Most conservatives who oppose marriage equality will cite the Bible, “nature,” or polygamy and incest to justify their opposition. But for one Alabama state senator, a reason to oppose marriage equality is that it would allow same-sex couples to receive the same financial benefits that different-sex couples currently receive. “You gotta look at the financial aspect of this as well,” State Sen. Del Marsh (R) told radio host Dale Jackson last week. “Let’s face it. If gay marriage is approved, I assume that those types of unions, those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance. Where does it end?”
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that Sen. March makes a compelling argument. He doesn’t, of course, but if you’ll work with me here, I think you’ll smell what I’m cooking. Let’s say that same-sex couples DON’T deserve the same financial benefits that accrue to heterosexuals. Fair enough…but if you’re going to make the argument that same-sex couples are “less than” and therefore not deserving of equal benefits, you’re also going to have to argue that they should be bearing a smaller tax burden. Fair is fair, right? If they’re going to receive less, it would stand to reason that they should be paying less in taxes.
Except that’s no Conservative is making that argument. No, their case is predicated on defining and treated homosexuals as “less than,” as second-class citizens, so the “fairness” argument is really about anything but. They have no intention of allowing homosexuals to assume a lesser tax burden, because it’s really not about taxes or benefits for them. It’s about treating a minority class as somehow subhuman and less deserving of the social benefits “normal” Americans take for granted. It’s about working to gradually destroy people who for the most part just want to live their lives in peace and pose no credible threat to “decent” Americans.
Here’s a thought experiment that the haters in the audience might want to try at home. The next time you think it a good idea to propose doing something that reduces the rights of the LGBT community, try substituting “marriage” for “gay marriage,” as in:
You gotta look at the financial aspect of this as well. Let’s face it. If gay marriage is approved, I assume that those types of unions, those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance. Where does it end?
Sounds pretty silly, right? Now try to explain how the addition of the word “gay” makes it any less silly. How about if you substitute “Republican” for “gay” in the same sentence?
You gotta look at the financial aspect of this as well. Let’s face it. If Republican marriage is approved, I assume that those types of unions, those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance. Where does it end?
What people like Marsh fail to recognize is that “those people” are just “people.” Despite his wrong-headed idea, “those people” pay the same taxes “normal people” do and so should be due the same benefits. If you’re going to propose reducing the benefits “those people” receive, it’s only fair that the discussion include reducing their tax burden.
Then again, this has nothing to do with fairness, does it?
