Great idea. If there’s one thing that people sit up and take notice of, it’s money.
Maybe when America sees, in a way they can rerally relate to, how the discriminatory policies affect gay people, then they will be more supportive?
Either that or the taxpayers of Cambridge will get annoyed and lobby for the Federal government to extend the rights to gay people so their city taxes aren’t covering it?!
Here we go again! Political correctness playing into the hands of the far-right and the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church! The only people that the taxpayers of Cambridge will get annoyed with are gays getting what it seems preferential treatment. Should unmarried people get extra pay because they do not get spousial tax benefits? By all means campaign for fairer taxes for everybody but I do not want rights at the expense of other people’s. I too have been a victim of Political Correctness in my country where Christians are persecuted for disagreeing with same-sex marriage while the police stand by and do nothing when radical Muslim clerics call for the stoning of homosexuals!
“Political Correctness” is a term used by those who think they should be allowed to call others “n1ggers” and “faggots” un hindered. If you think “christians are persecuted for disagreeing with same-sex marriage” is a problem, then I assume you have major issues with white people in South Africa in 1980 being “persecuted” for wanting to treat black people as inferior. More “political correctness”? Or perhaps you are a fool. Its an arguable position.
Helen, as a Daily Mail Reader he/she/it is clearly a total idiot, so I shouldn’t waste your time if I were you.
“Daily Mail Reader he/she/it is clearly a total idiot”
Indeed, an understatement.
How can one read the Daily Mail in the darkness attendant on having one’s head lodged up one’s nether regions, dear Reader?
Gay Daily Mail Reader take a look at the article again. The city is not going to pay all its gay employees more simply because they are gay. I think if they adopted that policy Cambridge, Mass. would have their entire staff announcing they are gay.
It was the 22 – twenty-two – employees who registered their spouses for their benefit packages which the federal gov’t in the US taxes because as far as federal taxes and benefits are concerned gay married couples do not exist regardless of what state they live in.
All that the city is doing really is reimbursing back to those employees what they would have been entitled to if the federal gov’t recognised gay married couples and allowed the deduction.
Not many Daily Mail readers get past the headline and/or pictures. You’re wasting your time typing a message that long for these people. What you need is a haiku ie..
It’s only the gays
Who have registered spouses
Can’t you read moron
Admittedly that is three whole lines so I’m still not sure they can cope…
You are most likely right on that one but it just get me going when absolutely stupid are posted as if they were somehow true. Gone unanswered, someone is questioning or wavering will take it to be fact. I’ve always been of two minds on responses to these dolts.
That is : “stupid comments are posted.”
Just abolish the IRS and the income tax, that would solve this problem and many other problems.
The IRS is were the reptile alien lizard-people live and run their mind control operation. Its true, I read it on the internet.
I guess pepa must work for ‘em then!!
Could somebody please explain to me why married people should be taxed any differently than single ones?
It’s often said “it’s as easy to feed two people as one”, so a couple are actually better off in some ways than a single person. This concept of tax relief defies logic.
I’m still trying to comprehend the bizarre logic behind “married, but tax at HIGHER SINGLE RATE” (caps mine) – an option on one’s withholding form.
Seems fair to me.
Prehaps these people should stop looking to everyone by what they do in bed and treat all as equals as human beings.
Yeah. Except I’m better than you. :)
Bravo to Cambridge. How fitting that this particular blow against tax-based inequity should come from a city in Massachusetts (i.e., the same commonwealth that is home to Boston, site of a more widely-recognized revolt).
While this is no Tea Party (and that name has been debased by current political usage), it is, thankfully, also not a “Boston Massacre.”
I hope more and more US cities and states adopt similar strategies until DOMA is abolished and there is equal federal treatment for all states’ marriage arrangements. And I really love Massachussetts!
I am pleased to see that a council is taking the initiative for a change. Lately all I’ve been reading is how government agencies don’t bother to take action about injustices so perhaps there is hope left for us all.