The road to gay marriage

Jewish World Review ^ | 8/8/03 | Marianne M. Jennings

[longtermmemmory]

(s) might have some benefits, no more divorce just keep marrying and marrying and marrying and marrying. (/s)

[ellery]

I would draw a distinction between same-sex marriage and inter-species marriage -- animals can't consent.

I personally think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, or at the very least leave it for the states. I'm probably preaching to the choir, here, but this is exactly the kind of issue "community standards" is meant to handle.

[EdReform]

Infiltration of schools...

Lots of documentation in the following threads -- scripter has even more:

Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools

Teaching Kindergarten Kids About 'Human Differences' and Homosexuality Isn't 'Easy' in Newton

GLSEN (Gay and Lesbian Educational Network) Assault on Broward County Public Schools!!!

( An Introduction to GLSEN )

Parent Alleges Harassment for Exposing 'Fistgate'

Fistgate to be Held Again on March 15

[ellery]

Good point.

[randog]

I think a biggie is being able to cover your spouse with health care -- that's being addressed by many companies with "domestic partner" benefits. Ultimately, I don't think it's a bad thing to allow two people to take legal responsibility for one another -- it should lessen medicaid burden, welfare, etc. since a two-person unit is more stable than two one-person units.

Why stop at two-person "unions"? If two is good, why not three? Four? Fourteen? Isn't it a bit bigoted to limit marriage to two people? If you're going to let men marry men or women marry women, then you've got to allow polygamous or polyamorous marriages (multiple "partners"), and the same goes with health benefits. You could have an entire fraternity get married and jump on the one working member's company insurance plan. My prediction: if marriage becomes a free-4-all, company benefits will become a thing of the past, and since individual policies are expensive and minimal at best, guess who's going to step in to take up the slack?

[ellery]

Bigotry has nothing to do with it -- people on all sides of this debate believe the way they do based on principle and on practicalities. Very few people who oppose gay marriage/unions do so because of bigotry, IMHO.

But yes, I agree that legalized gay marriage/union opens the door to polygamy. I disagree that that would lead to collapse of employer health care, though. When single people joined the workforce in hoards, most employers went to a pay as you go model, where you pay an additional amount for a spouse and each dependent. I don't see how gay unions or polygamy would change that. The insurance companies would undoubtedly develop some sort of standard to distinguish between a polygamous family and a fraternity/group policy.

[tracer]

The road to "gay marriage" is none other than the Hershey Highway....

[Kuksool]

The recent events at the Episcopal Church were a small step in favor of legalized gay marriage. Currently, gay activists are pushing for gay marriage with the equal protection argument. If the courts don’t buy the equal protection reasoning, then they shall use the religious freedom angle. Of course, if the courts accept the religious freedom angle for gay marriage, then there is nothing to stop devout Muslim men from marrying 4 wives. Perhaps you have a point in advocating for government to get out of the marriage business altogether. This way, people can follow their religions without government prohibition or approval. After all, marriage was originally a religious institution.

[scripter]

Did somebody say links regarding schools and homosexuality? Here's a few. I haven't verified all the links lately but most if not all should be valid. Regarding the links... Those links with FR after them are articles also posted on FreeRepublic.

1. SCHOOL'S 'OUT'  FR 
2. Court upholds firing of teacher who was NAMBLA member  FR 
3. Tammy Bruce: Protect New York's Children from the Gay Elite  FR 
4. MTV show to feature Dallas gay school 
5. Queering the Schools  FR 
6. Teaching Kindergarten Kids About 'Human Differences' and Homosexuality  FR 
7. Pedophiles in prep schools 
8. Parental Notification Laws regarding Gay and Lesbian Programs for Youths? 
9. Conservatives Warn Parents about Homosexual 'Day of Silence'  FR 
10. Students explore lesbian, gay issues 
11. Fistgate to be Held Again on March 15 [2003]  FR 
12. The Deception and Desensitization of America's Youth  FR 
13. Parent Alleges Harassment for Exposing 'Fistgate'  FR 
14. Parents say no to 'gay' agenda in schools  FR 
15. Canada OKs pro-'gay' books for kids  FR 
16. 'Heterosexism' Under Attack in Canada  FR 
17. Challenging the Homosexual Fury In Our Government Schools  FR 
18. Schoolkids told to consider oral sex 
19. Fistgate 
20. From Tolerance to Affirmation: One School's Experience with a Gay-Affirmati 
21. Gay Activists Training Teachers in Special Curriculum 
22. (Gay) School Days 
23. Gay School Teacher Initially Booked with Almost 400 Counts of Molestation 
24. Kids Get Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex 
25. "Making Schools Safe" Means "Refashioning Values" 
26. NEA And GLSEN Seek To Stifle Free Speech 
27. Schools Could Be Sued For Teaching About Homosexuality, Report Claims 
28. Students seek sex in campus bathrooms  FR 
29. Unsafe at Any Grade 

Some links may be posted on FreeRepublic that I don't know about it, so the database may need to be updated.

[randog]

The insurance companies would undoubtedly develop some sort of standard to distinguish between a polygamous family and a fraternity/group policy.

But that's my whole point--if you open the door to gay marriage, you're opening marriage up to any definition, and once employers start a precedent of giving bennies to one 'alternative lifestyle', they've got to follow through for everyone's definition of 'alternative'.

[EdReform]

Thanks for posting the links, Scrip!

(Could you ping the troops to this thread? Thanks again!)

Choice4Truth

[scripter]

(Could you ping the troops to this thread? Thanks again!)

I thought I did! Must be getting old... or busy!

Ping!

[EdReform]

Ping

[EdReform]

Thanks, Scrip!!

[Kuksool]

I work for a Canadian-owned company that offers "domestic partnerships". While the policy was initially intended to benefit gay couples, the company's definition of "domestic partnership" was so broad that co-habitating hetero couples and parents who could no longer claim adult children as dependents started to use the benefit. My company defines "domestic partner" as any adult who shares the same household with an employee. Thus, it could mean anyone. When an employee applies for the benefit, human resources doesn't ask too many questions. I think this is the best method for companies to handle "domestic partner" benefits.

[ellery]

But that's my whole point--if you open the door to gay marriage, you're opening marriage up to any definition, and once employers start a precedent of giving bennies to one 'alternative lifestyle', they've got to follow through for everyone's definition of 'alternative'.

I disagree...I do think you open the door to polygamy (and arguably adult incest), but not beyond (because the logical standard then becomes union between/among consenting adults). That said, if I ran the zoo I would take government out of marriage altogether, or at least let states decide.

(I also think bureauacracies will do what's in their interest, not what's logically consistent, but that's a different topic. :-) )