Melissa Etheridge is angry.
In an article posted on The Daily Beast, Etheridge railed against the passing of Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 is, as you may know, a law which defines marriage in California as between a man and a woman. The law supersedes gay marriages in parts of the state, effectively making them null.
In response to the bill, Etheridge wrote of her relationship: “…she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.”
Etheridge went on to say that she could find another use for the approximate $500,000 that she now pays in taxes to the State of California and hints that perhaps a little civil disobedience is called for within the gay community. In a budget crisis such as California is currently experiencing, she notes that lost revenue would certainly be a hardship. So maybe, just maybe, the gay community in California should say no along with Etheridge to paying taxes…
Umm, no.
I do not understand Proposition 8. I love my husband and I don’t understand how the relationship of any other person (except for Luke Wilson, as mentioned before) threatens my marriage at all. I don’t feel the need to define, clarify or defend the sanctity of marriage. And I certainly don’t feel that it needs to be done through legislation. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t get gay married. I dunno, it all feels so silly.
All of that said, the idea of refusing to pay taxes as a result of the passage of Proposition 8 is equally silly (sorry, Melissa, love your records, hate your tax theory).
First of all, you don’t have to be a “full citizen” in the US (or most states) to be responsible for a share of the tax burden. The criteria in most taxing jurisdiction in the US is residency or source of income, not citizenship. So, from a tax compliance perspective, even if one could establish lack of citizenship, it would not excuse the need to file and pay taxes.
Even from a tax policy perspective, it’s not a good argument. The government is not perfect. There will always be unpopular legislation, courses of action that we feel are unfair and expenditures that we don’t agree with – consider the war in Iraq, for example. That doesn’t excuse us from paying for the services that we use – roads, schools, courts, police, fire and other infrastructure. Do I like it? No. But consider the potential chaos that we would face if we selectively paid taxes based upon how fair we think something is…
Yes, I get that this is a really big deal. I do. It does have the effect of legislating away rights that had been previously granted. And that sucks. But the voters did it, not the Governor, not the legislature. And the voters made it law.
And Etheridge and other members of the gay community in California have every right to be angry, to hate that this happened and to work to fix what they perceive as an infringement on their rights. And I’m sure that they will. We’ll see it again in court in California (a legal challenge has already been mounted) – as well as in Tax Court, where Charles Merrill has filed a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
But does that give the gay community a pass on paying their taxes in the meantime? No, it doesn’t.
Whereas civil disobedience has generally been regarded as an immediate method of attracting attention to a cause, Etheridge arguably has more wider and more efficient means of shining a light on her cause. Might I suggest she sing about it, talk about it, yell about it, write about it…? But not break the law for it. In this case, I can’t help but feel that two wrongs do not make a right.
Initial note: I’m a fan of yours and the following comment is intended with the greatest respect possible.
You are, of course, correct that citizenship isn’t a prerequisite for being legally responsible for paying taxes. I think, however, that that’s the entire point. The very idea of civil disobedience is refusal to obey a law.
Also, your final statement that “two wrongs doesn’t make a right” seems to equate legality with morality. Obviously, in most cases, breaking the law *does* mean that you did something that would generally be considered morally wrong. A central premise of civil disobedience, however, is the idea that just because something is the law, does not mean that it’s the ethical or moral thing to do.
Now, if you want to make the argument that not paying taxes is still an immoral thing to do based on the fact that it means others have to pay more, then I absolutely see where you’re coming from.
I’m with Melissa here.
Like you said, “…the voters did it, not the Governor, not the legislature. And the voters made it law.” The voters sent a clear message that they think gays are second-class citizens. Melissa has every right to say that she’s not going to be a second-class citizen. This is a very effective way to make such a point. I’m sure that she doesn’t mean to never pay state taxes again. Once the law is repealed I’d guess that she will repay all the taxes she didn’t pay.
If I didn’t believe that, then maybe this would be a much dumber stunt.
“In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law…That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
You might not think of taxation as an unjust law but then parade permits weren’t unjust laws either. That’s why Dr. King was in jail when he wrote the letter that this quote comes from.
