Yesterday, GOProud, along among gay organizations reported how Wednesday night, Barbara Boxer voted against a measure which would have helped gay people across the country:
United States Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voted against an amendment offered by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would have permanently repealed the discriminatory death tax. The death tax, a morally reprehensible form of double taxation, impacts gay couples and gay small business owners particularly hard because of the lack of a marital exemption for same-sex partners. In response, Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, issued the following statement:
“Last night should put gay and lesbian voters in California on notice to just how little Senator Boxer actually cares about removing the inequalities our relationships face under federal law. . . .
“Because of the lack of a marital exemption for gay and lesbian couples, the death tax discriminates against same-sex couples and often forces grieving spouses to sell their home or small business to pay the confiscatory tax.
Guess raising taxes is more important to the big-spending 28-year Washington veteran than repealing a law which hurts gay people. If this tax were repealed, an individual could pass his property onto his partner (or anyone he chose) without the government taking a cut at his death (truly the most unkindest cut of all).
Fortunately, we here in the Golden State have a choice. Carly Fiorina supports repeal of the tax — and not just because it benefits gay people because it benefits all people, gay people, farmers and small business owners in particular. This is just one example of how a conservative policies helps people like us. Indeed, any law which expands our freedom and limits the reach of government benefits gay people (indeed benefits anyone save government bureaucrats).
Unfortunately, gay organizations can’t see outside the box of identity politics. They think that we need more government and don’t bother considering that reducing the reach of the federal government provides greater opportunities for us to define our relationships on our own terms.
No wonder gay organizations haven’t joined Senator DeMint in supporting repeal of this tax. Just because a bill doesn’t single out gay people for benefits (or protection) doesn’t meean it can’t benefit us. If HRC and NGLTF were truly concerned about the welfare of gay people, they would make alliance with conservative groups and push for repeal of this law and join Goproud in castigating Mrs. Boxer and her big-government kind for opposing its repeal.
It’s hard to argue with this post.
So the estate tax is a civil rights issue? *guffaw* You know what else would fix unfair taxation for same-sex couples? FEDERAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS. And a vote against Boxer is a vote against marriage equality. Because a Teapublican majority would push for a federal amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Jake, I never called the estate tax a civil rights issue. Not once. Now, go back and read the post. That you would assume I said as much reveals much about the “gay rights” mindset — seeing everything in terms of “civil rights.” With such a narrow focus as yours, it’s no wonder the heads of gay organizations have trouble looking outside the box.
Given the choice to vote on higher taxes or to vote on something that will help average Americans, gay or not, Dems always go with the higher taxes.
Latter they will come out and say they support gay rights, but by then it is meaningless
No, you skirted around the term instead, not actually mentioning civil rights but quoting a piece that talks about how the estate tax ‘discriminates’ against gays and how the best way to end that discrimination would be to repeal the estate tax. You also spin voting against repealing the estate tax as an anti-gay vote, which is a bit of a stretch since this not a gay-specific issue and you fully admitted that there is at least one other way to make straight and gay couples equal in this case, repealing the estate tax is simply your preferred method.
Note that I’d be open to this proposal, but I’d really prefer to do the maths on this first. What would it do to the deficit? What would it do to productivity? Which income brackets would benefit and by how much?
Also, I forget. What is Carly Fiorina’s position on same-sex marriage? Is she in favour of a new ballot proposal to repeal Proposition 8 in 2012?
Serenity, don’t put words into my mouth–or make assumptions about my motives.
I never said Mrs. Boxer’s vote was anti-gay, but that it disadvantages gay people. Please make an attempt to understand my point of view before putting your own spin on it.
I see the gay and lesbian hypocrites are out in full force.
Jake and Serenity, as liberal leftists, oppose any sort of tax reduction and demand that people pay more taxes — and then are whining about the fact that THEY would have to pay more taxes as “discrimination”.
Again, the hypocrisy. Since Jake and Serenity demand higher taxes, they should pay them.
