One of the prevailing arguments against homosexual marriages regards tax breaks for married couples. Proponents of this argument claim that if America grants homosexuals marriage rights, less total taxes will be collected from the homosexual population as gays rush to claim income tax deductions. This means that a higher percentage of Average American's taxes will, necessarily, be used by the government, some of which inevitably will be used to the benefit of homosexuals. Thus, by "subsidizing" homosexuality in this indirect way, Average Americans will be forced--via government expenditure of their tax contributions--to condone and even sponsor homosexual behavior, such as driving down public roads, studying in public schools, or watching PBS.

Average Americans do not feel that homosexuals should be rewarded with the tax breaks that come with marriage. Worse than simply rewarding homosexuals, the Average American is concerned that if we grant tax breaks to all the homosexuals who would marry, the American Government will not be able to collect enough revenue to sustain itself. In the minds of Average Americans, keeping the homosexual population single--and thus their tax deductions minimized--is the one source of tax revenue that is keeping our great nation afloat.

As an American patriot pondering this issue, I realized that to truly preserve America and the American Way we must ensure that tax revenue is never threatened. This led me to the question: Why stop with the homosexuals? As marriage is a right conferred solely by the government for the purpose of rewarding Average citizens with tax breaks, and the government's main purpose is its own self-perpetuation by means of tax generation and the continued establishment and preservation of Family Values™, we must make absolutely sure that only the most Average Americans are receiving the tax breaks so that we do not fall into an economic quagmire (because that would lead to a budget deficit or worse--increasing taxes for the rich).

With this in mind, I have created the following list which details other groups or individuals who, for the reasons described, are too expensive to provide tax breaks to. These groups and individuals should be banned from marriage, preferably with a Constitutional Amendment, to ensure tax revenue, minimize loss, and preserve Family Values™.

1. Interracial Couples
All interracial couples should be banned from marriage. Poverty--here measured by the U.S. Census and defined as "not earning enough money to pay worthwhile amounts of income tax" is higher for Hispanics and Blacks than it is for Average Americans (i.e., White Americans). For Hispanics the poverty rate is 21.9 percent and for Blacks it is 24.7 percent, compared to only 8.6 percent for Whites. This means that, statistically speaking, interracial marriages tend to combine middle class and lower class income brackets in one family, thus paying less taxes in what essentially amounts to a double tax break for interracial married couples! Furthermore, recent studies have shown that efficiency in government offices drops to a fraction of its Average level whenever paperwork indicating interracial marriages arrives for processing. Average Americans who staff the government offices cannot help but notice (and be chronically distracted) when traditionally Average names--such as Nicole Brown--appear on the same marriage certificate as non-Average names--such as O.J. Simpson. The cost in lost efficiency alone is enough to make this Amendment to the Constitution necessary.

In addition to barring interracial marriage, the IRS should be given grants to begin audits of all interracial marriages that have taken place since 1950.

2. Midgets, Little People, Dwarves, and Others of Diminutive Stature
As has been very well documented by medical science, midgets, little people, dwarves, and others of diminutive stature show much higher rates of disability and disease, thus costing the tax payers more money than those of Average stature. While this discrepancy in income-tax-dollars-paid and government-expenditure was effectively negated pre-1960's by corporate taxes on Side Shows, Carnivals, and The Wizard of Oz movies, the extinction of said tax-generating businesses has transformed midgets, little people, dwarves, and others of diminutive stature into colossal drains on the government's resources. As shortness and other diminutive-stature traits are genetic, we cannot allow these individuals to continue marrying each other because, as stated by the proposed Family Values™ Constitutional Amendment, the only purpose of marriage is child bearing, and we cannot allow this tax-draining mutation to continue perpetuating itself.

3. Overweight People
Overweight people (defined by the U.S. Census as anyone who weighs more than Paris Hilton) should be banned from marriage for three reasons: First, like midgets, little people, dwarves, and others of diminutive stature, overweight people are more prone to disease and thus cost the Average American more tax money. Second, overweight people tend to have overweight children, which not only perpetuates the cost to the Average taxpayer, but over time increases the overall percentage of overweight people, exponentially increasing their cost to Americans. Third, according to the U.S. Census, overweight people are showing an increasing tendency to wear revealing clothing such as belly shirts and Speedo's. This disturbing tendency is the leading cause of auto accidents, diminishing fast food sales, and loss of tourism, especially in Florida.

4. Anyone Collecting Social Security, Workman's Comp, or other Government Benefits
Since anyone actively collecting social security or Worker's Compensation benefits is a drain on the government's resources, any and all marriages in which one or both members are collecting such benefits should be immediately annulled. Couples whose benefits cease at some point---either by returning to work in the case of Worker's Comp or by a member's death in the case of Social Security Benefits--are welcome to remarry as long as they pay all applicable fees and taxes for their new paperwork.

5. Liberals
Liberals constantly demand that the government spend more and more of its money on silly ideas such as improving education, providing healthcare, and protecting the environment. However, as liberals are not republicans, they do not make much money and thus do not contribute significantly to income tax revenues. Since liberals tend to have liberal children, all of which earn liberal arts degrees on the governments dollar, all of which suck up as many government benefits as they can, and all of which end up working in non-for-profit tax-exempt corporations that spend all of their time and manpower forcing the government to spend even more money, each generation of liberals costs the Average American more and more while contributing less and less. Thus, all liberals should be banned from marriage and be conscripted to work in an oil refinery, meat packing plant, or lumber yard for a period of no less than five years.

07/08/2006

Author's Note: Still in rough draft stage.

Post-Script: I hope it's pretty obvious by the time I make the reference to "homosexual behaviors" (i.e., watching PBS), that this essay is satirical. The argument proposed by some folks--regarding income tax deductions and the implication that it is a round-about "sponsoring" of "immoral" behavior (because the "family values" argument is vague and weak and separation of church and state invalidates any religious ones)--is one that I actually have heard, hence this essay lambasting it.

I would appreciate hard criticism on this piece; however, I ask that any and all criticism be focused on the writing (i.e., structure, development, grammar, timing, etc.) and not on the politics. I did not post this here to get into an argument with you about gay marriage. As far as I am concerned, there is no argument. I am absolutely right regarding adults' rights to marry other adults, and anyone who thinks the U.S. Constitution should be used to ban rights (as opposed to protecting rights) is living in the wrong country. I posted it here in the hopes of improving my writing, not in the hopes of listening to arbitrary and invalid arguments to the contrary.

Posted on 07/08/2006
Copyright © 2024 Richard Paez