Right now the state of Iowa is going through an interesting time at the statehouse in Des Moines. Let me start off by saying that I consider myself a Republican. I prefer politicians to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I also like to see the Constitution, both of the state of Iowa and the United States of America, followed as it is written.
There are two debates raging through the state government that has people divided. One deals with the state Supreme Court ruling last Friday that a law banning homosexual marriage goes against a section of the state Constitution. The other deals with a change in Iowa's tax code; the legislature wants to remove the deduction of our federal taxes from our state return. I will touch on that one first.
I am not a tax professional and in no way do I know much about the tax code. I do know that something smells a little fishy about this change. The Democrats in Des Moines have created a budget that includes a $600 million "short-fall" (aka over spending) and they need to figure out how to balance the budget. Unfortunetly the government has two options, raise taxes or cut spending, while families only have one option when faced with this scenario, cut spending. The Democrats are telling the people that the planned change will create a tax cut for 60% of Iowans and another 15% will see no change in their taxes. I'm sure that Molly and I will land in the 60% in 2009 but will this really be a tax benefit in the future? And why do the "richest" 25% of the population have to pay for the shortfall? This is one of the most unfair tax changes ever. There is no reason to single out a group of people to pay for excess spending. What this will end up doing is driving the higher earners from the state and then the government will have to lower the threshold and it will affect people who might have a harder time affording things. I still stand behind the thought of getting rid of the income tax altogether and making the money from a higher sales tax that is charged on NEW non-grocery items (used items other than vehicles are exempt).
The other big debate is the legalization of homosexual marriage. This is where I am somewhat socially liberal. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling 100%. Everyone in this great country has the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a man's pursuit of happiness involves the marriage to another man why should it be stopped? The biggest benefit of this ruling is that it now provides homosexual couples with the same "benefits" that heterosexual marriages have (taxes, employment benefits, etc.). I cannot stand hearing the church people that are against the ruling. Yes I am a Christian minister and I am for this ruling. My belief is that all people are created equal by God. The minute you make a law that discriminates in any way, shape, or form you have defied God. Yes the Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman but, honestly, to some people the only entities that matter with the marriage are their employer and the state. Last I knew church and state were supposed to be separate. If your church and/or pastor/minister doesn't think two men or two women should be wed then they should refuse to do the service. I have the option to perform a homosexual marriage but the Community of Christ will not recognize it as a marriage on the church level (last I knew). There is also the argument that this will compromise the covenant of heterosexual marriage. How can that be? I feel my marriage in no way has been compromised by this ruling. None of the arguments that can come from the opponents can sway me and none of them make much sense on a governmental level.
I truely hope that both of these issues die with the end of the legislative session approaching. We have a lot of other things to worry about in the state than trying to make up for excess spending and whether two men, or two women, should be able to legally be married. Maybe I should run for office so that I can right some of the wrongs. Then again I don't need that kind of stress. We'll see what the future holds.
No comments:
Post a Comment