I have read and heard so many Christians talking about how
the LGBTQ community are mentally unstable, being pushed by Satan, fighting for
rights they already have, doing nothing but starting fights, forcing people to
live in sin, and so many other things. It makes to sick to my stomach. I am a
Christian and I would NEVER talk so negatively about someone just because they
are different than me. Christians like them are exactly what they are preaching
against. I am also getting sick and tired of seeing that the LGBTQ community is only pushing for same sex marriage rights. There are over ONE THOUSAND rights they are denied because of whom they chose to love. So below I am going to talk about some scriptures that are being interpreted to fit "Gay is a sin" people, show an image of a brain scan, and talk about some rights that are denied. I also will include (at the bottom) the links of where I found everything.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God he created him.
Therefor God himself is a little gay. God created
man (the human race) in his own image. Yet there are people out there that have
completely twisted this around to fit how they want it to fit.
1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you
were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Clearly spoken about homosexuals, they will inherit
the Lords Kingdom, meaning they WILL go to heaven. Sinners don’t go to heaven,
so obviously LGBTQ people are NOT sinners.
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a man as
one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be
put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"
(Leviticus 20:13).
Back then women were mans property and viewed as weak.
All this meant was that one man should not treat another man as they did women.
No man should be treated as property or weak. This means NOTHING about
homosexuality.
Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet
that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the
brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in
straight people of the opposite sex.
The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb
or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the
Karolinska
Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
"This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral
differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.
Previous studies have also shown differences in brain
architecture and activity between gay and straight people, but most relied on
people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such
as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces.
Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have
and gays and lesbians are denied:
- Joint
parental rights of children
- Joint
adoption
- Status
as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
- Right
to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
- Immigration
and residency for partners from other countries
- Crime
victims recovery benefits
- Domestic
violence protection orders
- Judicial
protections and immunity
- Automatic
inheritance in the absence of a will
- Public
safety officers death benefits
- Spousal
veterans benefits
- Social
Security
- Medicare
- Joint
filing of tax returns
- Wrongful
death benefits for surviving partner and children
- Bereavement
or sick leave to care for partner or children
- Child
support
- Joint
Insurance Plans
- Tax
credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
- Deferred
Compensation for pension and IRAs
- Estate
and gift tax benefits
- Welfare
and public assistance
- Joint
housing for elderly
- Credit
protection
- Medical
care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to
Married Couples
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and
protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
[1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as
only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if
legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of
federal law.
The following is a summary of several categories of federal
laws contingent upon marital status.
Social Security
Social Security provides the sole means of support for some
elderly Americans. All working Americans contribute to this program
through payroll tax, and receive payments upon retirement. Surviving
spouses of working Americans are eligible to receive Social Security payments.
A surviving spouse caring for a deceased employee’s minor child is also
eligible for an additional support payment. Surviving spouse and
surviving parent benefits are denied to gay and lesbian Americans because they
cannot marry. Thus, a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to
Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive
drastically unequal benefits, as set forth below.
Family Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits Eligible for
Surviving Parent Benefits
- Family
#1: Married husband and wife, both are biological parents of the child
- Eligible
for Surviving Child Benefits
- Eligible
for Surviving Parent Benefits
- Family
#2: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was the biological parent or adoptive
of the child
- Eligible
for Surviving Child Benefits
- Not
Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
- Family
#3: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor
able to adopt child through second-parent adoption
- Not
Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
- Not
Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
Tax
According to the GAO report, as of 1997 there were 179 tax
provisions that took marital status into account. The following is
a limited sample of such tax provisions.
Tax on Employer-Provided Health Benefits to Domestic Partners
In growing numbers, both public and private employers across
the country have made the business decision to provide domestic partner
benefits in order to promoted fairness and equality in the workplace.
For example, as of August 2003, 198 (almost forty percent) of the Fortune
500 companies and 173 state and local governments nationwide provide health
insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. Federal
tax law has not kept up with corporate and governmental who take advantage of
it are taxed inequitably.
As policymakers have put an increasing emphasis on
delivering health coverage through the tax code and as the cost of healthcare
has once again begun to skyrocket, the current inequities in the tax code have
placed a burden on the employers who provide healthcare coverage to domestic
partners and on the employees who depend upon these benefits to provide
security for their families.
