Last year, you failed to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.
Your failure to do so gave homosexual advocates the green light to force you and other Arizonans to pay for benefits for their lifestyle choice. [Read article]
Governor Janet Napolitano submitted the change to the Department of Administration which will avoid the entire legislative process.
You now have less than 30 days to leave your comment with the State of Arizona.
Late Note: After digging around the Secretary of State’s website (Good Grief Jan Brewer! You make it too difficult to find this information!) we were able to locate the actual link to the proposed rule change. Click here to read Napolitano’s sweeping policy change.
But just in case you’re wondering what the definition of a “Domestic Partner” is, here is the proposed definition (located on page 4):
“Domestic partner” means a person of the same or opposite gender who:
a. Shares the employee’s or retiree’s permanent residence;
b. Has resided with the employee or retiree continuously for at least the past 12 consecutive months and is expected to continue to reside with the employee or retiree indefinitely as evidenced by an affidavit filed at time of enrollment;
c. Has not signed a declaration or affidavit of domestic partnership with any other person and has not had another domestic partner within the last 12 months;
d. Does not have any other domestic partner, spouse, or spousal equivalent of the same or opposite sex;
e. Is not currently legally married to anyone or legally separated from anyone else;
f. Is not a blood relative any closer than would prohibit marriage;
g. Is mentally competent to consent to contract when the domestic partnership began;
h. Is not acting under fraud or duress;
i. Is at least 18 years of age; and
j. Is financially interdependent with the employee or retiree in at least three of the following ways:
i. Joint mortgage, joint property tax identification, or joint tenancy on a residential lease;
ii. Holding one or more credit or bank accounts jointly, such as a checking account, in both names;
iii. Joint liabilities;
iv. Joint ownership of significant property (e.g., vehicle, real estate, boat);
v. Naming the partner as beneficiary on the employee’s life insurance, under the employee’s will, or employee’s retirement annuities and being named by the partner as beneficiary of the partner’s life insurance, under the partner’s will, or the partner’s retirement annuities; and,
vi. Each agreeing in writing to assume financial responsibility for the welfare of the other (i.e., durable power of attorney); or
vii. Other proof of financial interdependence as approved by the Director.
This says it all:
“This is just a natural progression of what’s happening in our state and across the nation,” said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat.
Kyrsten is right, and the reason why this is important is the same reason that the attempt to curtail people’s civil liberties failed at the ballot box in 2006.
This affects not only gay people, but also a lot of straight people – just like the 2006 amendment that was rejected by voters.
Besides; gay rights are human rights. This is about equal protection under the law.
SonoranSam,
This is not about civil liberties. The gay rights movement, to their credit in ’06 successfully made it about the rights of non-married straight people. Fair enough. Good campaign tactic that worked. The fundamental question here is whether or not the tax dollars of Arizona citizens will be used to provide benefits to non-married couples straight or gay. Believe it or not, this will cost money – taxpayers money. Where is the equal protection argument. Are we currently providing straight non-married couples benefits and not gays? No we are not. There is no equal protection argument. We provide benefits to married couples plain and simple. Believe it or not, gay rights are not human rights in a legal sense. They may be in your mind, but then again, the right to smoke marijuana is a human right in the minds of others, it doesn’t make it so legally.
Hey, Mark. Long time,no argue….
Human rights are just that. I don’t get to tell you who is a member of a family. You don’t get to dictate my family to me.
In the short run this will cost more, but in the long run, by encouraging proactive health care, it saves money.
Of course, that’s the same argument I’d use for universal health care. I doubt we agree about that one either.
SonoranSam,
But at some point in a society, we do have to make a determination for legal and governing purposes what human rights are. As I said previously, you may think gay rights are human rights. I might think some other kind of right is a human right, but from a governance perspective, it doesn’t matter what we think. At this stage in the game, we generally, as a government, with the exception of a few judges, do not view gay rights as rising to the level of so-called human rights. It is what it is. If that time comes, then give them the benefits. But until that time, we have to question the propriety and costs of doing this.
