- The Washington Times - Friday, March 29, 2013


Clearly, the issue currently before the Supreme Court is about institutional discrimination. However, if the Supreme Court chooses to rule in favor of the current plaintiffs because they don’t receive the same tax benefits and other perks as traditional married couples, well, how about me? I, who am single, and people who are just living together, are we going to get the same benefits and perks?

And by the way, since the Supreme Court justices get guaranteed employment for life, why doesn’t the president receive the same? Why not members of Congress? Why not me? We provided certain discriminatory coverage for specific institutions because they make special contributions to overall societal stability and future stability. (Think traditional marriage supported by thousands of years of human history, or the Supreme Court itself.)

If the Supreme Court really wants to take on discrimination, why don’t they take on the Internal Revenue Service, arguably the most discriminating institution in the United States? For example, why don’t we have a national sales tax without an income tax? This way everyone pays, even the drug dealers. Of course, this is way too transparent for politicians. The real irony in the current case before the Supreme Court is not about marriage; the plaintiff is already legally married under Canadian law. It is about discriminatory tax laws.


Tulsa, Okla.



Click to Read More

Click to Hide