Then Jake and Serenity whine about marriage bans. Since Jake and Serenity fully endorse and support candidates who support the FMA, why are they whining about it? Again, hypocrisy on the part of liberal leftists.
The problem here is that Serenity and Jake are not rational or intelligent people. They are gay-sex liberals, prisoners to talking points. They’ve never been required to think about what they’re saying because they’re minority members, and in the racist Obama Party, that’s all you need.
That is succinct. I will have to remember it.
It is disingenuous to claim that the repeal of the “death tax” will benefit lesbians and gays. The so called “death tax” is in fact an estate tax that taxes only estates valued over 3.5 million, and that is after numerous deductions are taken. For 2009, it is estimated 5,500 estates will owe tax. Three-quarters of these taxable estates will come from the top ten percent of income earners and over one-third will come from the top one percent. (Figures from the Urban Institute).
It is one thing to claim that you are philosophically opposed to taxes and beleive this tax should be eliminated. It is quite a stretch however to claim that the elimination of this tax somehow benefits lesbians and gays.
Since Jake and Serenity fully endorse and support candidates who support the FMA, why are they whining about it? Again, hypocrisy on the part of liberal leftists.
NDT, whenever you bring up Harold Ford and Rosen’s donation, I wonder if you’re overgeneralizing. Then I remember how the gay community reacted to Crutchley’s donation to a Republican who opposed the FMA, and I see you have a point.
Yes, because a tax presently is that of taken away property from one person and giving it to someone else who didn’t earn it. It is theft and it needs to stop. No matter what the tax is, usually is never intended to support the usual functions of government (ie, fire, police, water treatments etc, border, military etc).
You are missing th point, if government has already set the tax at 3.5 million why not lower it at 1 million, or even lower, maybe applying it to all even the “little gay guy.” Once government has its foot in the door it will not stop until it is in your bedroom controlling every penny you earn, every bite you ingest, and every shit you take. Note that the poster of this comment is insinuiating that gay couples may not reach that level of success and wealth. And this is the problem, they want to see gays poor (and everybody else). I’m pretty sure if Lady Caca were to explain how this death tax is unfair the drones of the gay establishment will follow suit, but since she has parades of tax lawyers I am pretty sure she can safeguard her millions from the paws of the government, but the poor gay bastard that believes in this georgist, marxist, leftist ideology will be the one losing out as he will build noting in his life.
So, Brendan, you’re telling us that gay people and lesbian don’t have the wherewithal to build and maintain estates worth $3.5 million — and more?
And there will be fewer deductions than ever before. What’s
disingenuous is to ASSume that it’s ok since it only hits “a few people”. It will negatively effect at least 1.5 million jobs and will stifle ingenuity, productivity and reduce competition.
Not to mention it benefits lawyers far more than it benefits congress. It will only benefit congress insofar as libs will get the kickbacks from their lawyer buddies in the form of campaign contributions. Most importantly, it doesn’t serve any of the purposes it was created for.
No GPW, I did not say “that gay people and lesbian don’t have the wherewithal to build and maintain estates worth $3.5 million.” To paraphrase one of your frequent tropes, why not respond to the argument I made, not the straw argument you pretend I made.
In your post, you claim that repeal of the death tax benefits gay people, as well as others. You make this claim without any evidence in support of it and like others on the right, you use the term “death tax” because you are aware that if most people had the facts, they would not support the repeal of this tax: an estate tax that applies to the inherited wealth of a minute segment of the extreme rich.
If you and others on the right were confident that people would support the repeal if they knew it applies to an estimated 5,500 households you would own up to these facts. But the whole rhetoric of “death tax” is to obscure these facts in hopes that people will vote against their own economic interest.
Ah Brendan,
So am I to take your argument that the death tax is fine because it taxes a ‘minute segment’? (please cite sources for me)
So you’d support a ‘gay tax’ sincce 1-4% is a ‘minute segment’. Good to know.
Where’s the “equality” in that, Brendan?