1. Burden on Employees
Employers who provide health benefits to their employees typically pay a
portion of the premium – if not the entire premium. Currently, the
Code provides that the employer’s contribution of the premium for health
insurance for an employee’s spouse is excluded from the employee’s taxable
income. An employer’s contribution for the domestic partner’s coverage,
however, is included in the employee’s taxable income as a fringe benefit.
2. Burden on Employers
An employer’s payroll tax liability is calculated based on their employees’
taxable incomes. When contributions for domestic partner benefits
are included in employees’ incomes, employers pay higher payroll taxes.
This provision also places an administrative burden on employers by requiring
them to identify those employees utilizing their benefits for a partner rather than
a spouse. Employers must then calculate the portion of their contribution
that is attributable to the partner, and create and maintain a separate payroll
function for these employees’ income tax withholding and payroll tax.
Thus, the employers are penalized for making a sound business decision that
contributes to stability in the workforce.
Inequitable Treatment of Children Raised in LGBT
Households
Recent data shows that at least 1 million children are being raised by same-sex
couples in the United States. The Code contains competing
definitions of “child.” Certain provisions of the Code defining child
penalize for the marital status of their parents and caregivers.
1. Earned Income Tax Credit
Eligibility for the earned income tax credit (EITC) is based in part upon the
number of “qualifying” children in the taxpayer’s household. See
26 USC § 32. The definition of qualifying child under this provision
includes only a child who is the taxpayer’s (a) biological child or descendent;
(b) stepchild of the taxpayer; or (c) adopted child. Certain children of
lesbian and gay couples are disadvantaged by this provision. For
exampled, a taxpayer and their partner domestic are jointly raising the
partner’s biological child. The taxpayer works full-time and the child’s
legal parent stays home to care for the child. The state in which the
taxpayer resides does not permit them to adopt through second-parent adoption
or to marry the partner and become the child’s step-parent. This working
family is therefore ineligible for an adjustment of the EITC, and therefore has
decreased the resources to devote to the child’s care.
2. Head of Household Status
Heads of household, as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 2, are eligible for an increased
standard deduction that, among other things, provides taxpayers with increased
funds to care for their dependents. The “limitations” section of
this provision explicitly denies the benefit of head-of-household status to
taxpayers supporting non-biological, non-adopted children. Thus, a gay or
lesbian taxpayer who supports his or her partner’s child (and who is ineligible
to adopt the child) has fewer post-tax dollars with which to support the child.
3. Child Tax Credit
Taxpayers meeting income eligibility requirements are entitled to a credit
against tax for qualifying children in their households. This
provision limits the child tax credit to children who meet the relationship
test set fourth in the earned income tax provisions, § 32(c)(3)(B). As
set forth above, § 32 does not include children of a taxpayer’s domestic
partner if the children are not related to the taxpayer biologically or through
adoption.
All three of these inequities have the effect of penalizing
families who choose to have one parent in the work force and the other caring
for the children full-time. In addition, they disadvantage such
couples and their children by limiting the choice of which parent will be a
full-time caregiver. Although similarly situated married couples may
choose which parent will fulfill that role without consequence, lesbian and gay
couples, as well as other unmarried couples, face negative tax consequences for
the same decision.
Tax on Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer’s Principal
Residence
Under Internal Revenue Code §121, a single taxpayer may
exclude up to $250,000 of profit due to the sale of his or her personal
principal residence from taxable income. Married couples filing
jointly may exclude up to $500,000 on the sale of their home. Lesbian and
gay couples, who are not permitted to marry or to file jointly, are therefore
taxed on all gain above $250,000, creating a large tax penalty compared to
similarly situated married couples.
Estate Tax
Internal Revenue Code § 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse
from the decedent’s taxable estate. For same-sex couples who are
legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an
inequity in taxation.
Taxation of Retirement Savings
Under current law, when a retirement plan participant dies, plan benefits must
be distributed in a lump sum or remain in the plan to be distributed in
accordance with the minimum distribution requirements of § 401(a)(9).
