Another Reason For Gay Marriage

(I know they’re just mounting up these days)

Okay, Repeat After Me:
“If you want the benefits of marriage, get Married!”

Such is the quote from Gay Marriage by Jonathan Rausch and his prediction that Marriage-Lite policies such as civil unions and domestic partners will actually erode marriage are coming true.

In Washington state, the 17th State to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, a heterosexual woman is suing her employer for not allowing domestic partner benefits coverage of her straight boyfriend. She’s actually suing under “persecution based on sexual orientation.”

Domestic Partner coverage is a benefit afforded by generous companies to their gay employees who have no other affordable way to cover the health needs of their families, since normally the benefits are only given to married people. The loophole, however, is that this easily entices straight people to the same benefit, which is all around more expensive.

I don’t know what her motivation is (weirdly, it’s cheaper for her to get married and divorced later), maybe to prove a point, maybe she really doesn’t want to get married but figures the benefit is useful for the time being, maybe marriage just isn’t that important … and in a society where we don’t hold the institution high by requiring it of ALL people, gay and straight, marriage WON’T be important for very long. Sanctity my eye.

We want the rights and responsibilities of marriage – we don’t want these half-hearted versions of the institution – let us be married.

Tags: , , ,
Permanent Link
 Filed under News-Etc
08/23/06 07:19 PM
by The Blogger
  1. John says (Aug 23, 09:59 PM ):

    I hope she wins. As it now stands laws which protect people from discimination based on sexual orientation are assumed to apply only to gay people. Once straights start using the law to their advantage the message will get through, and the courts will make it happen. All laws must apply equally to everyone.

    From there, it will be clearer that mrriage laws as well, must apply to everyone.
  2. This Gay Christian Blogger says (Aug 23, 11:49 PM ):

    I agree. We cannot stand to have two versions of one institution. There are advantages, rights, and responsibilities to saying to yourself, your mate, and society that you will be responsible to, take care of, pay for, pay with, and provide for in health, emotional, and logistical security of that person, so the rest of the world doesn’t have to.

    Businesses shouldn’t be forced to lose money because of the higher costs of domestic partnership benefits.

    Thing is, when this girl wins, the fundies will be in an uproar, never realizing that this is what they wrought. The response is either to realize that equality always works itself into American life, either through the institutions present or new ones – thus marriage equality will strengthen marriage. Or they can say “shut down all domestic partnerships” – which is much more likely, but will never fly. (And if it does, Canada needs our tax dollars ;-) )
  3. John says (Aug 24, 10:52 AM ):

    What the fundies don’t get is the law works very differently from their ideas.

    When the legislature writes a law, they do so in a vacuum. But the courts deal with real controversies between real people. That is the reason why “judge made law” is superior to legislature made law.
  4. Nakalan says (Sep 27, 12:32 PM ):

    Uh, gay marriage is stupid anyways, its not about being happy its about following the very first law that was ever created saying man needs WOMAN and visa versa how is it that two men together or two woman together could repopulate the earth…uh not possible.
  5. This Gay Christian Blogger says (Sep 27, 05:08 PM ):

    Nakalan,

    Welcome. I appreciate varied opinions being posted respectfully.

    You’ve raised a anthropological argument that says in order for the human race to survive, it must make babies. Biologically, yes – babies are (generally) a good thing. And biologically, yes, gay couples cannot make babies. But it also doesn’t take a civil/social institution to repopulate the earth – human beings are quite good at hooking up and making babies as the urge hits them. And with 6 billion people and climbing, I think as a species we’ve gotten the routine down. And while a gay couple can’t produce a child, they are certainly able to raise one of the hundreds of thousands of children who’s biological parents stopped at the “making” part.

    Moreover, we as a society do not typically say to couples that in order for them to be married, they must make babies. We do not require X number of children within the first 5 years of marriage or else the marriage is nullified. We do not tell sterile people they must remain forever single.

    You seem to expound on the standard argument by saying marriage is really only about making babies and that even the people’s happiness is not required. In that case, what IS the point of marraige? If we don’t even expect the married people to be happy, then why bother with all the hubbubabloo? Seems like big ol’ farms of pregnant women with knitting needles is more efficient. And what happens when the couple gets old and unable to produce children? Do we automatically dissolve their marriage regardless of whether or not they’re fond of each other?

    Probably the biggest question facing us in terms of marriage is not whether gay marriage should be legalized, but rather, what marriage is even for in the first place. From there we draw clear conclusions about legality and equality.
  6. oeuaiqafow says (Jul 17, 06:19 AM ):

    w53ySJ jbnjhkcavmnv, [url=http://cxquhoqmcfer.com/]cxquhoqmcfer[/url], [link=http://brxnwzezvgqr.com/]brxnwzezvgqr[/link], http://hprvyjfdegya.com/
 

From Around The Web ... Equality For All, The Fast Way