Sam,
There is a significant inequity in this scenario that is overlooked by the alternative lifestyle perception. While on the surface it seems to be non-discriminatory, it is quite the opposite.
Indulge me…..
My husband and I have a child we have raised as our own, however he is not. For reasons I do not need to go into the biological parents are unwilling/unable to care for this child yet adoption was not the answer. We were unable to add the child onto my husbands insurance policy without adoption or legal guardianship. However, if my husband was living with another person (gender non-specific) and that person had a child, they could register as “life partners” and the children, who have no blood or legal ties to my husband, would be considered dependents and covered.
We were finally awarded guardianship, but not until we had spent hundreds of dollars for medical care.
If we as a state have determined that the definition of family is like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder, we need to be open to all not just those that feel a sense of entitlement.
Why not get to the heart of the matter?
Why isolate one group of taxpayers to demonize? Confiscating the wealth of the people and redistributing it to others is what the government does! The problem, at the heart of the matter, is then the government itself – and its robbery of our wealth without any real representation. As I recall this thievery was the reason behind our session from the British Empire.
Perhaps it’s time to do it again?
Carl,
If the average American added up everything that is essentially a tax, regardless of what it is called, they would be astonished at how much of their income is basically commandeered by the government, at all levels in one form or another.
Ann:
The scenario you laid out regarding your adoptive son is flat-out wrong. No argument. This child was YOUR son, and your husband’s insurance should have provided health coverage.
Let’s try a similar scenario. Not knowing (or caring about) your age, let’s assume that you are a grand-parent, and your grand-child became your responsibility – an all-too-common situation.
Is that your child? Absolutely. You are serving in the role of a parent.
Let’s create a scenario where you are a widow (God forbid) and you’re living with someone without the benefit of matrimony because Social Security would reduce your benefits if you tied the knot. That may violate your personal moral code, but this situation is common.
If your significant other is a state employee – or even a retired state employee – Should your GRANDCHILD be denied health care coverage because you’re not married? I think not.
I know we disagree, and your position is grounded in your moral code. I respect that. But government shouldn’t be in the business of telling you who is a member of your family, and who is not.
I think I agree with something I read – I can’t remember where – in which someone suggested that the Government simply recognize civil unions. Let the churches decide what constitutes the sacriment of marriage, and impose their own standards on that status.
I can appreciate the role of family not being a governmentally defined relationship. However, this is not really about that. This is about employer benefits. In this case it just so happens that tax-payer dollars are the ones paying for the benefits.
I have a really hard time over the whole same-sex marriage and the role of the government. Here comes the moral code… I do not for one minute believe my Savior would turn his back on anyone and would not choose for anyone to suffer. We all make choices and those choices are ours, not His, we hold the consequences. Love the sinner hate the sin. Sin being many things, not just our personal sexual behaviors. I personally do not want the job of being anyone’s Holy Spirit, I’m doing well to care for myself most days.
I also believe there are some things that go beyond our subjective view that define a society. Abortion is one of those things. How we treat children is another. This falls into that category.
The role of the government should not be to decide what a family is in a very literal way. But if it involves the use of tax payer provided benefits, unlimited insurance coverage for the benefit of those who have no legal definition is too much.
If some families are getting benefits but other families do not then government is NOT defining what a family is, it’s just favoring one kind over another. That is un-American. If the bogus “tax payers money is at stake” argument is to be used, why pay for anyone’s benefits? Straight families cost the state more just by their numbers.
For Arizona to compete for the best talent it must “resort” to fairness. Equal pay/benefits for equal work. I wonder if Ann or the other conservatives here have an issue with someone who has been married multiple times (consecutive, not concurrent) getting benefits that a gay couple who have been together for decades can’t?
Something everyone should know, specifically mark:
It would expand benefits to non-married couples, gay or straight. It is not specifically for same sex couples.
What’s the point in staying or getting married if you’re going to get these taxpayer-funded benefits regardless? (Why buy the cow when the milk’s free?)
