Melissa Etheridge Says She Isn't Going to Pay California Income Taxes

Submitted by Fern R on Fri, 11/07/2008 - 4:44pm

Ms. Etheridge claims that because Prop 8 (constitutionalizing the traditional definition of marriage) passed, she has lost one of the rights of full citizenship, and therefore shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Good luck with that.

Beyond being a really dumb argument that won't have the effect Ms. Etheridge wants, citizenship status has no bearing on your obligation to pay taxes on income earned in California.

Fern R's blog

Add new comment

1339 reads

Domestic Policy

That's right up there with

Submitted by Generation Patriot on Fri, 11/07/2008 - 5:42pm.

That's right up there with blaming Mormons for the Prop 8 passage when more blacks and latinos voted for it. I guess it's easier to attack Mormons in Westwood than protest in East LA.

http://generationpatriot.blogspot.com
http://newconservativeunderground.blogspot.com

What's really funny

Submitted by Fern R on Fri, 11/07/2008 - 5:48pm.

...is that the protesters out there in front of the Mormon temple keep on saying that Obama is going to bring change and support them, but Obama is on the record as supporting the traditional definition of marriage. They're projecting their hatred onto the Mormons because they don't like the LDS Church's teachings in general, and ignoring the fact that their choice for President feels the same way as the LDS Church because they like him in general. The Prop 8 protests are just an opportunity for the left to attack religious groups they don't like. It doesn't have anything to do with Prop 8.

--Fern

Wow, that's just bizzarre. Yeah, good luck with that. Melissa.

Submitted by Rafique on Fri, 11/07/2008 - 9:51pm.

BTW, haven't heard from you in a while, Fern. Glad to have you back. :-)

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Hey Rafique!

Submitted by Fern R on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 3:54am.

I was avoiding politics for a long time. I took the "stick your head in the sand until its over" approach. ;-)

I don't know how big the Prop 8/gay marriage news is in the rest of the country, but it is really in your face here. Not responding so as to not start a fight with coworkers/family is starting to get old. So here I am! :-)

--Fern

Actually........

Submitted by Megan in California (not verified) on Fri, 11/07/2008 - 8:22pm.

Obama has gone ON RECORD saying that he opposed prop 8. And the ignorant people with Prop 8 LIED and used him to tell people he was for it.

And the reason they targeted the Mormon church (although I'm not for it) is that they, as an institution, financed 75% of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Without their funding they never would have won. Never.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign was one of the most manipulative ones I've ever witnessed.

And the protests are not attacking, they are fighting for their rights. Their fundamental rights that literally just got taken away from them, along with making them second class citizens, separate from the rest of "the norm." And you are just as ignorant if you believe it is okay for California to go along with allowing the proposition as law, or that we shouldn't be fighting. Are you people even in California?? LA??? Obviously you know nothing about what is really going on here.

I say, GO MELISSA ETHERIDGE!!! She Damn Right!

The church didn't put one

Submitted by Generation Patriot on Sat, 11/08/2008 - 9:09am.

The church didn't put one cent into the Yes movement. They encouraged their members to donate and give their time. Big diff.

Oh, btw, the gays that protested against the Mormons were calling blacks that cross their path "n*****s" and saying they were "disappointed with black people". I used to live in LA and I'd never seen such hate ANYWHERE until I saw the videos and pics of that protest. I'm an atheist, but I will not tolerate such blatant racism and hypocrisy.

Little lady, if you ever want to be taken seriously, you need to open your eyes to the fact that these fanatics aren't the victims of bigotry, but the root of leftist intolerance.

PS Marriage is a PRIVILEGE regulated by the state, NOT A RIGHT.

http://generationpatriot.blogspot.com
http://newconservativeunderground.blogspot.com

I hate the term "little

Submitted by Jamie (not verified) on Sat, 11/08/2008 - 5:56pm.

I hate the term "little lady", she may be quite large for all you know and not be a lady.

Marriage is considered one

Submitted by SimonsWife on Sat, 11/08/2008 - 10:51pm.

Marriage is considered one of those "human rights" in those commercials...
http://www.hrw.org/universal.html

You might disagree with it being a basic human right, but I really can't see why someone would say it's a "privilege."

