- and when you give benefits to extramarital relationships, be they heterosexual or homosexual, you are undermining marriage. So we think this is a good thing," LaBarbera explains.

LaBarbera is pleased to see judges deferring to the expressed will of the people in this case. "It was clear that, in Michigan, taxpayers did not want to fund extramarital relationships, and we're glad that the Supreme Court has not imposed a false will on the people," he says.

Wait, taxpayers don't wanna fund any and every recognition of our unions? Well that's funny, since we gay taxpayers don't remember being asked if we would like to fund the rights, benefits, and situational realities that come with heterosexual couplings! But we do. We all do. Because we are all part of the realm of tax-paying individuals, not individual sects who get to stand in the way of any and every bit of fairness on account of our individualized tax-paying wants and needs. Every aspect of our rights and protections should not be put up to a public referendum!

Sure, a majority of Michigan residents went to the polls and chose to embrace the cruel constitutional ban. But the line used to sell the ban was that it was all about "protecting marriage." And its intent was not presented as being meant to deny the minority voice their every possible form of recognition.The "pro-family" community's defense of the ban's usage to deny other types of benefits speaks to the improprieties of their every anti-gay campaign. It's not about protecting anything -- it's about denying gays of every possible step towards leveling the playing field!

Folks like Peter are just oh so smug about heterosexuals' larger numbers. Their communities are made up of gays and the "general public," so they don't see any fault with using a blanket term like "taxpayers" to refer to the opposition. Minority rights be damned -- the will of the majority is their concern. This callous disregard for the full gamut of the populace is in many ways the most offensive of all of their short-sighted views. If they want to condemn our immortal souls to a lake of fire, then they have every right to do so. But their repeated attempts to deny our mortal roles as tariff-paying citizens who are deserved to equality and fairness should be eye-opening to any group who has in the past or might in the future be in a place where tyrannical disenfranchisement is a possibility.

Extramarital partners remain uninsurable [ONN]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

They make it sound like those public employers who offered same-sex couples health insurance benefits also offered the benefits to unmarried straight couples. The obvious implication being that marriage truly was being undermined due to the fact that straight couples didn’t need to be married to receive the benefits of marriage – which arguably could be a true attack on marriage.

But the University of Michigan (and probably all of the other public employers) only offered this benefit to same sex couples who don't have the opportunity to legally marry. Straight couples were ineligible, because they could simply get married in order to receive benefits.

LaBarbera’s true nature is duplicity, in deed.

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 8, 2008 3:00:51 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails