The world is changing but large numbers of unaccountably powerful people still seem to believe it should be run like a fantasy version of 1950s bourgeois suburbia, all picket fences and patriarchy. The tax allowance being proposed will not benefit every married couple ”“ it is specifically designed to reward and give an incentive to those in which one partner either does no work outside the home or earns very little.
The policy is, in effect, a subsidy for stay-at-home mums. Mothers who have the gall to be unmarried, by contrast, have just had their state support cut still further in the latest Spending Review because this government is more interested in making moral statements than in keeping children out of poverty.
If marriage is simply one lifestyle among many, then why should the state recognize it at all. Homosexual marriage reinforces this point and leads me to continue to argue that it does not expand marriage, it ends it for everyone.
One odd thing about Ms Penny’s diatribe. As I discovered when we returned to the UK in 2012, everyone has an individual tax exemption and these cannot be pooled by married couples. Thus a non-earning spouse does not provide any tax benefit to an earning spouse.
The complaint that married couples are uniquely privileged, therefore, doesn’t seem to be sustained by British tax arrangements.
I would actually be comfortable without having tax breaks for married couples in the US. Of course, it’s easy for *me* to say this — I’m single. But I think my married relatives would say the same thing.
I do think it’s not necessary that the State privilege marriage with extra societal bonuses. Marriage is a good and wonderful and holy thing in itself, with no involvement from the State, and the Church should have sole authority over it anyway.
On the other hand, I’d be fine with the State announcing that it’s going to just go ahead, recognize, and privilege ALL stated “civil unions” and expanding civil unions to include *all* sexual attractions. They could recognize civil unions between consensual, adult, loving siblings, polyamorous unions, unions between a man and his high-heeled stiletto shoes, life-challenged unions, etc, etc.
What’s *really* outrageously unjust is the State 1) choosing not to affirm and strengthen marriage solely AND 2) selecting one single, currently-faddish, minority sexual attraction to recognize and privilege. I find it horribly hypocritical and unjust and it simply will not stand in a society that cares about logic, consistency, and fairness.
There’s no way that gay sex should be privileged over any other type of minority sexual activity to receive the blessing and privilege of state recognition.
Once the State gives up on attempting to shore up the family unit and marriage, and *then* proceeds onward to privileging one of scores of minority sexual attractions, its surrendered any effort at objectivity and reason. It’s simply trailing after the latest sexual fads trying to keep up and failing.
I just wonder how long it will take TEC to recognize those other minority sexual activities.