*Yes, really, Simon's wife. Envy or pity me. ;)

Tradition, religion and privilege

Submitted by Tyler359 on Sat, 11/08/2008 - 11:17pm.

Certainly the institution of marriage is rooted in tradition and religion. The joining of a man and a woman in a formal union. Privilege does fall into the historical context as well. Privilege is also defined as a "grant to an individual(s) of special rights". In this case, maybe more a special label.

I don't have a problem of civil unions, recognized by our government, so that the individuals involved can have the same issues dealt with that I enjoy, health care, wills, medical issues, etc.

I do have a problem with having to redefine a tradition that has survived thousands of years of common acceptance throughout the world. Or, I have failed to understand this crucial need of redefinition. Or, I'm just a stick in the mud.

Be gentle with comments please. :)

__________
Have a better one.

I've yet to hear someone

Submitted by C Stanley on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 7:28am.

I've yet to hear someone criticize this position as I've stated it in some of these blog discussions.

Get the state out of the 'marriage business' altogether and the problem goes away. The problem with saying that marriage is granted by the state for specific purposes that support the traditional definition of marriage as 'one man, one woman' is that our divorce laws have long made a mockery of that anyway, and when you add in the sexual revolution and biotechnology which culturally dissociated sexual unions from procreation and parenthood, and it no longer makes sense to say that the state sanction of particular types of marriage is logical to support stable families.

The only solution that makes sense to me is to make all state sponsored marriages into civil unions, a contract which would be available to heterosexual and homosexual couples. Naturally many people would still call this a marriage and they can't and shouldn't be prevented from doing so, but what matters is that the state doesn't call it a marriage.

Churches then are free to determine which unions are in accord with their religious and moral teachings. This separation and semantical differentiation is so important becuase state sanctioned marriage for homosexuals, IMO, would soon lead to pressure on churches to marry homosexuals in their churches (lest they be deemed discriminatory.)

Whenever I've explained this position, I usually get comments from both sides that this makes sense but people don't believe it will ever happen. I say it's more likely than the more extreme positions of each side- either banning all gay unions or sanctioning gay marriage by the state.

me too

Submitted by bucyrus on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 10:25am.

Me too. The only counterargument I ever get is that people won't accept that.

But it renders things so elegantly between God and Caesar that I think we ought to keep shopping it.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

And the even more amusing

Submitted by Jim M on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 10:52am.

And the even more amusing thing is that no one has even tried to put this forward that I am aware of. I truly suspect that there is a large number of people who would consider this just fine and preferable. I consider my self in this category.

do the experiment

Submitted by bucyrus on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 7:43pm.

I hope someone puts it forward seriously just so we can see where we are at. I suspect there are a large number of people who would be persuaded by it. But nothing close to a majority. Some folks are sort of anti-change in their entitlement to majority privileges just because they've always had 'em. I can see these antis joing orbit with other planets of complaint in the solar system that, for example, the "war on christmas" orbits.

Which is not to say that all or even most religious conservatives would be against it. To the contrary, I have blogchatted with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 6 different folks who seemed fairly religious and who thought it made perfect sense.

But there are at least some religious conservatives who really DO want the government in the sanctifying business. Roy Moore Fan CLub members, I guess you could call 'em.
______
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

In the end, this may just be

Submitted by Jim M on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 11:05pm.

In the end, this may just be a battle that ends with generational change in much the same way race is less of an issue for the young, I suspect this issue will also fade. Not that it is a comfort to anyone involved right now.

Agree- I'd like to see some

Submitted by C Stanley on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 8:05am.

Agree- I'd like to see some numbers on this. Of course you're right about some hard nosed religiots- but actually I get the sense that they're outnumbered by their counterparts, the homosexual activists. It seems to me that even people who aren't militant about gay rights have this sense that there's an injustice in not legally calling a gay union a marriage (I recall Ellen's conversation with McCain when he was on her show- it was a good exchange that showed that she wasn't likely to accept the civil union compromise, even though she doesn't come across as a zealot on gay rights- and McCain expressed a sincere agreement to disagree on the issue.)

Oh, and in some recent blog discussions of the Prop 8 thing, some folks are saying that CA still would allow civil unions but the gay rights crowd is protesting specifically because marriage is being banned. Is that true? If so, seems that this shows that they're really all in for the extreme position, wanting to legislate opinions on the morality rather than just equalize the civil rights.