This problem does not exist if the beneficiary is the deceased
participant’s surviving spouse, because the surviving spouse may transfer plan
benefits to an IRA or a retirement plan in which he or she is a
participant. This entitlement is valuable because (a) it allows the
surviving spouse to defer taxation of the proceeds, often until the survivor is
in a lower tax bracket; and (b) it protects the surviving spouse from being
forced to withdraw from an investment program when its value is
depressed. Because gay and lesbian couples are treated as strangers under
federal tax and pension law, they cannot transfer plan benefits without
incurring significant penalties, and do not have the flexibility to withdraw
funds when they choose. The example below demonstrates this inequity:
Michelle and Sarah have been in a committed relationship for
over 10 years. They have registered as domestic partners under the
laws of the District of Columbia. Throughout their relationship, they
have taken every legal step available to formalize their relationship and
protect themselves, legally and financially as domestic partners.
Michelle participated in her employer’s 401(k) retirement plans, naming Sarah
as the primary beneficiary. Sarah purchased an individual retirement
account (IRA). While driving to her job, Michelle is killed in a car
accident. Sarah does not have the option to transfer Michelle’s 401(k)
funds into her existing IRA because, under current law, only a “spouse” may
roll over 401(k) and inherited IRA plans upon the death of a plan participant.
Sarah must then take the entire proceeds of the inherited 401(k) in a lump sum
and pay taxes on them immediately at a much higher rate, rather than rolling it
over into her own name tax free as a surviving spouse can do.
Family and Medical Leave
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees family
and medical leave to employees to care for parents, children or spouses.
As currently interpreted, this law does not provide leave to care for a
domestic partner or the domestic partner’s family member. Family and
medical leave should be a benefit for all American workers.
Immigration Law
Currently, U.S. immigration law does not allow lesbian
and gay citizens or permanent residents to petition for their same-sex partners
to immigrate. Approximately 75% of the one million green cards or
immigrant visas issued each year are granted to family members of U.S. citizens
and permanent residents. However, those excluded from the definition,
under current immigration law of family, are not eligible to immigrate as
family. Such ineligible person include (but are not limited to) same-sex
partners and unmarried heterosexual couples.
Each year, current law forces thousands of lesbian and gay
couples to separate or live in constant fear of deportation. In
some cases, partners of lesbian and gays face prosecution by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), hefty fines and deportation and U.S. citizens
are sometimes left with no other choice but to migrate with their partner to a
nation whose immigration laws recognize their relationship. This creates
a tremendous hardship, not only for those involved, but for their friends and
family, and leads to a drain of talent and productivity for our country.
Fifteen countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South
Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognize lesbian and gay couples for the
purposes of immigration.
Employee Benefits for Federal Workers
According to the GAO Report, marital status affects over 270
provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, members of the
Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges. Most significantly,
under current law, domestic partners of federal employees are excluded from the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Although married
couples are eligible for reimbursement for expenses incurred by a domestic
partner are not reimbursable. As of August 2003, nine states and the
District of Columbia and 322 local governments offer health benefits to the
domestic partners of their public employees, while the nation’s largest
employer – the federal government – does not.
Continued Health Coverage (COBRA)
Federal law requires employers to give their former
employees the opportunity to continue their employer-provided health insurance
coverage by paying a premium (the requirement was part of the consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; hence the common name COBRA).
An increasing number of employers, including 198 of the Fortune 500, now offer
their employees domestic partner benefits. Although this trend is
encouraging, the Federal COBRA law does not require employers to provide
domestic partners the continued coverage guaranteed to married couples.
Under 29 U.S.C. § 1167, an employer is only required to offer continuation
coverage to the employee and to “qualified beneficiaries,” defined as the
employee’s spouse and dependent children, regardless of whether the employee’s
original benefits plan covered other beneficiaries. Because of the narrow
definition of “spouse” under federal law, employees are not guaranteed
continued coverage for their domestic partners. [2]
[1] Defense of Marriage Act: An Update to Prior
Report, General Accounting Office, 2004
[2] Nothing in this law prevents an employer from extending
COBRA benefits to domestic partners.
