Paul A. Ibbetson
Gay marriage: Cambridge, Massachusetts pays stipends to gay couples
By Paul A. Ibbetson
As reported by Johanna Kaiser in the Associated Press, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has decided to pull $33,000 in city funds to pay stipends to city employees who are currently in a homosexual marriage. The rationale behind the redistribution of funds is said to be a defrayment for federal taxes that married homosexual couples employed by the city must pay on the value of their health benefits. Unlike traditional married couples, homosexual city employees who have been designated as "married" in the gay-marriage-friendly state of Massachusetts, do not qualify for standard spousal tax deferrals. The city of Cambridge will be the first community to advance gay marriage from simple legal recognition to financial reward. Who will pay for this liberal social experiment? Mostly the funds will come from heterosexuals.
That's the truth. Homosexuals are but a fraction of the population even in the most liberal wacky blue states and cities in the country. The city of Cambridge will divert money to give tax breaks to 22 homosexual public employees. So there will be 22 happy gay workers for the city and the people of Cambridge will inevitably absorb the $33,000 loss by paying a little more for city services. Of course that will have to be paid every year. Also, since this is such a great deal for homosexual couples, more will surely join this grand little experiment. Here is a chance to create even more happy gay city employees, but that also means more costs will be handed down to the heterosexual majority of Cambridge citizens. Hmm, I wonder if there will be any downsides to continually raising costs of city services to offset tax stipends to promote gay marriage. The other option is to simply reduce services. That means fewer potholes get filled and high-demand services such as police overtime are less available. In reality, over time the people of Cambridge will get both — higher costs and fewer services, all in the name of legitimizing deviant behavior. Will this eventually create a divide between the city planners and the local populace of this city?
Some will say, "Well that is what the people of Cambridge, Massachusetts, want. After all, Massachusetts was the first state in the U.S. to legalize marriage for gay couples, right?" Yes they certainly did, but are they ready to put their money where their morals are? We are not talking about federal grants or other subsidies that extract tax dollars from people in other parts of America who very well may not agree with the gay-ifying of marriage in this country. In this case, we are talking about good old blue state Massachusetts' liberal cash. Just how far will northeast blue-state liberals go to promote the gay agenda when the cost goes beyond liberal theories wrapped in moral relativism and ends up in their pocketbook? I would guess not as far as even the most deluded liberal would assume.
As a matter of fact, I would say that if you offered the citizens of Cambridge the ability to individually vote with anonymity, the overall majority would side with keeping more of their cash, rather than reallocating their money for tax breaks for homosexual couples that wish to be considered married. The relevancy of the heterosexual majority, even in this crazy state, would become very relevant once again. If Cambridge's misguided city plan were to stay in effect for 10 years, it would most certainly end up being rejected by its own people. Why? Because while central planners like those in Cambridge wish to be cutting-edge on moral deprivation initiatives, in the end they will inevitably want federal dollars to do it. In other words, they will want traditional America to help fund their little Sodom and Gomorrah and will not wish to take full financial responsibility for their own actions. I say what is created in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is their own social, spiritual and financial burden to bear. Let them reap the whirlwind of their own misguided municipal and state decisions.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
July 16, 2011
As reported by Johanna Kaiser in the Associated Press, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has decided to pull $33,000 in city funds to pay stipends to city employees who are currently in a homosexual marriage. The rationale behind the redistribution of funds is said to be a defrayment for federal taxes that married homosexual couples employed by the city must pay on the value of their health benefits. Unlike traditional married couples, homosexual city employees who have been designated as "married" in the gay-marriage-friendly state of Massachusetts, do not qualify for standard spousal tax deferrals. The city of Cambridge will be the first community to advance gay marriage from simple legal recognition to financial reward. Who will pay for this liberal social experiment? Mostly the funds will come from heterosexuals.
That's the truth. Homosexuals are but a fraction of the population even in the most liberal wacky blue states and cities in the country. The city of Cambridge will divert money to give tax breaks to 22 homosexual public employees. So there will be 22 happy gay workers for the city and the people of Cambridge will inevitably absorb the $33,000 loss by paying a little more for city services. Of course that will have to be paid every year. Also, since this is such a great deal for homosexual couples, more will surely join this grand little experiment. Here is a chance to create even more happy gay city employees, but that also means more costs will be handed down to the heterosexual majority of Cambridge citizens. Hmm, I wonder if there will be any downsides to continually raising costs of city services to offset tax stipends to promote gay marriage. The other option is to simply reduce services. That means fewer potholes get filled and high-demand services such as police overtime are less available. In reality, over time the people of Cambridge will get both — higher costs and fewer services, all in the name of legitimizing deviant behavior. Will this eventually create a divide between the city planners and the local populace of this city?
Some will say, "Well that is what the people of Cambridge, Massachusetts, want. After all, Massachusetts was the first state in the U.S. to legalize marriage for gay couples, right?" Yes they certainly did, but are they ready to put their money where their morals are? We are not talking about federal grants or other subsidies that extract tax dollars from people in other parts of America who very well may not agree with the gay-ifying of marriage in this country. In this case, we are talking about good old blue state Massachusetts' liberal cash. Just how far will northeast blue-state liberals go to promote the gay agenda when the cost goes beyond liberal theories wrapped in moral relativism and ends up in their pocketbook? I would guess not as far as even the most deluded liberal would assume.
As a matter of fact, I would say that if you offered the citizens of Cambridge the ability to individually vote with anonymity, the overall majority would side with keeping more of their cash, rather than reallocating their money for tax breaks for homosexual couples that wish to be considered married. The relevancy of the heterosexual majority, even in this crazy state, would become very relevant once again. If Cambridge's misguided city plan were to stay in effect for 10 years, it would most certainly end up being rejected by its own people. Why? Because while central planners like those in Cambridge wish to be cutting-edge on moral deprivation initiatives, in the end they will inevitably want federal dollars to do it. In other words, they will want traditional America to help fund their little Sodom and Gomorrah and will not wish to take full financial responsibility for their own actions. I say what is created in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is their own social, spiritual and financial burden to bear. Let them reap the whirlwind of their own misguided municipal and state decisions.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
