But for churches it’s a justified privilege, they have a lot of expenses after all
The bribes and legal expenses to defend pedophiles in court don’t pay themselves
The fight for gay marriage was/is about the benefits afforded by the state to legally married couples.
Which is absolutely privilege because single people don’t get those same tax breaks.
Depending on your situation, being married could actually mean you pay more in taxes.
My wife and I pay more taxes because we are married without children. If we were not married and filed as singles, our tax burden would be much less. But IDK really, mostly because I enjoy living in a working society and that means paying taxes.
I’m certainly not a tax expert, but I think you can both file separately. That’s what my ex and I did back when we were married.
Our wages are not really equal and when we tried to separate it all to file separately, any benefit only helps one of us at the expense of the other.
All tax benefits, from marriage tax deductions to corporate tax elimination, is the government picking and choosing which behaviors it wants to encourage.
That’s why conservatives didn’t want gay people to get married because they saw it as government endorsement of their behavior, and not the government recognizing equal rights.
Public equality and public liberty are the responsibility and purview of government. If they are not, we can’t really have government by consent. Instead we have hegemony in which the lower strata are governed by force.
Time for a sham marriage ʕ ͡° ʖ̯ ͡°ʔ
Well in my country there are tax privileges for married couples. The goal of those privileges is to increase the amount of children in the country.
Same sex marriages are now officially recognised by the state, but do not get any tax privileges.
That still sounds like discrimination to me. Same sex couples still have the ability to adopt, use IVF with a donor, use a surrogate, etc. All of these encourage raising children, but they’re ineligible for benefits because they aren’t a hetero couple?
You see, I’m on board with that logic right up until there are childless hetero couples. I think if a gay couple plans to adopt they should get the exact same privileges.
Or maybe a marriage only gets the tax break if they prove they are raising a child. Otherwise straight childless marriages still benefit from the tax break while childless gay marriages do not. If more kids are the goal, make kids the deciding factor for the tax break.
This is then hard on the hetero couples who want a child but can’t make one. But then again I suppose they have the adoption route open to them also.
They would have all the same options a homosexual couple has
I’ve never heard anyone saying it’s a privilege, just that it’s ‘wrong’ or ‘against god’ or whatever
You haven’t been paying attention, then, or you’ve been lucky. That equal rights are extra privileges is common rhetoric amongst bigots.
Corollary: If you’re allowed to be gay, I’m a victim.
Jordan is a goddamn national treasure
Agreed. I truly love his work.
Yep. I’ve even heard people say things like “Gay people have the same rights as straight people. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man. So it’s not discrimination”. It’s mind boggling stupid and they know it.
It’s commonly viewed as some kind of extra privilege. Listen to this lady repeat what she’s heard and then get confused.
mostly because its such a bad argument even the idiots realize it can’t be defended.
In the aughts George W. Bush signed an executive order instructing the IRS not to enforce the restrictions on churches regarding political speech non-profits are not supposed to endorse parties or specific candidates, though they can talk about issues).
After that dozens of right-wing political action committees and activism organizations redefined themselves as churches, what are now called parachurch organizations that are tax-free and political.
So yes, it is already a laundering business taking advantage of Christian nationalist leadership who believes in loyalty over principle.
they call it privilege because “straight people aren’t legally protected” which is fundamentally not true in the context of marriage, because that’s what it’s for.
In most other cases it’s reactionary, not precautionary. If straight rights were being oppressed, then sure you could fucking protect them all you want. They’re not though.