Where’s the argument in your class warfare?
sometimes things are said that just don’t build alot of consensus. . .
BDB- No wonder gay organizations haven’t joined Senator DeMint in supporting repeal of this tax.
Wiki–
DeMint stirred controversy during debates with Tenenbaum when he stated his belief that openly gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools. When questioned by reporters, DeMint also stated that single mothers who live with their boyfriends should similarly be excluded from being educators. He later apologized for making the remarks, saying they were “distracting from the main issues of the debate.” He also noted that these were opinions based on his personal values, not issues he would or could deal with as a member of Congress. In a 2008 interview, he said that while government does not have the right to restrict homosexuality, it also should not encourage it through legalizing same-sex marriage, due to the “costly secondary consequences” to society from the prevalence of certain diseases among homosexuals.
rusty, just because DeMint has said some loopy things on one issue doesn’t mean he’s wrong on another. Heck, maybe if gay organizations joined him on this one, he might think twice about his views.
Brendan. You don’t know what your are talking about. I do! When my wife died, I would have lost my home to this damn death tax if we had not been carrying an insurance policy which had been costing us ten thousand dollars a year. Now I have my beautiful home and thanks to my daughter I have money to live in it.
Now here is a great opportunity for Jimmy and Chris to invite Demint to a meeting, of course away from the C Street compound. Might have to be a semi-private meeting, one that the media won’t get ahold of since Demint’s support could be damaged if such a meeting went public.
Then again Bruce and his partner could have Demint over for tea, and Patriot Mom could serve cookies. Demint could see a very happy well adjusted ‘gay family’
But BDB I don’t think those meetings would curb the ‘loopy’ comments coming from Demint.
I might add: How many of you have a daughter to support you? You better have cause when the Democrats get through taxing you, you wont have any money left.
John W.,
I am sincerely sorry about your wife’s death. But I don’t understand how that means I don’t know what I am talking about. I am a lawyer, not an economist, and I will freely admit that my understanding of the economics of the estate tax (sorry, but I will not use the politically loaded term “death tax”) is based on my reading of sources. The data I cited was based on studies by the Urban Institute and to my knowledge the data is generally not disputed. The estate tax is a tax that only impacts a minute % of estates of the extreme rich. You. or any other defenders of repealing the tax, do not cite to any facts that would dispute this point.
Hats off to Brendan for acknowledging that he is a Lawyer.
I am not disputing the facts you point out, it doesn’t really matter at this point. What I am disputing is what moral or just authority does another person have (in this case the government) to take away property from another person simply because there is a transfer of property. In this case the property is not really yours if it can be easily taken away. This is the real question. And it is one that worries me, because if they can do it to the “super rich” what is the stopping the government from taxing those who are not. Finally, another problem is that the government keeps changing the definition of “wealthy” as the bar is being lowered. So in this case all of us will be “wealthy” under the eyes of the greedy bureaucrat in the end. The simple truth is that Brandon does not like it when others make money and have property and will use the tax law to undermine that.
Brendan.
“The estate tax is a tax only impacts a minute % of the extreme rich” Yes, if that were the case but when my wife died the tax was one million at 55%. If you live in CA and want a decent home especially in the Pensular area, you will pay at least one million. The reason that we could afford it was because with in addition to my salary both my wife and made investments in real estate as early as the 40s. Then we invested in the 10,000 a year insurance 30+ years. So working and saving and investing should I not have the money to do and go places as I would like.
And now the Democrats want to take us back to the one million “death” (I will say it) tax.
No, don’t call it what it is. Polish the turd by calling it something that sounds fancier.
And just who does the death tax benefit?
In a 2008 interview, he said that while government does not have the right to restrict homosexuality, it also should not encourage it through legalizing same-sex marriage, due to the “costly secondary consequences” to society from the prevalence of certain diseases among homosexuals.
Let’s see what the science says.
The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.
The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.
