In response to the point/counterpoint columns on Aug. 30.
In response to the Aug. 29 counterpoints about gay marriage, I think one big elephant in the room was ignored in the form of the following question: Why on earth should the government, federal or state, be regulating the institution of marriage to begin with? Marriage is a private contract between two (or more) consenting individuals (spare me the moral relativism). Even worse, my taxes are used to subsidize particular marital economic benefits.
Traditionalists will argue that married couples have children they must support, so society must make some sacrifice to strengthen the family base. Now, call me a batty old cynic — but I’m not convinced. If you decide to procreate, by all means go ahead. It’s your choice. You just want to be left alone to exercise your familial and reproductive liberties, right? Wrong. Apparently I have to be a part of this joyful activity too, through taxation. Your “right” comes at my inconvenience. Your personal choice to procreate translates into my debt; sorry, but I don’t buy this proposition.
So if you’re going to coerce me into this involuntary pact, then I get to stipulate some conditions. For one, in the spirit of defending the nuclear family, the distribution of marital tax breaks can’t be based on sexual orientation. That’s the rule. If your parents give you an allowance, they dictate how you spend it. I’m directing the transaction to you, so my taxes will be spent on your “family values” the way I want it to: in a civilly libertarian way. Don’t like it? Then leave me alone on tax day. Don’t ask for my citizenly contribution. Take my suggestion to completely withdraw the government from the institution of marriage altogether, by promoting individual liberty and opposing tyranny.
Ahmed Barakat
Graduate Student
