Posted on 10/22/2003 11:10:48 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
This is sad for anybody.
This reminds me of the "domestic partnership" questions asked of Bill Simon in the 2002 CA gubernatorial campaign. His answers were usually too complex for the fast-paced, soundbyte-oriented media, and he probably shouldn't have gone into such detail.
I think he supported "domestic partnership" benefits if those partnerships were broadened to include other types of relationships, such as between family members. He implied nonsexual relationships, but the homosexual agenda clearly is pushing for special rights only for homosexuals. I think that instead of stopping domestic partnerships, Simon would have diluted the meaning of them so that they couldn't possibly be equated with marriage and companies/society wouldn't support many special benefits for domestic partnerships.
If an old widower who qualified for senior housing could live with his younger widower brother, their companionship could bring joy to both of them. But, if they aren't a homosexual domestic partnership, the 2nd brother might not be allowed to live there until he also qualified for the senior housing. Why should the sexually deviant have more privileges/benefits than any other pair of normal friends?
(Or, the government could stop subsidizing these programs.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.