Multiply that times the treatment costs, times the impact to society, times the required welfare benefits, and the point becomes obvious very clearly.
Of course, the next thing that comes up is that gay-sex marriage would prevent gays from being promiscuous — which, of course, will be coming out of the same mouths of people who are whining about all these married heterosexuals who are supposedly fooling around.
Then you must be arguing that the welfare state should not be funding such treatments (fine by me), with freedom comes responsibility. But I am suspecting that you advocate for sodomy laws to somehow prevent the spread of HIV, wonderful NDT, so I guess all those anti-homosexuality laws in east Africa really did a good job in quashing the diseases huh?
So according to NDT every thing that “impacts” society should be banned. Smoking, causes lung cancer, ban it! Fat and salt, cause diabetes and heart diseases, ban it! Alcohol, causes liver cancer, violence, ban it! (I do remember a certain country that banned it in their constitution but for some reason it didn’t work out quite as planned with all the mobsters and murders that sprung up and all) Porn, creates rapists ban that too! Cars, create pollution ban them! Oh yeah while we are at it lets ban harsh weather, earthquakes, comets, you know, because their impacts on society will be very clear. Silly.
The’re many things that can happen to you, it us up to you to mitigate the consequences as much as possible especially in dealing with behavior that might not be healthy (promiscuous sex, drugs, alcohol) but we cannot depend on government to fix everything life throws at us. There are some that are strong and mature and will make the right decisions, then there will be a few who are weak and will end up destroying their lives, sad, but that is the fact of life, deal with it.
And no, “gay sex” marriage or any other type of marriage promote life long monogamy. People change over time and move on. Such is a fact of life. And government meddling in people’s personal affairs only worsen the problem.
Perhaps Mr. Senator Ma’am Boxer makes for a better drag queen? I’m not joking; I’m serious. Boxer looks like a drag queen. Since many Leftist gays focus on the superficial, this is why they gravitate to Mr. Senator Ma’am Boxer since she looks like something from the Gay Pride parades or even the Folsom Street Fair. She can pack suitcases in her hair with enough hairspray.
Oh miss rita beads (NDT). . .from your little scientific CDC report
Research shows that a range of complex factors contribute to the high rates of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men. These factors include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services.
“There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men,” said Fenton. “We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men.”
So according to NDT every thing that “impacts” society should be banned.
Incorrect.
Please review again what DeMint stated and what I cited.
In a 2008 interview, he said that while government does not have the right to restrict homosexuality, it also should not encourage it through legalizing same-sex marriage, due to the “costly secondary consequences” to society from the prevalence of certain diseases among homosexuals.
And that’s my opinion. Refusing to encourage or fund something is not the same as banning it. Your argument here is akin to stating that, because the government does not fund programs to provide subsidized booze and cigarettes to people, that both are “banned”.
JS & Rusty, do pay attention before your panties get caught in the pucker. Even I got what NDT was talking about. Wouldn’t want to look like the WH and the NAALCP, would you?
Actually, rusty, the section you quoted demonstrates the point nicely.
These factors include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services.
Notice how not a single one of those “complex factors” says anything about a person’s choice to have unprotected, promiscuous sex. Instead, it tries to blame everyone else for the problem.
My rejoinder is this. Since gay men are so ignorant, stupid, and helpless that they can’t make a basic common-sense choice to keep from hurting themselves, why on earth could it be argued that they are responsible enough to marry? I mean, if gay men are so pathetically immature and irresponsible that they can’t “consistently maintain safe behaviors” when they have sex, why on earth should they be considered capable of consent?
You want to make excuses like a child, rusty, you can be treated like a child.
is that with your hands on your hips miz rita?
North Dallas, you are really reaching to support a bigot.
“In a 2008 interview, he said that while government does not have the right to restrict homosexuality, it also should not encourage it through legalizing same-sex marriage, due to the “costly secondary consequences” to society from the prevalence of certain diseases among homosexuals.”
Sooo…. going by his “logic”, Lesbians are the only ones that should be allowed to get married.
