Posted on 03/11/2004 11:58:13 AM PST by Marianne
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.
These entitlements comprise about two-thirds of the federal budget.
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?
This then, is the hard part.
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.
Yep. Because they don't have natural love or normal spouses, they can just pass on their SS survival bennies on to a friend who's genitals they play with - at the rest of societies expense!!
"Hi. I'm Steve. I play with my friend Ted's penis, so he should get Social Security benefits paid for by the American taxpayers when I die."
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
Thanks for boosting our leftist enemies.
The break up of the traditional family led to the social decay that started all the useless government programs we have now in the first place !!!
Welfare, more money for socialist indoctrination centers and their free daycare for their pregnant teens, Medicaid, food stamps, housing complexes, Planned Parenthood sex freebies, high taxation to pay for all the messes and the spread of laziness and disease, bla bla bla and all the rest of the money grubbing left wing crap programs.....
The more the traditional, supportive family is disassembled, the more chaos there is. Add homosexuals and their lust for small boys to the mess we already have, and you might better quit your job now. None of your paycheck will remain in your pocket. The government will need all of it to pay for the things yet to come.
One of the stupidest positions I have ever seen anybody on FR endorse. Feed the beast to slay it and while we're at it we can further deconstruct the institution of marriage. LOL.
All that said, marriage is one of those traditional institutions which it is appropriate for government to be involved in, for reasons that have been enunciated on these threads over and over. The awesome power of the state is appropriately used against those who would dishonor their familial obligations, because that behavior leads to societal dysfunction - probably causing greater dependence on nanny statism.
Neither side in this era of the sound-bite and the quick rhetorical trigger is talking about the difficult part of the story.
I knew when I got this far that the author was trying, but I figured he would give in before the end and use the real word that comes to mind:
This then, is the hard part.
And our leftist enemies want to see the collapse of the family into an unrecognizable mass of goo. But that sounds like something you'd go along with, so no problem.
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.