If Ms. Ethridge and other organizations can pull together an organized, and I stress organized, tax protest then I would see that as an effort that exemplifies the higher purpose of the law and of American values. In this day and age when police are unlikely to sick police dogs on marchers, the movement needs more than some picket signs to get their point across. But at the same time they should be prepared to go to jail, have their property seized, and when the issue is resolved they should be prepared to pay their back taxes. But could you imagine the outcry if California’s most visible celebrities started going to jail for their cause?
If you’re not familiar with Letter from a Birmingham Jail you should read it. It’s basically the manifesto for civil disobedience as a method to challenge unjust laws.
I have a Great idea for Ms. Etheridge!
Move to a more accepting State.
Not an option for many of the people of CA, but for her it is.
Move her and her business to a state that is more accepting, and take her business with her. She is then able to deprive the State of the Taxes she does not wish to pay while rewarding a state that is more accepting of the life she wishes to live.
Prop 8 is stupid, but it is there now, and its going to take time to fix it. If those who care and can move, I suspect that it will begin to create a situation that others will notice.
It’s worth noting, of course, that even Dr. King paid his taxes. 😉
You can click here if you’re interested in reading about Dr. King’s tax evasion trial.
Dont Mess around with federal and state income taxes in the name of civil disobedience! You’ll end alone and in jail. Kelly, thanks for writing what I was thinking. You can be Canadian, Chinese, Brazilian, Australian, whatever, but if you live in a state, you’re subject to tax there. It may not be fair but that’s the way it is. Put your civil disobedience to work in a constructive way that will impact the law you don’t like. Dont Mess with taxes!
I could understand civil disobedience against something imposed by authorities that is apparently against the general will of citizens, in order to garner attention to the issue at stake. But in case of proposition 8 — as much as I hate it and I find it stupid (your “If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t get gay married” sums it up very well for me) — it’s the will of the people of California that you would be rebelling against. Not much point there.
OK, so Ms. Etheridge may have a point. She doesn’t consider herself to be a citizen. Let’s go all the way, she can no longer have support of our Judicial Stystem, so she is fair game for all law violators. She also does not have right to express her opinion as our citizens do, so lets throw her in jail for expressing those rights.
I could go on and on. Our armed forces will protect our citizens, but not her, etc. I think she is proving that she is a citizen, by expressing her opposition to Prop 8. How can she suddenly say she doesn’t have to pay taxes, because she is not a citizen of our great country.
I do not know if Prop 8 is fair or not. It is the law, voted on and passed by a majority of the citizens. If she doesn’t like the outcome, then campaign to overturn the ruling.
Heck, since I was against Obama, even though he was elected by our citizens to be the next president, I no longer have to pay income taxes, as I do not agree with the outcome. Same silly reasoning.
Imagine that in a couple of decades or longer and we have visitors from outer space. Will the government then say that marriage is between two humans? Actually they may need to say that now in case someone wants to marry a goat. It’s sad that they need to define marriage in the first place. I was under the impression that it had already been defined.But for taxes…well, it all really comes down to money now doesn’t it.
Not to mention that Ethridge’s argument is logically flawed.
“…she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen.”
Her rights are exactly the same as every other citizen’s. She can marry any man (short of incest, I believe) that she wants to, just like every other woman in California. She’s just throwing a temper tantrum because she can’t do what she WANTS to. Yeah, well, there are things that I WANT to do, that the law doesn’t let me do either, but you don’t see me getting all riled up.
I am not familiar with California Law as to these ballot referendum; however, I know she has no grounds to not pay her taxes. I have a compromise in mind however. She could move up to Washington and then refuse to pay her state income tax….
Melissa Etheridge has the right concept, but the wrong approach. Not paying her CA taxes while remaining in CA and enjoying the benefits of the state is tax fraud, and frankly, stealing. While I see her point, and wouldn’t have voted for Prop 8, the fact remains that it’s now CA law (interestingly, Obama supporters must have also supported this), and passed by a majority. If she really wants to make her case, she should move herself, her family, and her business activities to a state whose policies she wants to support. Taking the economic benefit and jobs she provides to CA elsewhere would make her point, without breaking the law.
Fine, then I’m not going to pay my taxes if they overturn Prop 8!!