RECENT  POSTS:  » The oddity that is the LGBT rights debate circa 2015 » Video: 'Vox' lays out eleven year journey toward a bettered America » Why's the far-right putting a long discarded fear card back in the deck? » 'The newly stigmatized' Maggie Gallagher » Tony Perkins is denying he calls for pro-equality judges to be impeached; he's lying and here's empirical proof » Reality stars Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar vow to defy pro-equality SCTOUS ruling » Video: At US Capitol event hosted by GOP lawmakers, God's wrath over gay marriage explored as if it's likely » NOM: We're broke and need money before you see no reason to ever give to us again » The particularly strange regression in yesterday's #SCOTUS hearing » About Chief Justice Roberts' 'closing of debate can close minds' line  

« 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