And why should it stop at just one domestic partner? Wouldn’t it be unfair to someone with multiple domestic partners? Why wouldn’t the policy be discriminatory against those who chose multiple loving domestic relationships?
And what about those who love their pet(s) to the point that they consider them a member of their family? Will they demand the policy cover their “family member’s” veterinarian care?
Good point DSW, there may not be multiples at once but what is the restriction on multiples, by many times, over a period of a few years? Gay or straight.
You can also screw with the system by just pretending to be gay so your roommate gets covered. Anyone can pretend to be gay, and if there is free health care in it for you? Yup, lots of Chuck and Larry out there! Then, if you get fired from your job, you can keep pretending you’re gay and sue for discrimination. It will all be a lie, but that’s what happens when you legislate legal protections and benefits to lifestyle choices that can’t be confirmed scientifically.
What a scam.
What a bunch of hooey…Sonoran Sam said most everything except I have to respond to DSW. Something about why get married if you get the cow’s milk for free?
That is the most bogus of arguments and it, in fact, undercuts most every religious argument for marriage that I have ever heard. People don’t get married for the benefits, they get married because they love each other…and they do it in their faith, church or in whatever way they see is theirs.
The suggestion that people won’t get married because the benefits go to gays is exceptionally stupid.
Let me say this…there are only two arguments in this debate.
One is about some religions seeing it as “sin” that goverment is sanctioning, while other don’t see it as “sin”. Which means, in our constitution, religious freedom should win out.
Second is that people object when their tax dollars go to support a marriage they disagree with. This is the slipperiest slope of all. I would want my tax dollars first and foremost withheld from couples who are married legally by the state and then choose to molest their children. The fact is that we subsidize christian, buddhist, Islamist, etc marriages if they are man and woman and we do not if they are same sex. Because some religious view look down upon it. That simple…nothing else can be said.
What that is is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. That our laws and benefits apply equally to all law-abiding citizens.
The nice thing is that most of you will die off and the next generation strongly thinks you are ignorant on this issue.
John, so your scenario looks like this….My friend needs insurance, I have no husband… hey, you can be my partner until your insurance kicks in. Sweet!
Ann,
That is fraud, they investigate these things, it isn’t so easy to scam the government.
Atticus,
I’m sure they do and of course it would be fraud. But that is the “slippery slope” we go down when opening up traditional guidelines to non-traditional situations.
Who defines, or better yet, how is a true relationship defined? What is a legitimate partnership and how is it determined to be so? Is it longevity, domicile, or stated commitment with/without documentation?
Kind of like the stated income sub-prime mortgage mess; money given to people who said they could pay it back because they really wanted the house; the fact that their income was not sufficient to cover the mortgage was beside the point.
After reading the proposed rules – I just posted them to the original article – I really want to know how they can enforce and guard against fraud? When the rule states that you have to have, “resided with the employee or retiree continuously for at least the past 12 consecutive months and is expected to continue to reside with the employee or retiree indefinitely as evidenced by an affidavit filed at time of enrollment,” How are they going to enforce this? This sounds like the employee and domestic partner may have to show their papers to prove domestic partnership? Sound a little familiar? Will the state send the “bedroom police” around to make sure domestic partners are obeying the policy???
You both sign affidavits saying you’re together and boom, you’re covered.
It isn’t easy to scam the government? What? How many illegal aliens are in this country right now collecting welfare benefits that they are not legally qualified to get? And they’re getting checks from the U.S. Government Atticus. Wise up, its EASY to scam the government, especially one that wants to be “welcoming” to domestic partnerships. No one is going to argue or care.
Isn’t easy… LOL…
Ann: Ok, I know this is outside the debate, because the rule explicitly give benefits; but doesn’t your argument lead to the idea that no marriage at all should be recognized?
I think the thrust of most people’s argument is the equal protection clause argument that Kral stated. I think that this is probably right (and it appears to me that most, not all, legal scholars also think this is right); hence the need for an amendment. If it wasn’t such a close question on the EPC claim, and possibly even substantive due process, there wouldn’t be nearly as strong of a push for an amendment.
