The United States is a nation that has faced a variety of civil right uprisings; notably, one of the most recent civil rights movement s is the struggle for marriage equality for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans and Questioning (LGBTQ) population. In addition to the various moral dilemmas that arise from denying an entire population an equal right of citizenship, there are various financial and logistical inconsistencies that must be addressed. Marriage brings with it various service and tax benefits that are not accessible to member s of the LGBTQ population in states that do not allow them to marry a member of the same sex. Therefore, as remuneration, it is only symmetrical to grant self-identifying members of the LGBTQ population tax breaks and other benefits, not otherwise available to self-identifying, heterosexual citizens.
The Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) yielded a legal end to segregation by proclaiming that separate but equal is inherently unequal. In public doctrine, this would mean that any two policies that are separated or differentiated, for any particular population, are unequal. If the heterosexual population is granted the right to marry whom they love, throughout the country, and the LGBTQ population is not, both populations do not have the same rights of citizenship. If members of the LGBTQ population do not share the same rights and privileges of citizenship, then they should not be held as equally accountable for the responsibilities of said citizenship.
Being married grants many financial benefits to couples that are not otherwise accessible to unmarried individuals. Married individuals are entitled to lower federal tax rates and have more to gain from the retirement system, than those who are unmarried (Appleby, 2006). Money can only be contributed into an IRA account if the contributor has taxable income; however, money can be transferred into a Spousal IRA account for a spouse with no taxable income, by the one who has taxable income (Appleby, 2006). A spouse can also control the transfer of his/her spouse’s retirement accounts to a beneficiary (other than the spouse), to insure protection of qualified plans and property (Appleby, 2006). These benefits are not available to members of the LGBTQ population, who are not legally able to get married.
The United States Pledge of Allegiance states that we are, “[…] one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” (Bellamy, 1892). Therefore, it is our civil obligation to insure that all receive some sort symmetrical treatment. If marriage equality will not be granted, reparations must be made to individuals who are denied the right to marry. Forbes Magazine reporter Tom Van Riper (2006) found that married couples pay less federal and Social Security taxes—with married couples paying 29% of their salaries and single people paying 35% of my salaries. It is therefore my proposal that self-identifying LGBTQ members are awarded an additional 6% federal tax break in states that do not allow marriage equality.
