SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CARRIES BIG PRICE TAG (financial consequences)

WASHINGTON - Inspired by the sexual revolution of their times, humorist James Thurber and stylist E.B. White wrote a short romp titled, "Is Sex Necessary?"

The answer in 1929, as now, is: Not necessarily; or, not in the ways one used to think, and not between the folks your folks told you about.

I remember the story about a bride and groom on their wedding night. The bride complained to her man about the absence from their nuptial chamber of bluebirds and lilies. Her mother told her that bluebirds and lilies were where babies came from.

The moral of the story, then as now, is that they never tell you about the difficult part.

Now, talk of same-sex unions, gay marriages and a constitutional amendment barring same is all the rage.

This, of course, has triggered a new battle in the ongoing culture war, with outrage against the destruction of our country clashing with calls from sea to shining sea for tolerance, love and understanding for same-sex pairings.

Neither side in this era of the sound-bite and the quick rhetorical trigger is talking about the difficult part of the story.

And that is: Whatever is done to meet this new development is going to require moving a great deal of legal and regulatory furniture to accommodate these new couples. It is also quite likely to cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

Right now, there are 1,138 federal laws in which marital status is a factor in determining a person's eligibility for federal benefits, rights and privileges.

The biggest ticket listed in a report by the General Accounting Office for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is Social Security. Frist, by the way, supports a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages.

A question looming just around the corner is whether the unvested member of a same-sex partner who is vested to get Social Security benefits will be entitled to get a portion of the vested partner's benefits.

Today, a woman may get Social Security payments based solely on her husband's benefits, even while her spouse still is alive. As a wife, she is entitled to those payments irrespective of how little she may have made in the working world.

If she survives her husband, she will be entitled to survivor's benefits. Will a same-sex partner be automatically entitled to the same treatment when and if same-sex marriages are validated by some, or all of the states?

Among the other hundreds of benefit programs affected by marital status are Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, death benefits for public safety officers, veterans' survivors, federal pensions and charitable trusts for members of the armed forces, and medical and dental care for families of members of the armed forces.

Then there are the rules for eligibility for housing, and housing assistance programs.

Beyond the big programs that carry an obvious price tag, there are specialized ones that will have to be adjusted as well: Compensation for people injured in nuclear defense work, grants for domestic violence and the endless maze that is our tax code.

Add to this the even larger body of state laws defining what marriage is, and there is a lot of work on the horizon for lawyers, the courts, federal administrative law judges, state legislatures and Congress.

Law has always adjusted to society, and it will continue to. The question is how quickly, how peaceably and how well?

In the midst of all the emotions flaring on both sides of the issue, it is best to keep a cold eye out for those who may have a mercenary reason for rubbing raw the sores of cultural discontent.

Finally, a word about President Bush, and accusations that he is proposing an amendment for cynical political reasons.

The coolness with which his proposal was greeted even by Republican loyalists signals that the idea of an amendment may not be a political winner.

Why not take Bush's word for it, that he is worried about the directions in which society is moving and that events prompted him to act?

There may have to be a constitutional amendment, no matter which way the debate goes.

While the writer is doubtless correct as to the consequences of embracing madness, in the particular regard discussed; it seems to me that this is the wrong approach to the question. To even go this far is to accord a level of intellectual credibility to an "idea," the only conceivable argument for which is that its proponents have simply changed the meaning of a lot of once very well understood words.

But you cannot change reality by changing terminology. "Homosexual marriage" is an obvious oxymoron. The "Homosexual family" is an obvious oxymoron. Corrupting a friendship by a mutual indulgence in perverted acts can hardly provide a basis for sanctifying that friendship. All of the above is obvious to any rational person.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

If new family configurations evolve which can work without government entitlement programs, that's fine with me. And if the traditional family unit disappears, it won't be because government stopped issuing exclusive licenses to those units.

Before the all-encompassing nanny state tool over society, social pressure did a lot more than government ever could to force people to take care of children, dependent spouses, etc.

Nonsense. Men just left their wives high and dry and sowed their oats elsewhere. Brothers and fathers of the abandoned wife may have searched out the man and done something to him. In an orderly society, justice of that nature needs to be done impartially.

Homosexual Agenda ping -

more explanations of how "gay" marriage will contribute immeasurably to the destruction of what's left of a civilized country. (or world.)

Some people like the idea because they think it will usher in TEOTWAWKI, with the promise of a new dawn of libertarian phantasmagoria. Don't bet on it.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this ping list. It be busy.

Try again. The emergence of all the government programs led to the break up of the traditional family, the decline of personal responsibility, and the virtual destruction of schools and universities. People who are confident of their entitlement to generous help from the government whenever the "can't" cope on their own, have no need of strong families (of any configuration), of personal responsibility, or of schools which provide them the skills to become productive.

Absolutely. To some degree, the family has weakened because it is no longer a unit of production (as it was before the 19th century), but a unit of consumption. Also, over time, it has grown easier for a woman to earn a living on her own. But over the past century, the government, and to a lesser degree other third parties, have largely usurped its few remaining tasks such as the upbringing of children and providing health and welfare services to members. Today, all that holds a family together is "love," a weak and unstable reed to rest on. No wonder there is so much family breakup today, when they form to begin with. The family is redundant.

Before the all-encompassing nanny state tool over society, social pressure did a lot more than government ever could to force people to take care of children, dependent spouses, etc. Just imagine if businesses today could actually choose to fire employees who dumped their wives and kids and ran off with a cute young thing; or if landlords could actually evict tenants who use their kids to sell drugs, or who entertain a revolving cast of boyfriends in the home they share with children.

They could and did 50 years ago -- but now that's against the law! Discrimination, you know. Historically, in this country, there was more social pressure to force people to behave than legal pressure. For example, a man who refused to marry his pregnant girlfriend probably left town, perhaps with her dad and brothers looking for him, shotguns in hand. There still is pressure to behave -- but the push today is to be politically correct and to say the right things and hold the right attitudes (or appear to) rather than to do the right thing.

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.