Lane Tracy: Linking taxation to marriage

Regarding the July 8 letter “Immoral governing”: The letter writer presented a fine argument, based on the words of John Adams, that our Constitution depends upon an expectation that moral principles will prevail.

History tells us that some of the authors of the Constitution weren’t particularly in agreement on moral principles. Yet I don’t doubt that concurrence with some moral principles was expected.

The writer then argued that the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage somehow “will emasculate the free exercise of religion granted by the First Amendment.” Congress, for better or worse, destroyed that argument decades ago when it incorporated government-approved marriage into our federal income tax structure. In so doing Congress automatically discriminated against the families of couples who were not allowed to marry, treating those families as if they did not exist as economic units. Moralists should feel truly ashamed of our nation for treating its citizens in this discriminatory fashion.

I know of no basis in moral principles for tying taxation to marriage. For same-sex couples it was a case of “taxation without representation.” The Supreme Court has now corrected that error by allowing such families to be officially recognized. But don’t call it marriage if that will make everyone feel better.

This story was originally published July 18, 2015 at 2:00 PM with the headline "Lane Tracy: Linking taxation to marriage."