So, the solution would be inside of setting up institutional discrimination, why don’t we just get rid of the benefits for heterosexual marriages? That removes the claim, and takes care of the problem, and fits in with 1/2 of conservative though (the other half being tradition, which is obviously being thrown overboard).
DSW #13: Kral already responded, but let me echo: HUH? Say this to your spouse: “Why would I stay married to you if I didn’t get the tax break I receive.” See what happens.
DSW #20: Isn’t this the same website that argued that it would be possible to round up all the illegal immigrants and send them back to their home country? So the government has the ability to undercover that fruad, but not this fraud? Oh, John #21 says that they aren’t good at that (which they actually are quite good at, you would be suprised.) Here, suprise yourself: try to commit fraud, and see how long it takes for the Gov’t to catch you. You’ll get a head start too since you’re white! John says “Isn’t easy… LOL…” You laugh at how easy it is… and yet you recognize that you would never ever do it (maybe because of morals, lets set aside for this minute), because of the risk of getting caught.
John #21: “No one is going to argue or care.” Do you know anyone who works in government service? Are they all pro-samesex marriage? You have essentailly just asserted that all government employees are corrupt as well. Not just elected officials (which is clear from every night when I watch the news!).
STRAW MAN ALERT!
No Frank I didn’t, but thanks for trying to put words into my mouth. There is a difference between not caring enough or being too overloaded or whatever the excuse is, to check out every case of someone who claims to be in a domestic partnership. And let’s face it, you don’t even need to be having sex with that person as I read it. You only have to profess to be in a committed relationship or something similar. It is impossible to confirm for certain, so they simply won’t try.
That doesn’t make the government employee corrupt.
Welcome back Frank! Much of the dialogue in this thread could be used for or against many things. Some of my statements were for instigating replies. Here is the real deal from my perspective.
Marriage, as we have known it, is between one man and one woman. There are those who make choices that do not line up with the traditional concept of many things, among them marriage. When you make a choice with it comes the consequences of that choice. Options remain; it is your action that limits them. Be it to live together “without the benefit” of marriage or to be in a relationship that is untraditional in other ways.
The choice of employer in a competitive market is a decision made by the employee. It is not indentured servitude. The benefit package offered to employees is not the job itself; it is a value added portion of the entire offering. Many employers offer a discount on certain services while others give great bonuses. This is a government job; a gift of public funds is prohibited. Anything offered should be as strictly regulated for fraud and abuse as possible.
If I choose to live with someone, I need to understand I have not made a full commitment and therefore am not qualified to receive the full realm of benefits. One of which may be health insurance coverage through my partner’s employer. If a private industry or business has a desire to attract employees with a better than most package, go for it! The state is not private business.
The heart of this is the reality of intentions to cover gay couples. I will not begin to try an attempt at understanding the depths of their devotion to the lifestyle they accept. I doubt if anyone posting here can honestly say they do not have a gay co-worker, friend, or family member. My very conservative family certainly does. Let me tell you, wearing a black leather vest (no shirt) and matching studded neck collar to your cousins wedding removes all doubt but may not be the best way to come out. Imagine a bunch of slow talking, western-minded men, first generation off the farm and one of them has a son dressed like that! Yep…the bar bill was huge! That was over 30 years ago, last year my nephew just sat down and told his family. They love him no less, nor do I. Do I grieve for what I know is not an easy path for him? You bet. Billy Graham when asked if he would still love a child that was gay said, “I would love that one more.”
To me, this is not a matter of love, hate, and good, bad but of how far we go as a society to recognize all things as necessary and even required. This is government not private business. This lifestyle is not traditional, just as an unmarried straight couple living together has chosen a non-traditional route. Nothing requires all players in ones life to be subject to the benefits of the other nor should the state be required to obligate itself to such a far-reaching benefit.
Hi Ann. I don’t think we disagree in any way. As I admitted, I was taking the scope of the questions I asked outside the scope of the original post.
