The truth is that domestic partnerships are a Trojan horse used to obtain same-sex “marriage.” When first conceived, domestic partnerships were meant to be an imitation of marriage and were specifically designed with same-sex couples in mind. The message they sent to society was this: The relationships are of equal value; we just call them by different names.
But as the states of California, Florida and Arizona demonstrated again, people do not view same-sex relationships the same as opposite-sex relationships. Marriage has long been viewed as the best context for dealing with procreation. Altering this fundamental relationship raises many questions for society. For example, who is not needed in raising a child: the father or the mother?
That’s the type of question in need of an answer, not questions about non-issues such as benefits. Voters are not convinced that we should tinker with the basic unit of society. And political special interests certainly should not trump what is clearly in the best interests of families and children.
Read it all as well as a USA Today editorial which has a different view.
For those who actually read print copies of USA Today – is their article by a staff writer or a person not affiliated with the paper?
Just wondering who’s doing the smear: “Proposition 8 passed with the help of a costly, fear-mongering campaign mounted by fundamentalist churches” without identification of the source.
Mr. Lavy makes a good point about the imprudence of creating the the legal relationship called civil unions. Unfortunately, some pro-marriage advocates have used the creation of civil unions as a firewall against the encroachment on marriage. Rather than a firewall, the creation of civil unions has only prepared the public for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. From an argument that civil unions receive the same benefits as marriage it was only a matter of a few years before state courts picked up on the separate but equal argument. Actually, as it has turned out the greater difference in benefits allocated to civil unions and marriages was a protection against the encroachment of civil unions into marriage(see the N.J. Supreme Court case and the N.Y case). But more important than the legal argument is the state sanctioning of immoral behavior. It is one thing for the state to grant a zone of privacy that may include immoral behavior and a totally different thing to actually encourage immoral behavior by granting benefits to the participants. Such a law is unjust.
And of course, SS (all puns intended) activists and their synpathizers are once again masters of reflection. Who turned the PR campaign for/against Prop 8 into a “costly, fear-mongering campaign”? Of course, SS activists and major corporations (Yahoo, Apple, PG&E;, etc.) pouring tens of millions of dollars into propaganda ads to uphold the CA Supreme Court’s overturning the twice clearly expressed will of the people at the ballot box. In PG&E;’s case, even more rephrehensible, since that is ratepayer’s money.
Future cases like this have been handed a great chance to use the actions of the ss marriage bunch against them. Make sure to get as much footage as possible of the screaming, ranting, seething mass protests as possible to use in the next state to vote on this. Let the voters there know what rational and “just plain” folks they are actually up against. Do include photos of odd duck churches who are for it to enlighten there, too. Susan Russell & Co. will provide as much material as you can use, and then some.
For another perspective . . .
http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/california_passes_anti_gay