But more to the point- among people who aren't stakeholders to either extreme, I get the impression that the moderate middle really gets the compromise position and would back it.

I don't think marriage is a privilege or a right

Submitted by Fern R on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 3:48am.

PS Marriage is a PRIVILEGE regulated by the state, NOT A RIGHT.

Marriage is a religious covenant. The state has taken the word "marriage" and applied it to the rights and responsibilities it transfers to people through its "marriage" certificate. But that doesn't mean what the state offers is marriage. The state offers domestic partnerships and calls the marriages.

Which is what is so funny about Prop 8. All Prop 8 did was say that you can't call gay domestic partnerships marriage. Doing so doesn't change a single right enjoyed by gay couples in California. They can create a domestic partnership in CA and get every single right CA has to offer. All the vitriol and protesting and ridiculousness is over semantics.

Melissa Etheridge is threatening to withhold her taxes over a word.

--Fern

Last I looked....

Submitted by Tully on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 8:44pm.

Last I looked, marriage was not IN LAW a religious covenant. I was not married in a church, but in a civil ceremony presided over by a judge. You wish to tell me I am NOT married, have not been for the last twenty-plus years? Heh. Beg to differ.

Regardless of that objection, yeah, Etheridge is going ape over a word, when all the exact same legal rights are available to her, just without the label.

Yes, Tully- you're a

Submitted by C Stanley on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 8:16am.

Yes, Tully- you're a fornicator! ;-)

It seems to me that the secular and religious traditions of marriage grew side by side but have now diverged. It's time to formalize the schism, and changing the semantics is part of that IMO. That language shift can't be enforced by law and shouldn't be- but the state should cease and desist from calling the unions it sanctions marriage. You and your family (and other secularly married couples, and homosexual couples) can and would still call it what you want. But having the license change its wording would be a protection against churches being sued for infringing rights when they don't marry couples who aren't marrying according to their church's teachings.

I would call that...

Submitted by Tully on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 8:57am.

Why? The state has as much claim to the term as any church. I would call that suggestion some serious supporting evidence for the contention that religionists are trying to breach the wall between church and state. The idea that only a CHURCH can create a marriage is utterly bogus, the idea that one must be religious to get married or be married is likewise utterly bogus. Marriage is a social institution that crosses all religious lines, all societies. Since it creates legal obligations that only the state can legally enforce, the state can and should continue to hold that licensure power, unless the legal contract of marriage be eliminated entirely.

Likewise, I cannot see churches being sued for failing to perform a ceremony that has zero meaning outside of the legal obligations of the state-enforced contract. The act of the church has no force in law outside of that contract, the church is free to preside over and approve (or not) of any ceremony it chooses to.

(PS, Christine: Fornicator? That's defamation when applied to a married person, you know! Per se, even, in my state.)

good point

Submitted by bucyrus on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 9:15am.

That's a good point Tully, I was having some of the same thoughts. Problem is, it's both a social AND a religious institution.

How would you feel if instead, the gov't and society at large got to keep the word marriage but some way other way was found to preserve (or if already safe, make this clear) the rights of churches to decline to approve of marriages they did not approve of? Thinking (and asking) out loud here.

While I agree pretty strongly with your basic point that it would be a shame for regular folks to be shorn of use of marriage to describe their unions due to zealots, I'd be willing to sacrifice it if it meant that we could sidestep another decade or two of fighting about it.

Especially if the alternative is to share in participation in an "institution" that willfully excudes folks who I feel deserve to be included. Thankfully, it's not an issue in MA. I think one has to consider the MA gay marriage case when talking about the rectitude of the people versus of the courts deciding on various issues. Now clearly, the decision-making process was not especially democratic. And some feathers have been ruffled. I wasn't all that thrilled with how our joke of a legislature used procedural chicanery to keep the decision from the people's direct judgement. But I don't see or hear much complaining, and when I do, it's among older folks. So the forecast is that when another 10 or 20 years passes and those older folks are dead, we'll probably be 95% or more of the way to routine acceptance, even if the process was not as legitimate as many folks would prefer.

It'll be interesting to see whether in 10 or 20 years folks are still battling it out in other states.

