Monday, November 03, 2008

Domestic partners, homosexual "marriage", and more

They call us haters. They claim that a vote of California's Proposition 8 is a vote for bigotry and discrimination.

Well, their domestic partnership regulations discriminated against me. How? My brother and I shared an apartment, and we pooled our resources together. We were dependent on each other financially. We were also extremely dedicated to one another; in fact, our relationship had only grown stronger since that first glimpse my brother had taken of me when I was just a few days old, and he had decided I was both cute and fascinating.

But, unlike the homosexual and heterosexual couples where my brother worked, we were not allowed access to any domestic partner benefits. Why the discrimination? Because we were siblings. The only way to earn the right to domestic partner benefits is by being in a sexual relationship with someone. Talk about discrimination! Talk about legislating morality and imposing values on other people!

Just try getting any sort of domestic benefits without having a sexual relationship. It's impossible. It doesn't matter if you've lived together for years, even decades. If you are siblings, or cousins, or just friends --- it doesn't matter. The law discriminates against those who refuse to have a sexual relationship with their domestic partner.

I can just hear everyone now: Don't be silly, Rebecca! What do you think domestic partners are? You can't just redefine the term to mean siblings and roommates!

Ah, but a lot of people think they should be able to redefine marriage. And, if you are reluctant to do so, supposedly that makes you intolerant and hateful.

But, in all this hue and cry about religious people trying to define marriage, few people seem to think we should remove all restrictions to marriage. Few people seem to think that it is hateful or intolerant or bigotry to restrict marriage to adults who are not closely related, or to outlaw bigamy. Do we hate children? Hate people who would prefer to be married to several people at once? Hate relatives? Are we discriminating against them? robbing them of their civil rights? guilty of hate crimes by not raising a big hue and cry to redefine marriage as being anything that anyone wants it to be?

No. I have yet to meet the person who believes in removing all legal restriction to marriage and allowing anyone to define it as they wish.

Apparently that privilege belongs only to those who believe marriage should be redefined as not necessarily being between a man and a woman. They have no qualms about imposing their values on our society and about plunging us all into some bizarre social experiment. They claim it is a civil rights issue, but they seem unconcerned about the civil rights of children, polygamists, those who favor "group marriage", and those who think first cousins should be free to marry in every state.

If marriage is a civil right, who gets to choose whose "civil rights" get to redefine marriage for the rest of society?

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

1 comment:

  1. Very well said.

    Florida has a constitutional amendment on the ballot this election defining marriage as one man/one woman.

    It was very concerning for people, due the large number of retired couples who are not married due the loss of social security and retiree benefits that would result if they married.

    Before I voted to support this addition to the FL constitution, I did a lot of research to be sure it would neither penalize the elderly nor the gay couples.