« | »

Cambridge Subsidizes Homosexual Marriage

From a cheering Associated Press:

Mass. city to pay wedded gay workers to offset tax

By JOHANNA KAISER – Associated Press
July 11, 2011

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — When the city of Cambridge issues paychecks to its public employees, nearly two dozen workers find a federal tax on their income that their colleagues don’t have to pay.

Like many people, these 22 school and city workers chose to put their spouses on their employer-provided health insurance. Because they’re in a homosexual relationship, the value of that health coverage is considered taxable income by the federal government.

But starting this month, Cambridge will become what is believed to be the first municipality in the country to pay its public employees a stipend in an attempt to defray the cost of the federal tax on health benefits for their same-sex spouses.

The city employees hit by the extra tax pay an additional $1,500 to $3,000 in taxes a year and officials estimate the stipends would cost the city an additional $33,000.

What’s next, ‘reparations’? By the way, remember when the mantra of the homosexual movement was that they just wanted to be ‘left alone’?

"This is about equality," said Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge city councilor. "This is a city that models what equality really means."

Or rather, what "equality" means to liberal Democrats.

Of the thousands of legally married gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts, none can receive the federal benefits offered to heterosexual married couples because the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages

And because doing so would be against the law.

The council last month approved the measure that would provide quarterly stipends to any city or school employee who puts a same-sex spouse on their health insurance. The vote came after council members began looking in January for a way to offset what they called an unfair and discriminatory tax

[T]he additional funds needed from the city’s personnel budget is a minor cost in the city’s more than $500 million budget, but some say the public’s money should not be used to go against established law.

"It’s a travesty of using taxpayer monies to circumvent a national policy," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, an advocacy group opposed to same-sex marriage.

How thoughtful of the AP to characterize this organization as an "advocacy group." Something they seldom do for those on the other side of the issue.

The 15-year-old federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, allows states to deny recognition of same-sex unions performed elsewhere and prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. This provision federal prevents even gay and lesbian couples married legally by a state 7/8— as in Massachusetts — from receiving any federal benefits

And to quote the Obama’s Justice Department (regarding Arizona’s immigration laws), ‘we can’t have a patchwork of different laws across the country.’

On the other hand, Mr. Obama has already declared the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. So some ‘patchworks’ are fine.

New legislation is being proposed nationally by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, to eliminate the tax on health insurance for same-sex partners and spouses.

The lawmakers say this change will help individuals and reduce payroll taxes of the employers that offer benefits to same-sex partners and spouses without forcing employers to recognize domestic partners. Opponents say the proposal conflicts with current law.

"This appears to be another tactic to circumvent the intent of the DOMA, which is that federal tax dollars will not be used to benefit any kind of relationship outside a marriage between a man and a woman," said [Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute], who also criticized Obama’s refusal to defend DOMA…

When did the likes of Mr. Schumer or even Ms. Collins ever care about the law?

They just write them.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, July 11th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Cambridge Subsidizes Homosexual Marriage”

  1. finebammer59 says:

    So now we can, without equivocation, state that in Cambridge, Mass it pays to be gay?

  2. proreason says:

    opposite world

  3. P. Aaron says:

    I see an equal protection problem here…if someone wants to bring it up.

    • Right of the People says:

      But that would be homophobic! Some pigs (gays, minorities) are more equal than others in this Orwellian world we live in now.

  4. jobeth says:

    “… By the way, remember when the mantra of the homosexual movement was that they just wanted to be ‘left alone’? ”

    Oddly enough I was thinking of that very thing the other day. Step by step…slowly they turn…or demand…

    Won’t be long the hard working, productive,straight white Christian American male will get to claim minority status…but don’t get your hopes up guys…no one will be listening to your cries. Get to the back of the line…

    Why is my world so upside down and backwards?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I see your “Niagara Falls” and raise you, “We’re here! We’re Queer! And we’re in your face!”