_________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

That's defamation Yikes!

Submitted by C Stanley on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 9:50am.

That's defamation

Yikes! Seriously? Where's that edit button...

Anyway, I get your point but it still seems to me that splitting the baby with the semantics is the best way for gays to move the issue because it diffuses the actual concern that religious people have- and then you'd have to make hetero secular unions civil unions too in order to avoid a 'separate but equal is not equal' challenge, no?

Yep--look up the definition

Submitted by Tully on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 11:10am.

Yep--look up the definition of "fornicator" amd the conditions for per se presumption of damages from defamation (varies by state, of course).

Not being the attorney around here, I cannot answer your question with any authority. But politically speaking it's a complete and total dead end--you propose to take something away from everyone else while providing nothing new to anyone save an exclusivity in labelling hooked to religious affiliation, surely a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The church (ANY church) is welcome to define marriage for itself, and free to do so. The state has its own definition, and that's the one that's legally binding, with absolutely no regard to what any church anywhere thinks, and that's the one the fight is about. If the Catholic church wishes to consider a marriage annulled, that does not dissolve that marriage in the eyes of the law, only in the eyes of the church, and the judge will not take it as an excuse for not sending the alimony check.

Well, my argument is more

Submitted by C Stanley on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 11:20am.

Well, my argument is more logical than political- that the twin institutions of secular and religious marriage are Siamese twins that have outgrown their ability to coexist under one conjoined body of the word.

Politically, even if you're right, I'd still fall back on one key point in my strategy and defend it as the most likely for success- and that would be for the gay rights activists to find ways to reassure their political opponents of the veracity of your last paragraph (that religious groups would retain their freedom to marry whomever they please and refuse sacramental marriage to those who don't meet their criteria for the rite.) Their tactics have employed a completely different mindset though, behaving as though anyone who opposes them couldn't possibly have a valid concern and instead must be motivated by bigotry.

publicity versus belief

Submitted by bucyrus on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 10:20am.

I agree that Etheridge won't and shouldn't have any luck not paying taxes. Seems to me the folks who lost on Prop 8 plan to at least try to keep up a long loud stink. And there's nothing more American than that. This might be more PR than belief.

The church didn't put one cent into the Yes movement. They encouraged their members to donate and give their time. Big diff.

I agree that it's an important substantive legal difference as things have traditionally been reviewed. But a BIG difference? I'm agnostic on that. Strongly encouraging your members on very specific political actions looks, sounds, and smells like political advocacy of some sort. Further, it's not technically true the church "didn't put one red cent into the movement." They paid the folks in their pulpit to advocate as they did. Against prop 8.

Maybe the best solution is to get rid of those troublesome tax exemptions for some "churches" and make 'em play by the same rules as all the other "churches"of ideology. Perhaps that's a better route for Etheridge and her fellow protestants to take.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

I'll believe that when you provide a link to a credible source

Submitted by Fern R on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 3:38am.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." [emphasis is mine]

It's kind of hard to be opposed to prop 8 and think that marriage should be between one man and one woman. But hey, stranger things have happened.

--Fern

These protests show what is

Submitted by Civisi (not verified) on Sat, 11/08/2008 - 7:49am.

These protests show what is fundamentally wrong with the US society: a minority of people think they can control and regulate what everyone else can do or should do. The fact is that the people who are in favor of same-sex marriages are in the minority. The proof is when the majority of voters in California voted against same-sex marriages. And now that that minority isn't getting their way, they're protesting because the democratic system is working.

Laws reflect the ideals and norms of the society in which they're created, and as society changes, the laws should change to reflect that. Apparently, the law changed and many members of that society felt it was wrong. Rather than sit back and let the state take a trip in the proverbial handbasket, they took a stand, fought back, and succeeded.

And in regards to Melissa Etheridge or any other celebrity: I could care less what she thinks or what she says she will or will not do.

This oughta be fun

Submitted by RM on Sun, 11/09/2008 - 10:11am.

Why do I sense a "Sean Penn with a rowboat" moment?

Rachel

I brew the beer I drink

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Search

Melissa Etheridge Says She Isn't Going to Pay California Income Taxes

Recent comments

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Who's online

Centerfield

The Volokh Conspiracy

Edward Tufte

Scrappleface