RECENT  POSTS:  » GLAAD: Questions we'd like reporters to ask at the Values Voter Summit » HA! Robert Oscar Lopez mentions me in truly bizarre amicus brief to 5th Circuit » Gay man realizes he shouldn't have entered an opposite-sex union—so no same-sex marriage for anyone?! » Your daily 'Gay Gestapo' moment with the American Family Association's senior analyst » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open  

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

08/09/2011

Focus focusing on 2012; seeks Big Discrimination lobby's taxing resurge

by Jeremy Hooper

In a new article, Focus on the Family writer Karla Dial lays out the inadequacies of a tax law where certain citizens find their legal marriages recognized under state but not federal law while also noting/criticizing The New York Times for discussing the options available to the couples who are faulted by such shortsightedness. So to conclude said article, Focus' Judicial Analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, reaches the following decision:

The policies on it are so valuable and connected between federal and state,” he said. “I think if Americans will elect conservative majorities in Congress, as well as a conservative president, you’ll see another push for a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage as one man and one woman.
[SOURCE: Focus on the Family Citizenlink]

So basically, because an America of the past seven years has arrived at a place where six states and the District of Columbia offer legal marriages to same-sex couples without incident or conservative-predicted fallout, Bruce is 6A00D8341C503453Ef014E88218E26970Dsuggesting that this same great nation should regress to a failed proposal. To shore up our tax code, Focus on the Family's solution is to more fully discriminate against some citizens who have been married for as long as seven years under their state law. Here in an America where equality runs only one decidedly forward direction, Bruce is seeking a federal steamroller that would not only block further progress, but would actually lead to the wanton crushing of certain people, their families, and their related protections.

Sorry, but no. We had a conservative president and conservative majorities in Congress, and the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment was still D.O.A. So here in the now, where legally married gay couples exist on the west coast (pre-Prop 8 Californians), in the heartland (Iowa), and all across the northeast, the idea of Big Discrimination 2.0 is not only deeply offensive -- it's also absurd. And distracting. And time-wasting. And deeply unfocused (on the family).

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