RECENT  POSTS:  » GLAAD: Why would we silence unwittingly helpful voices like yours, Peter LaBarbera? » Photo: NOM fully (and finally) owning its wholly faith-driven root » Our winning movement wins another one: Judge says Ohio must recognize out-of-state marriages » Video: Tony Perkins is pissssssssssssed at Chick-fil-a » You must be so proud of this headline, @ChristianPost » READ: Full page 'NY Times' ad pleas to supposedly refreshing new Pope: Take strong stand for LGBT youth » Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and—activists who try to strip certain citizens of certain civil rights?! » Here we go again: Anti-equality activist going after Christian publisher for simply publishing an LGBT-affirming view » Photo: Equal marriage in Utah is like—stepping on a sailor's face?! » NOM co-founder warns Christians of the supposed gay-initiated perils that lie ahead  

« 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