It’s here. Will it destroy the fabric of our society?
No one is ever able to give an example of exactly how equal access to the legal benefits of marriage could destroy America or the institution of marriage. (See next page.) Truth is, those who say that it would do not oppose equality because they honestly care about the “institution of marriage” (as if heterosexuals have not already wrecked it). What they care about is their own discomfort, their own prejudices, or their own personal religious beliefs which they want to impose on everyone else.
Ever wondered about
the "gay agenda," with
respect to marriage?
What do gay couples mean when they say they want the same "benefits and responsibilities" marriage provides?
More than 1,000 federal laws, and up to several hundred more state laws, are automatically triggered for a couple the moment they legally marry.
Here’s a short list of what people are denied, when denied access to marriage.
•Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
•Automatic Inheritance
•Immigration
•Sick Leave to Care for Partner
•Social Security Survivor Benefits
•Veteran’s Discounts
•Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
•Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
•Bereavement Leave
•Burial Determination
•Child Custody
•Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
•Divorce Protections
•Domestic Violence Protection
•Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
•Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
•Insurance Breaks
•Joint Adoption and Foster Care
•Joint Bankruptcy
•Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
•Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
•Certain Property Rights
•Reduced Rate Memberships
•Sick Leave to Care for Partner
•Visitation of Partner’s Children
•Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
•Access to Military Stores
So, if you say you want to restrict a certain people’s right to pursue happiness by denying them equal access to marriage, first think about what it is you want to deny them (see sidebar at left). Then be aware that if you can’t explain how society would be harmed, then honesty requires you to acknowledge up front that your notion is based on fantasy (either religious, prejudicial or both). And your attempt to impose it on the public—in a country committed to equality—must not be permitted to prevail.
You are welcome to your own private prejudices and/or religious beliefs, including any concept of “sin” you choose. But you may apply your religious notions only to yourself, and to others in your religion. In a land of religious freedom, you are not welcome to apply them to everyone else. If you think it’s a sin to be gay, for example, then conduct yourself accordingly. Don’t attempt to conduct the lives of others who do not share your religious notion of sin—especially not over something that isn’t inherently bad, yet is so inherently a part of who we are as human beings.
If you could show how equal access to marriage would be harmful in reality, then that would be a different matter, because public policy concerns itself with what happens in reality. But “public policy” must not get caught up in the perceived ruminations of supernatural deities. - Larry Hallock
Happiness.
Everyone has a right to pursue it!