I wonder though, again way outside the scope, if the private market has decided that recognizing homosexual couples for the purposes of benefits is *efficient* *proper* *right* whatever you want to say, since those are the things we usually think that market measures, don’t we want the government to operate in the same way?
To John: my argument might be faulted for being a slippery slope argument; but not a straw man. In other words, I did not rewrite your argument in a less forceful/logical way than you wrote it, I took it to one *possible* extreme, and then looked at that extreme for the purpose of evaluating the original statements validity. So, I am fine with you using ‘logical fallacy’ assertions against me, but use the correct one if you are going to put in in all caps.
To your actual post, you said a number of different things, that I will use potentially slippery slope, not straw man, arguments against.
1. “There is a difference between not caring enough or being too overloaded or whatever the excuse is, to check out every case of someone who claims to be in a domestic partnership.”
You said earlier “No one is going to argue or care.” Ok, there is a difference between not caring AT ALL, and not caring enough. This new assertion is closer to the truth I suspect, but is not what you originally said. We agree here, when fraud does happen, it is not because “no one cares” or the government is welcoming it b/c it likes the end result; it’s because of a lack of funds/time. So you have two options: give more funds to prevent the fraud, or don’t create the system that creates the incentive for fraud. I suppose you could argue either way, depending upon your original feelings about whether homosexuals should have equal benefits.
2. “And let’s face it, you don’t even need to be having sex with that person as I read it. You only have to profess to be in a committed relationship or something similar”
I know you said this in relationship to people being able to easily perpetuate a fraud, so before using caps understand that. BUT, let’s take this statement as a second premise of your argument, and see if it independently makes any sense. Couples that don’t have sex and only profess to be in a committed relationship aren’t within the definition of true marriage. hm…
3. “It is impossible to confirm for certain, so they simply won’t try.”
It is impossible to confirm for certain that heterosexual couples that go down to the court and get a marriage license are any more committed than the homosexual marriage going for benefits. Why are you willing to allow that?
My bias (since Ann so kindly told us hers
): I love Jesus like many of y’all. I think that homosexuality is a result of the Fall, and a distortion of God’s perfect order (like divorce). BUT, I do not believe that it is the Government’s role to implement Biblical morality (be perfect…). There is clearly a much larger conversation here. I should probably be doing other things 
. Maybe we all should? Probably easier to talk about this stuff in person, when it isn’t so easy to be snide.
There lies the conundrum. The only verifiable document to verify a domestic partnership is a marriage license or other official union certificate. You can’t have it both ways. If you want “proof” then you must allow non-traditional unions the right to obtain said documents.
Even though the risk pool for the state is huge, health insurance costs still go up each year for 3 reasons: inflation, your age, and the claims made by the risk pool you are in. What is going to happen when 40,000 state employees find out their insurance went up 3% for inflation, 5% because a lot of employees turned 50, and 20% because domestic partners are now covered and they had claims? Morality aside, that’s going to be a tough pill to swallow. It’s like giving every state employee a pay cut.
That is a good point Timothy. And the answer comes straight from Ann’s earlier post: if it is too tough a pill to swallow, then they will leave for private companies where insurance might be cheaper. It’s all about your choices, right?
As Frank states: ” So you have two options: give more funds to prevent the fraud, or dont create the system that creates the incentive for fraud.” So we’re either talking more tax payer money or don’t create the system? I vote for not creating the system. Does anyone really know how much this would cost the taxpayer? The way I see it this has only become a BIG issue since the gay rights movement, men and women have been openly living together for decades and this big push for their benefits have not been there.
I never said anything about marriage, so I’m not sure where Frank’s “hmm” comes in? Nor do these benefits go to only married people.
They go to “partners”. My point is that for free health care, lots of folks will be willing to “partner” up and lots of them won’t be legitimate. That is a fraud that is difficult to detect even if you’re really trying. Add to that the fact that I don’t think they’ll really try, and you’ve got a lot of fraud that will occur so that Governor Napolitano can pay off her campaign debts with the homosexual lobby.
