Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Cheapening marriage

Senate panel passes bill to create civil unions
A Senate panel passed a bill to create civil unions Tuesday, the latest step in the Legislature's battle over whether gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to have legally recognized relationships.

It will now head to the full Senate, where it is expected to pass, setting up a tug-of-war with the Republican-controlled House, which is currently considering its own bill. That legislation would provide a more limited set of reciprocal rights to any two people over 18, including relatives.

I'm not sure which group is worse, the Democrats who will give the radical homosexuals any special privilege they ask for, or the Republicans who don't have the guts to simply stand up and tell the gays no and instead create a bill that is a boondoggle for businesses. (At least my state senator is always willing to stand up and say NO!)

Let's be clear, gays want affirmation of their lifestyle, that and the ability for force private groups to provide benefits that the private groups choose not to provide. Any company can offer "partner" benefits if it wants to, any hospital can offer visitation. Some choose not to. Why should the state force them?

As for the House Republicans, how about we just create a bill that would force my employer to provide health insurance for anyone within the sound of my voice. Or hell, anyone that appears on the same page in the phone book with me. Are these people nuts? We don't need "reciprocal" benefits and more than we need civil unions. What interest would my employer have in insuring my roommate, brother, or that guy who is willing to pay me $50 a month to say that he lives with me?

Society has chosen to offer certain incentives to families, husband, wife, and kids, because these stable families are the best way to raise healthy children. Let's not let radical gays, or the fear of their wrath, distort that.

Make sure your representatives OPPOSE senate bill 1073!


Lifelong R said...

So you want to deny a group of people access to benefits due to a lifestyle choice? Besdies, either the legislature does it or the court forces a much more odious system down our throats (thanks to Oregon's very broad equal protection clause in its constiuttion).

I'm a lifelong Republican and am proud that Sen.'s Westlund and Morse, as well as Rep. Berger are crossing over to join the right side on this one.

Daniel said...

The court will not force anything here. And yes, the benefits of marriage are for married people. So if you choose not to be married then you don't get the benefits.

Anonymous said...

How can I say this without sounding to mean, oh will here goes, GOD HATES FAGS, they don’t need any extra protection. The only protection they may need is while walking late at night in downtown P-town and I’m in a bad mood. I like it when lars puts these types in their place because they always sound to stupid and like there looking for hand out.
They need to back into the closet and stay there and keep their mouth shut!

Daniel said...

I disagree with you anonymous, I don't think that God hates anybody.

jwalker said...

Daniel, this will probably be the only time you and I won't agree, but I will throw in my 2 cents. It's a red-letter day buddy.

I think partnerships should have access to health benefits and hospital visits, which is what the gay community says they want. I don't have a problem with that.

I will have a problem with the gay community using these changes as a foothold into changing the definition of marriage, which is what I assume will happen over time.

But I don't think it is kind or humane to say only married straight people can have health benefits. I see no upside to this way of thinking. It only adds fuel to the fire of division. Plus, since the courts are allowing gay couples to adopt, which I don't agree with, those families had better have some health benefits.

Also, families that aren't gay that form untraditionally can take advantage of these benefits. An example of this would be a single mother living with the older grandmother who could watch the children while the mother is at work. If the grandmother could have benefits, everyone, including society, wins.

Anonymous said...

PRIDE 2005 is COMING! Come down to the Waterfront from June 18-19 for the most wonderful festival of the year. Visit http://www.pridenw.org/ for more details or to join the parde. SUPER!

panchopdx said...

daniel wrote:

"gays want...the ability for force private groups to provide benefits that the private groups choose not to provide."


Then why not take the next step that heterosexual married couples are not entitled to any state-required special benefits that burden businesses?

That position would be intellectually consistent.

As I read your post, I can't tell if you really support smaller government or just borrow that argument as a convenient prop for bigotry.

I hope to find out that it is the former.

Sailor Republica said...

I think it should be very simple.

The Government should get out of marriage, as marriage was/is a religious institution. And since the leftists are calling for a separation of Church and State...we should give it to them.

Let the churches marry. Everyone else can be common-law.

Daniel said...

Agreed, if government gets out of marriage then this will all be a non-issue.

JWalker, there have even been days that I disagreed with Lars! But I don't think that either of these bills will accomplish the good intentions that you have.

First they would further erode the nucleur family, which is arguably the best kind of family for stability and children, by allowing co-habitation to be equal to marriage.

Second, hospitals could wake up tommorow and choose to allow gays to visit their partners. They could allow pets. In fact, they can pretty much write the rules any which way they want because they are private organizations. We don't need the goverment telling them how to run their bussiness.

Third, the picture you paint of a making sure that a grandmother who is helping to raise a child is a good one. I agree. But much like the "medical marijuana will only be for cancer patients" argument I don't think it is in line with reality. (Most medical marijuana patients list "other chronic problems" as their reason for needing pot)

Imagine the burden on bussiness when they have to offer coverage for so many more people. I don't think that most companies could shoulder that burden and would have to limit availability, increase premiums and co-pays, or just eliminate health coverage all together. So not everyone would win.

jwalker said...

Your points are really solid. I guess when I think of healthcare being provided I think of big corporations or school districts. The Mom and Pop store would have to pay more.

I do worry about the slippery slope of changing the rules of what is a union. You're probably right.

ejaculation said...

Hi Daniel, I was just browsing the web for sites that have something about love and romance and I found your blog. It’s really nice. As for love topics, I’d like to tell you about http://top-personals.net, this is an useful guide for singles looking for wedding planner.