      It’s never been about being accepted or being left alone. It’s been about vengeance and retribution (“social justice” if you will). The one thing that is most prevalent in liberals is anger. But because they have banned any form of physical relief when two people are in violent disagreement….and it’s not allowed to be angry anymore, they find themselves frustrated and driven mad by internal conflict.

      Don’t believe me? Find out what happens at work when you get legitimately angry at a co-worker when they do something incredibly stupid.

  5. canary says:

    They are allowing gay military to get married on military installations too.

  6. heykev says:

    Illinois is moving to not allow religious organizations to have any part in helping kids get into the Foster Care system if as part of their beliefs (like most Christian’s do) they will not place kids in homes with 2 gay partners.

    Gov. Quinn cuts foster-care contracts with Catholic Charities over civil unions dispute

    BY DAVE MCKINNEY AND MITCH DUDEK Sun-Times staff reporters July 11, 2011 4:38PM
    SPRINGFIELD — Gov. Pat Quinn defended his administration’s decision to butt heads with his own religion Monday in a dispute over the Catholic church’s refusal to place any of the nearly 2,000 state wards it cares for with same-sex couples.

    On Friday and Monday, the Department of Children and Family Services notified Catholic Charities organizations in four suburban or Downstate dioceses that the agency intended to terminate their foster-care and adoption contracts with the state because of the church’s unwillingness to abide by Illinois’ new civil unions law.

    Peter Breen, a Thomas More Society lawyer who represents the three dioceses in the dispute, called the state’s termination of the diocesan foster-care and adoption contracts with DCFS “surprising and shocking.”

    “It just seems reckless to take almost 25 percent of the state’s foster children and rip them out of the agency that’s been caring for them. They’ve been caring for Illinois children for over 100 years,” Breen said.


    It’s sad to see how far we have regressed in such a short time in the name of “civil rights”. To quote our Democrat friends….What about the kids?

  7. Anonymoose says:

    Every day I get up and keep thinking, I don’t know this world. When I was a kid thirty years ago the idea of two men or two women getting married was a joke. Everyone knew that it was a man and a woman; that men and women were what made kids together and that our relationships were meant to work together because emotionally and psychologically what one had the other needed. It was both biologically and socially the way it was.

    But now? Nowhere has gay marriage passed by popular vote, it’s all been by legislative fiat. Some of these liberals I honestly wonder if they realize that any gay relationship is sterile; the only way to have kids is to adopt someone else’s or one of them has to cross the lines. And the type people they are—rather than a healthy complementary relationship most of the gay couples I’ve seen look so much alike they might as well be twins, which fits with their narcissism.

    Endless studies try to show how “normal” homosexuality is, how animals do it and the Romans did it and so on. The height of this hubris was at the Berlin zoo when two male penguins decided to play couple and tried to “hatch” a small rock as if it were an egg. The gays were calling in complaining how dare the zookeepers try to make them straight, let them be natural and normal and as they were. Go ahead, hatch a rock.

    Never speak your mind out against them; first thing out of their mouths is calling you hater, followed by accusing you of being gay in the closet. I’ve even seen one of them giggling as he made the accusation; the only kernel of truth in that is a few people who are filled with self revulsion will try to be the exact opposite of what they feel inside. You certainly don’t accuse anyone who doesn’t like a pedophile or a murderer of being one in the closet—but they do this so much it’s practically the norm now.

    Lost on them is when they finally do “out” someone they’re still one of them. What does that really say then? Try to counter any of their arguments and it’s, “Oh you really have an interest in us, don’t ya?” After 15 years of academics and extreme socialist liberals I know more than I ever wanted to without even trying.

    I agree with above, this isn’t about fairness or equality, but retribution; a hatred against the word because no matter how they try and twist things around and distort reality, in the end they can’t change what the mirror tells them.

    We’re so far gone on this I think it’s a lost cause; in a few years we’ll have all the laws and rules in place that no one will dare speak their mind and we’ll quietly go about our way. The real ugliness will begin when this Rainbow Coalition starts to unravel as without a common enemy of the straight white male establishment the various fractionated groups will start wanting more and competing with each other for a bigger piece of the pie.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »