http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm
Number 6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”
A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”
A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children.”
=====================================================================
There are 1,138 benefits that accrue to legally married heterosexuals that are currently withheld from same-sex unions, even those who are entitled to domestic partnerships. Those benefits, according to the General Accounting Office, range from Social Security and veteran's payments to housing and survivor’s rights. Thanks for suggesting these two fixes, but you have a long way to go to establish parity. Especially since most of these protections are federal; your “local folks” can’t do anything about that.
While a few of these benefits can be attained, in part at least, through drawing up legal papers, it's an expensive, complicated process that often has to be upheld by the courts which incurs even more expense. These benefits are automatically granted to heterosexual married couples who simply take them for granted.
In America, we give tax breaks and other financial and legal incentives in order to encourage certain worthy goals. The goal of strengthening families and their ability to survive is behind most of the legal benefits that come with marriage. What makes same-sex couples and their families less in need of these benefits, as though they can do just as well without them? We would never say to families of color that they are so different they don’t need them; neither should we be saying this to same-sex families.
So, yes, I agree with you, “This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children.” You goal of wanting to protect children is admirable, but your limiting of this protection to straight families only is deplorable. What we need is full protection of all children regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents. One way to do this is to allow same-sex couples to marry so that their children can be the recipients of some of those 1,138 benefits now denied to them.
I wonder, are you more interested in protecting children or denying marriage to same-sex couples?
Tomorrow’s FAQ
Number 7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?
A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”
Comments