Posted on 02/19/2004 1:54:21 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
Allow me to preface my remarks by stating that I am not one of those Freepers opposed to the basic idea of homosexual marriage. I couldn't care less about two other people of any type living together in whatever manner they choose. I live in a committed heterosexual relationship: I'm the man, she's the woman.
... Now, with that out of the way:
I work for a Silicon Valley tech company that by San Francisco county law must allow employees with 'domestic partners' to be covered under the primary employee's selected health/vision/dental insurance. Currently, I am paying taxes on approximately $265 per month at my taxable withholding rate to cover my fiancee. Therefore, on top of a $265 reduction in my payroll, I am being taxed another $90 or so dollars per month for the benefit of covering my partner under my health plan because the state of California considers this to be 'taxable income'. My yearly reduction in income for this 'benefit' comes to approximately $4260, of which $1080 of that figure is California state tax.
However, by California state law, employees in same-sex partnerships are exempt from paying state income tax on the fair market value of their domestic partner's medical benefits. You read that right: Gays get tax-free benefits, and heterosexuals are encumbered with taxes for the exact same 'domestic partner' health benefit. Evidently, California’s solution to Federal discrimination against same-sex marriage is to discriminate in reverse against opposite-sex partnerships and force heterosexuals to pay for gay domestic partnership's medical coverage.
Now, I will be married to my fiancee sometime this fall. Until that time, I must cover her with my health benefits as a 'domestic partner'. Even if the courts were to rule today that gays have a right to be married, the tax exemption rule that gay 'domestic partners' enjoy with regards to health care will still be on the books. I also believe that economic surveys have shown that gay 'DINK' relationships (Dual Income, No Kids) are among California's wealthiest partnerships with the greatest amount of expendable income far above the national level. By the Democrat's own standards, they're 'the rich'.
In short, the Calfornia state law that says gay employees are exempt from paying state income tax on the fair market value of their domestic partner's medical benefits is nothing more than a tax break for the gay rich.
I believe that it is very hypocritical for gays to demand the right to be married based upon a 'fairness doctrine' that they only want to enjoy the same tax exemptions that married couples receive while at the same time they are stealing money from my pocket to pay for their medical insurance.
Until this element of the California tax code is repealed, I am against gay marriage based upon unfair taxation without equal representation under the law.
L
Just look at the threads on FR. They always degenerate into name-calling and endless expositions on the evilness of homosexuality.
If conservatives are so polarized on this issue, what does that say?
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
You are absolutely right about that. If government is involved, marriage becomes a political football and people will use the power of the government to destroy the institution.
Nothing good can come from government involvement in marriage.
For instance, the vast majority of people view civil divorce as the final word on ending a marriage. Since in most states civil divorce is simply a matter of filing paperwork, the state has made divorce painless, and divorce is more common.
Government isn't in the marriage business. They're in the tax business.
Domestic contracts are just another vehicle to create a revenue stream.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.