I would add that even legitimate “partners” shouldn’t be enjoying these benefits. Legitimate heterosexual marriages benefit society and society is right to reward them with unique benefits.
I’m not sure I would go so far as to equate developing a method for fraud with the ability to pay off campaign debts, but there is a politically motivated self-serving interest at play here.
Who or what generated the action?
I am genuinely interested: How to legitimate heterosexual marriage benefit society?
As a married male, that also believes in the Biblical mode of marriage, I certainly know one of the benefits that I have personally received through marriage.
I guess the typical arguments would be stability for children, stability for society? I really don’t know. I guess I am curious, in a society where divorce is so prominent and easily acquired, what benefits remain?
In general (since exceptions must occur in a nation of 300 million), the most stable families are those with a mom, a dad, and their children. They are more financially secure and they provide a more stable home and upbringing for their children. As a result, their children are better raised, perform better in school, have fewer developmental issues, have higher graduation rates, lower incarceration rates, and achieve more in life themselves.
I trust that they myriad economic and social benefits to society are self-evident from the first paragraph? Fewer broken homes, less crime, better educated children, etc.?
The benefits to the children, the family, and to society do not change depending on the availability of divorce. The benefits remain, although fewer receive them and society as a whole suffers for it.
Thanks John. Two questions:
(1) Do you have any studies demonstrating what you said?
(2) Assuming what you said was true, do we think it might be possible that granting the ‘right’ to marriage to homosexual couples would in fact promote the same results? In other words, could it be the case that the reason they do not promote the same results now is because we have restricted their access to some of the benefits that enabled heterosexual couples to achieve those benefits?
The factors that you noted based on my impression seem to correlate more to economic class than to parental upbringing. See, e.g Greg Loury’s work.
Thanks again.
Why should any employer be forced to provide health care benefits to anyone?
We need universal health care. My campaign for Congress in the Sixth District favors Medicare for everyone, regardless of their age or marital status.
That’s what civilized nations do.
Richard Grayson,
Do you consider Cuba and Sudan “civilized” nations?
Both have universal healthcare but I would get a hangnail removed in either country.
Why not create the market environment to allow people to pool resources much like larger corporations do to spread risk and reduce rates?
I find it funny that people claim they can’t afford healthcare yet their kids have that XBox 360 and the plama TV.
Then there’s the “Earned Income Tax Credit” (a well disguised marketing misnomer for a welfare payment). Why doesn’t the government mandate people use their EITC to pay for health insurance, or just give them healthcare covereage in lew of their EITC? Instead of a set of new spinner rims for their low riders they could pay for their own healthcare.
This of course would be viewed as cruel. Even to poor are “entitled” to plasma TVs and chome rims for their cars.
Sorry Frank for my lack of footnotes, but time is limited for us working stiffs. Contact the Center for Arizona Policy at http://www.azpolicy.org and they will drown you in supporting documentation. Sure, a lot of it is recognized as fact based on centuries of results, and common sense also supports it, but for those of you who prefer a PhD to sign off on the report, reference CAP and ask them to send you stuff. They’ve got tons and it will answer both of your questions.
“Sure, a lot of it is recognized as fact based on centuries of results, and common sense also supports it, but for those of you who prefer a PhD to sign off on the report, reference CAP and ask them to send you stuff.”
1. Yes, for some reason I like people with statistical/verifiable information to use modeling techniques to help us understand important questions of policy.
2. How does your common sense/history teach us anything on this matter? We have never (and don’t say Rome, because it is just historically inaccurate) had a system where homosexual marriage were granted full accord, so it would be ‘experimental’ (exactly the reason why “federalists” like myself believe that you should allow the states and hope some states will allow homosexual marriages so we can see what happens. The states are the ‘well-spring of experimentation.’).
looks like you are working as hard as me
Frank,
The whole marriage/divorce argument is straight out of the gay activist handbook. Scream divorce, divorce, divorce as a means to undermine the legitimacy of marriage. Obviously your worldview is that we should throw hundreds of years of western civilization and tradition out the door and have an experiment in some states to let the gays get married. Because, after all, we have divorce so therefore marriage must be suspect. Due to that, we should just ignore the sanctity of marriage and let anyone marry who ever the hell they want to.