You will support any bigot so long as there is an “R” in front of the name won’t you?
Since gay men are so ignorant, stupid, and helpless that they can’t make a basic common-sense choice to keep from hurting themselves, why on earth could it be argued that they are responsible enough to marry?
now what about. . .
12/30/2008
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy wishes every success for Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, the newborn son of teenagers Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston. While this is just one of the more than 730,000 teen pregnancies annually in the United States, Bristol Palin’s pregnancy has focused national attention on adolescent childbearing. The National Campaign offers these reminders about the continuing challenge of teen pregnancy:
Three in ten girls become pregnant by age 20.
The U.S. teen birth rate is on the rise again for the first time in 15 years.
Teen pregnancy is closely linked to a host of other critical social issues — poverty and income, overall child well-being, out-of-wedlock births, responsible fatherhood, health issues, education, child welfare, and other risky behavior.
I mean, if young people. . . are so pathetically immature and irresponsible that they can’t “consistently maintain safe behaviors” when they have sex, why on earth should they be considered capable of consent?
Rusty, you blew it when you decided to be a colossal dick. Might as well stop digging.
I mean, if young people. . . are so pathetically immature and irresponsible that they can’t “consistently maintain safe behaviors” when they have sex, why on earth should they be considered capable of consent?
Generally, they are not considered capable of consent, for that very reason. Hence the term, “statutory rape”.
Meanwhile, Bristol Palin was born in 1990, so she was 18 years old when your announcement was made, and she is now 20.
Have you never heard of age-of-consent laws – or are you, like the leadership and organizations of the gay and lesbian community, adamantly opposed to them as homophobic?
All over the world, and most parts of America, “Everybody else is don’ it” is usually not a sufficient reason for anything, Rusty. I don’t know about your parents, but it never worked with mine. You sure as hell can’t get a driver’s license based solely on that and it would be likewise idiotic to expect to get a marriage license based on that.
You are right, but I was not saying that refusing to fund, or discouraging a behavior is the same as banning it. I was going by the way you approach this subject. But the reality is that government cannot do the opposite either, it cannot encourage a behavior simply by subsidizing it (ie marriage), it cannot encourage people to buy cars by trying to purchase their “clunkers” either NDT, it cannot encourage people to be healthy by subsidizing health care and so on. And the argument that recognizing “gay sex” marriage will encourage homosexuality is just as silly and stupid too. We all know that government cannot encourage, produce, anything. It only consumes and blows up things nicely.
And I am the one with her panties in a twist? (LOL) Good grief. Oh and you do mean NAACP right? Just making sure as there are too many acronyms in this world.
BTW TGC, I was merely making an observation and bringing up some points to see where NDT stands. At least, unlike you, he was able to make his position a little bit more clear to me. And I could care less of what the NAACP does or doesn’t do because as an original tea party organizer I know what the the TP really stands for and what it does not. So NAACP and WH mean nothing to me because unlike others my panties are in a relax and suitable position.
Again, I am going to ask you what I asked NDT: there is homophobia, so what? What do you want to government to do? Ban it? Or like many of you have argued, “discourage” it. Rusty, the government cannot encourage, discourage any behavior no matter how noble the cause is. The only route is to punish citizens for certain crimes after the fact. (ie murder, rape, theft). Those who are homophobic will continue to be so, that is just the fact regardless what the government does. So again what do you plan to do about it?
Thanks for sharing the TMI.
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard! You’ll support the candidate *least* likely to advance policy that would remove the inequality all together – by allowing same sex marriage? Seriously? And do you honestly mean to imply that Jim DeMint proposed the amendment to benefit gays? That’s just plain delusional.
Sandi, please tell me what it’s so stupid to oppose a Senator who has done nothing to lower the regulatory burden and thus prevents the private sector from creating jobs.
And please, if you’re going to comment here, familiarize yourself with our ideas; we support freedom, not equality. Understand the difference.
Thanks.