GayPatriot reader Jeff Fenner sent me this “letter to the editor” for publication. I have reprinted in its entirety.
All I can say is…. AMEN, brother!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
==========
Call me crazy, but I don’t see anywhere in the United States Constitution that gives anyone the right to marry, least of all, heterosexuals. What I do see is that each man was created equal and is to be treated equal and be allowed the pursuit of happiness.
Why don’t gay marriage advocates chase the simple idea that only married heterosexuals get tax breaks, next of kin benefits, and partner benefits? It’s wholly unconstitutional that only hetero’s get these benefits. No where in the Constitution is it written ‘only heterosexuals’.
There isn’t even a definition of marriage IN the Constitution, at least, not yet. I truly believe that gay marriage advocates would get FAR more traction, politically, attacking the tax breaks and other benefits that ONLY heterosexually married couples get. Why should they pay fewer taxes than single people? Why not pull in the single voting public. Surely the voice would be louder and tougher to ignore?
This is a prime example of Religion getting too close to government and getting a government sanction for their dogma. Most religions recognize marriages between a man and a woman. This is an example of religion reaching too far into our government. Why don’t we look at that, and even the reasons for the tax breaks given?
It is my belief that these tax breaks were born out of the idea that the federal government needed and continues a need to encourage marriage between a man and a woman so that it can ‘grow’ a future tax base. A married couple can use the ‘tax break’ to grow their family with more affordability. If this same tax break is given to a straight single person, or couple that aren’t living together romantically where’s the incentive to ‘grow a family’…a family of individuals that would eventually be taxpayers.
In short, it’s far more unconstitutional to give a tax break to married couples than to bar gay people from being married. Single people should join the fight and demand the same tax breaks given to married people, or that the IRS disallow a tax break for heterosexually married people. Imagine the increase in the tax base if this benefit was removed!
As you might imagine, I don’t believe it’s the government’s place to determine what marriage is. I don’t believe it’s my government’s place to give one group of benefits that it freely and loosely gives another group of people.
I hate to point out the obvious, but your letter writer is wrong on pretty much all counts.
The tax breaks and other benefits your letter writer speaks of are NOT limited to heterosexuals, they are given to everyone in society who engages in a behavior society has deemed valuable.
You want the benefits but you don’t want to engage in the behavior.
You want to be treated the same for doing something entirely different.
Men and women are not interchangeable. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not interchangeable. They do not have the same impact and importance to society.
On top of that you want government to give you free goodies for getting married, but dont want it to have any say in what the purpose of marriage to society is???? WTF? Entitlements without restriction! What the hell is conservative about that?
Your letter writer doesn’t even seem aware that there ARE reasons society supports marriage that have nothing to do with religion, let alone knowing what they are.
In other words he has no idea what the hell marriage even is, yet he demands to be a part of it.
I’m sorry Bruce, this letter is not even vaguely thought out.
AE…
I can’t even begin to see where you’re coming from in your response to my letter. The long and short of my thought is that heterosexually married couples get a tax break that single, cohabitants, and homosexually coupled people can not get.
From the IRS website “The IRS advises that, “If you and your spouse decide to file a joint return, your tax may be lower than your combined tax for the other filing statuses. Also, your standard deduction (if you do not itemize deductions) may be higher, and you may qualify for tax benefits that do not apply to other filing statuses” (from Publication 501, “Married Filing Jointly”). ”
Reading your response makes me wonder if you’ve read…and I mean truly read, what I said.
I may not ‘know what the hell marriage is’ but one thing I DO know is that the heteros haven’t made it look all that perfect either. When I hear those that oppose Gay Marriage saying we’ll screw it up, my first thought is ‘how could we do worse’??
I’m not saying that we don’t want marriage, but merely pointing out a more civilly arguable issue when discussing gay marriage and pick up the single, bigger majority of people, and demand the same or take it away from the married man and woman. Take the tax break away and see how much more easily we get our privilege of marriage.
Just a thought.
I see, you are arguing that it is unconstitutional to give one person a tax break and not another person simply because that person is married while the other is not.
I’m sorry I misunderstood.
But you’re still wrong.
You might as well argue that the entire tax code is unconstitutional.
Virtually every tax break we give is for behavior. From tax breaks for marrying, to tax breaks for giving to charity to tax breaks for driving a hybrid car.
You are essentially arguing that government doesn’t have the right to treat behavior differently. Which is wholly untrue. It doesnt have the right to treat people differently for doing the same thing. Our laws are all ABOUT making distinctions in behavior.
Well…heh…the constitutionality of our current tax code is another discussion altogether. I hold the belief that a Flat Tax for all constituents would be more constitutional than our current code. But again…that’s another discussion altogether.
Tax breaks favor one over another, behavior, et. al. How CAN that be constitutional?
Thanks for hearing me! Your first response brought me back to 4th grade…and one of the first papers I wrote 🙂
tax breaks favor one behavior over another behavior. Yes. It is Constitutional because we are not our behavior. People are equal, behaviors are not.
I you and I both rob banks, we should be treated equally before the law. If I rob a bank and you volunteer for a charity, the law should not treat our behaviors equally. Although some Democrat cities just might.
but…taxation is nearly as punitive as the law….again….a discussion for another day! There’s plenty that’s wrong with our country…for now I will celebrate what’s right. We’re free….for now!
less and less free every day Democrats are in charge.
Individuals should be taxed as such. Tax breaks, loopholes, rebates, credits, etc. should be jettisoned, as they legislate behavior and pit groups of citizens against each other, i.e. one group’s loophole is ultimately a higher tax (punishment) for different behavior, including behavior over which a person may have little or no control.
Are you advocating getting rid of tax exemptions for religious organizations? How about non-profits, many of which are quasi-religious or have support from some religious organization? Where do you draw the line?
Marriage is a state issue and taxes are at all levels; our federal Constitution does not define marriage by design and there are several compelling arguments in favor of heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage that are not necessarily religious in nature.
Clarification: “…they legislate behavior…” means they reward specific behavior.
I agree with Bruce. Policy favoring one class of citizen over another MAY be unconstitutional; however tax policy has long favored different classes for various reasons. I don’t know if the argument has ever been brought to the court. Who knows? Maybe it could work.
One other approach which I’ve given some thought to is our Treaty Obligations. If we have treaty obligations to recognize marital status to citizens of other countries, and those obligations do not specifically exclude homosexual couples, then perhaps it could be argued that the USA is recognizing marital status of citizens of countries, such as Canada, without conferring the same recognization to its own citizens. Maybe this idea needs to be fleshed out. What do you think?
If heteros haven’t made marriage all that great, that is because liberals have been dynamiting the institution for the past fifty years in order to deconstruct the social order, where, you guessed it, anybody could marry anybody, and kids would be raised by God knows whom if they were even allowed to get out of the womb in the first place.