Homosexuality has been part of the human tradition since time immemorial. Throwing out Western civilization? Hardly. Western civilization was founded by the Greeks, who were tolerant towards homosexuals, as have been hundreds of cultures throughout history.
This is a great reason to reduce the size of government. Smaller Government smaller issue.
Mark-
I agree with Tim, but let’s assume you are right, and I advocate for “throw[ing] away hundreds of years of western civilization and tradition…”
Sure. Why not? That’s what we did with slavery (not equating the two, big disclaimer, just pointing it out). If something actually is a “human right” why does it matter how long it has been around for (even the most die-hard of Burke-ian’s could admit this, right?).
Second, I only brought in the divorce argument in one line–actually didn’t even made an argument, I was just curious as to how we ought to think about it.
“Due to that, we should just ignore the sanctity of marriage and let anyone marry who ever the hell they want to.”
The sanctity of my marriage is recnognized by my Lord, and not by my government. Sure, let people marry whoever they want. I thought conservative wanted less government intrusion, not more. Again, all this is premised on my crazy notion that the gov’t shouldn’t give benefits to ANY married couple, gay or straight.
Tim,
Stop trying to change the parameters of the argument. My response and reference was about marriage. Tell me which western civilization allowed gays to marry? Just curious??
The real issue is J-NO is acting as if she was elected dictator not governor. This issue should go through the Legislature just like the fuel efficency standards issue (global warming junk science) and taking alt fuel vehicles out of the HOV lane. The Constitutional powers of the Governor are limited to running state departments and implementation of law passed by the Legislature
Good point Passionate Moderate.
Mark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
I did not say that only civilized nations provide universal care. That is obviously not to imply that other nations may provide it as well. That should be evident to anyone who reads with a critical eye or who has a basic grasp of logic.
Cuba is a civilized country. I have spent much of my life in Miami, and I know many Cuban-Americans who cannot abide the government there, but many of them do admit that health care for the poor has improved under the Castro regime, which is obviously dictatorial and repressive.
I cannot speak with authority about Sudan, although certainly all the Sudanese students I have had are civilized people.
As someone who was 18 and hanging out in Greenwich Village in the summer of 1969, when the modern gay rights movement was born at the Stonewall rebellion, I can say that none of us back then thought about same-sex marriage. It was a time when legally, New York bar owners could refuse service to homosexual patrons.
Many gay people like myself have no interest in marriage. Like many straight people, we prefer to remain single.
Yet I am more than happy to see other peoople’s spouses, partners and especially their children get health insurance and other needed benefits. Their parents, in-laws, siblings, nieces and nephews, cousins, aunts and uncles, stepchildren, stepparents, grandparents, grandchildren and friends should also get health insurance.
Richard, you make a point that actually pulls this all together. Is this about health care or gay rights?
If it is about health care, there certainly is a discussion to be had about broad and effective coverage. However, not at the expense of the state and not under the guise of human rights.
Politically, is the Governor using her stage and this format to provide and expand rights to a certain group as defined by their sexual preference to the exclusion of other groups that would readily accept state provided health care?
Frank,
You sure you want to hang your hat through your wikipedia link on so-called “pederastic relationships” and eunuchs, because those are the only references in your link about historical gay marriage in western civilization.
yes, because they go FURTHER than the current debate. Not only were these marriages allowed, they even allowed the relationships with children (NOTE: I AM NOT APPROVING OF THIS). You claimed that this had not been done. You are wrong. I don’t know what else you want.
I’ll say it again: I believe that the Bible is accurate in what a Christian Marriage looks like. One man one woman. But I see no reason why the biblical notions MUST mean that the GOVERNMENT can favor one group over another through benefits tied to heterosexual marriage. I believe in small gov’t (for the most part), and this only enlarges the gov’t. Don’t recognize marriage at all, or recognize it equally. I think that is the dichotomy.