RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist?  

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

07/14/2011

Gay marriages impose 'tax burden on all'? Weird, this 'all' taxpayer's never received a hetero marriage opt-out sheet!

by Jeremy Hooper

This line, courtesy of Focus on the Family's Bruce Hauskenecht, is the kind of thing that will ultimately win us our equality:

Although its sponsors pretend that [The Respect For Marriage Act] is simply about providing federal rights and benefits for same-sex couples — which by itself would impose a tax burden on all of us -- the real goal of this bill is to lay the foundation for activist courts to impose same-sex marriage on all 50 states” [SOURCE]

Why do I say that? Well because look at it: The inequality is stated loudly and clearly, possibly without even realizing it. Namely the part about "impos[ing] a tax burden on all of us." Just unpack that for a second. What Bruce is saying is that it's perfectly fine for gay taxpayers (apparently not part of the "all of us") to subsidize the rights and benefits for gender-discordant couples, but it's somehow out-of-line and even un-American for the body of taxpayers to equally recognize same-sex duos. What? NO!! This is discrimination, plain and simple. This is taxation without equal representation. This is a steaming piled of bull excrement.

And then, of course, our marriages are positioned as an imposition, the kind of thing that only an "activist court" could ever support. So essentially, in Bruce Hauskenecht's world, gay taxpayers are a great cash supply for the subsidization of heterosexual lives and loves, heterosexual taxpayers are free to pick and choose, only investing in those civil marriages they deem personally palatable? Free to deny whatever couples their (tax-subsidized) churches tell them to?

Again: This is the very sort of thing that, when the dots are all connected, will win us our equality. Thank you, Bruce.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails