MOW asked:
... the last time you had to use your weapons against your Government was ???????
and the answer to that question is proof of exactly what? That you have never had to do so is not proof or even evidence that you may never need to do so.
Marko said:
... make sure to illustrate how denying those entitlements to same-sex couples protects or strengthens your marriage.
That may not be an objection. I don't think that my marriage, for example, is endangered by anyone's same sex marriage. My objection is to the legal recognition of a marital status that gives the same benefits to a same gender marriage that is recognized by our society and government to an opposite gender marriage. The legal recognition of that choice as a "marital union" would result in costs that we
all would bear, even if we disagree with the union on moral grounds. The argument
for same gender marriage is made
on moral grounds, i.e., civil rights. I don't agree with that argument because I don't see the difference in this and the NEA using union dues to support an NEA-endorsed candidate for public office, when an individual member may not support that candidate. It is a use of personal contributions by the union to further their collective agenda to which certain individual members object. Costs to insurance companies may rise depending on the future trends in the spread of aids. That would result in a cost to many of us. But my biggest objection is the costs incurred by government at all levels by a category of spouses that are created by the stroke of a pen. Oila` ... you're a spouse! survivor's benefits? SSSI? Sure.
It is a case of unintended consequences, if I am not mistaken. The ramifications are not measured by the threat to my marriage. It can, however, be measured in other ways. See
this article about Gerry E. Studds' (D-Mass.) surviving spouse's expectations as an example of my point about cost.
I have heard Neal Boortz use the same argument. It is not the point. Even though I may see it as a moral surrender, I don't formulate an objection on the grounds of a threat to traditional marriage.
It can be argued, though, that traditional marriage is weakened by the mere equation of a morally unacceptable version of marriage to the traditional version. They are not the same. A woman is not a man. So is this a bastardization of the term "marriage"? Why does the
gay community choose to play
marriage? The language is changing and this is psychological warfare. The objective is simply to get what you want ... and I mean in tangible terms. Legal protection. Call it marriage long enough and shout it loud enough and pretty soon ... it is
marriage. Is this a perversion of the 14th Amendment?
'Guess I'm out of the closet on this one. By the way, to all who read this, as a moderator here, I still do not condone gay- or lesbian-bashing or name calling. Read my post carefully.
Be it Veteran's benefits, SS claims, Marriage Tax breaks etc...
Bottom line, I personally believe marriage should be between a man and woman---as do a vast majority. It has been voted on numerous times. You want to get married to a man--go ahead--just don't expect the Government to give entitlements the people don't want. If you are entitled---then so is NAMBLA and so are Polygamists and so on...why stop with you.
