a marriage equality political roadblock to overcome (that probably won't)

[smileyeagle1021]

In my tax class there is only one rule regarding politics... they can only be discussed if they directly relate to tax.
Someone brought up the whole point of how one of the arguments for gay marriage is the tax advantage of married filing jointly (which really is only an advantage for those making less than 100k).
Now, here's the point the teacher made, that giving that tax advantage to gay and lesbian couples will require rewriting the tax code and would drastically cut revenue, and that the shortfall would theoretically have to be made up with either higher tax codes, lower tax brackets, or cut services and no politician, short of being forced to by the Supreme Court, is going to be willing to make that kind of change which will require tax increases for everyone else. She also made the point, everyone supports helping the poor... as long as they don't have to pay for it, why do we expect any other social issue to be any different.

[Hyena Dandy]

Actually, that's not much of a problem at all, see. While obviously politicians don't want to vote for higher taxes, if they INVOKE that fact, they are going to lose support not only from the pro-gay-marriage crowd, but also from the anti-gay-marriage crowd. (I've not yet met someone whose opposition to gay marriage came from 'slight decrease to federal revenue)

And BOTH sides consider this issue far, FAR more important than the tax part.

And also... It wouldn't require THAT much of a rewrite, really. If marriage is counted to mean gays, then that part will be counted in.




And I honestly DO think that gay marriage will go through, eventually. Maybe not this year, or even in the next few years. But the time will come. In the meantime, we have to keep fighting.

We can't get rid of the bigotry in the hearts of men. But we can at least hope to get rid of it in the halls of government.

[KnitShoni]

I don't really know much about the tax code, so I don't see how including same-sex couples will require that much of a rewrite. What would have to be changed, really?

[Boozy]

If the tax code already offers benefits to married couples filing jointly, why would anything have to be re-written to accommodate a greater number of married couples?

Some people probably save money on their taxes by filing jointly, but I'm sure that quite a few do not. The biggest advantage is just less paperwork (and related costs) for both the tax filers and the IRS.

[smileyeagle1021]

Hyana, you are of course right... but you know damned well that those who oppose gay marriage will eventually bring this up and hammer it to no end.
I can see it now "do you want your taxes to go up to support an alternative lifestyle" and as soon as you say taxes go up there is mass hysteria (just look at what is happening with the discussion of ending a temporary reduction back up to previous levels, not even a true increase).
There is also a point that in an effect, gay marriage would lead to semi-legalized polygamy... as long as there is an even number of people (2,4,6, etc) all you have to do is pair them up and they all get the tax benefits (granted not with all of the other spouses, but at least moreso than what they get now).
Also was mentioned that people would try to marry adult children for tax benefits... of course there is no explanation as to why that isn't happening with parent and child of different gender (other than you know incest laws) but people aren't going to think rationally about this, they're just going to hear "see, they're trying to cheapen marriage into a tax break... we might as well start marrying our adult children so we can get a tax break"
This goes beyond just a simple matter of no politician wants to be the one to raise taxes... no politician is the one who wants to be associated with the social engineering associated with the tax code (which, the tax code is the largest form of social engineering in the country... even more so than the criminal code).

[HYHYBT]

There simply aren't enough gay people, even if we all got married which is hardly likely, to make a significant difference.

The only way I could see it affecting governmental revenue enough to have to do something about it would be if it makes fraudulent* marriage, entered just for the tax break, single-family ordinances, and so forth, among friends, roommates, strangers, whatever. And that doesn't seem particularly likely either.

*not the best choice of words, but the best I can think of at the moment.

[Mikkel]

As far as I know this was never a problem in Denmark, the laws didn't have to be changed, there were just a few more married couples.
I think your teacher's point is outdated, it isn't as if USA is the first country to legalise gay marriage. As I remember it, equal rights, including taxes, was the argument for registered partnership.

[smileyeagle1021]

There simply aren't enough gay people, even if we all got married which is hardly likely, to make a significant difference.

As I said, we know that in reality it will make little difference... but even little differences make big political difference. Even if it is minuscule it is not the type of thing a politician wants to be associated with.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think you're looking for a problem where there isn't one.

Bringing up the issue of taxes would be suicide from the anti-gay-marriage front. Their entire argument is BUILT around the idea that gay marriage is morally terrible. Someone who tried to argue the ISSUE from the tax point of view, whatever small amount of support he gained from the other politicians, would be support he lost from his base. It would be easy for a primary opponent to say "This man does not care about what's right and wrong, he only cares about his pocketbook."

Bringing any monetary issues into the matter cheapen the side of the people who are against it. Because once you bring in that sort of issue, you're basically saying "This is a secular issue". And that's an argument that both sides know you'd lose.




As it is, though, as I said before. Eventually, this will pass. The time will come for America to become what it has always been meant to be, a land where all men were created equal.

In the meantime, all we can do is push for that time to come.

[smileyeagle1021]

HD, something that comes to mind, speaking of taxes...
Married filed jointly is done for the primary purpose of subsidizing marriage (you're household can earn up to $18,600 without paying taxes if you are married, if it is two single people either of them have to pay for over $9300).
So, quite literally, changing the tax law would be subsidizing the "homosexual lifestyle".

ETA- a good example, if I could legally marry my fiance for tax purpose, I would owe ZERO taxes this year, everything paid in would be paid back... having to file as single, he gets no refund because he paid no taxes in and I only get roughly half my taxes back. Do you honestly see "good Christians" condoning their "Christian Nation" paying money back to subsidize gay couples?

[Hyena Dandy]

No, I can't see them condoning it. But only the most desperate would bring it up. If it gets to the point where the taxes become a major talking point, then its already a foregone conclusion. Bringing up the taxes is admitting defeat because its saying that marriage is not, in fact, a sacred institution that's under attack, but rather, you're saying marriage is all about the money, and you're driving the debate with a secular interest rather than a religious one.

The only way that the people who are against gay marriage can win this debate is by making it a debate over religious theory. The people who are against gay marriage are many things. Closed-minded, bigoted, homophobic, fanatical, you can say all those things. But they're not STUPID.

The trick to winning a popular debate (as opposed to a formal debate) is to define the discussion. Rather than convince the public that the other side is someone worth hating, you have to make them think that the other side is someone they ALREADY HATE. They have to couch this debate in terms of religion versus atheism/anti-religion. If their opponents talk about the evils of Christianity, its a really EASY debate to win. But if the anti-gay-marriage side makes it about the actual LEGAL benefits of marriage, then they're secularizing it. In the long run, they're attacking their own side.