Friday, May 08, 2009

The Gay Marriage and Rights Issues

Thousands of years of Western civilization have recognized marriage as between a man and a woman. It did so not out some sort of moral superiority as those ignorant of history on the far left contend, but did so because the institution of marriage was created to protect the legitimate rights of children. While there were certain religious values considered, the marriage between a man and woman legally gave the children a stake in their parents’ estate.

The trend continued with the advent of the Social Security Insurance program in the United States in the 1930s. Spouse survival benefits and benefits for children under 18 were meant to benefit family units and to protect those who still had children or those who had helped raise children during their lives. Not until this day, has the social argument been about giving rights to someone just for being in a committed relationship with another.

As for that, gay rights activists claim to be helpless in such matters without marriage. That is simply not true. Gays are as helpless in such matters as single people or even married people who do not take the time to plan their estates and health care decisions. It is irking that those with political benefits to be had encourage gays to be victims instead of being proactive about using the tools at hand to have things as they want them. .

If a gay couple enjoys a committed relationship, they can have one another as beneficiaries on life insurance policies, designate powers of attorney for one another, created wills and living wills dictating who decides what and who gets what. The only exception is if the individual is in a heterosexual marriage, then the omitted heterosexual spouse can claim the elective share of one third of the estate. There is nothing that prevents a gay couple from having real property or bank accounts with joint rights of survivorship.

Further, making homosexuals a protected Civil Rights class is tricky and could be filled with potential fraud. Race and gender are clearly visible. Homosexuality is a behavior. One can claim he or she is homosexual and unless the potential contractor or employer is privy to the bedroom of the applicant, that potential contractor or employer has no way of knowing for sure.

Frankly, potential employers should not know such things. Opening the door to create a protected class out of one set of human behavior could lead to more behaviors having to be discussed. Life in America is already too intrusive. Questions about eating habits, tobacco use and now sexual preference are factored in deciding who can do the best job. What’s next a protected class for men who prefer overweight redheads who have tattoos?

Another tricky provision that passed the United States House of Representatives recently is the idea that speaking against homosexuals could constitute hate speech. That seems to fly in the face of religious freedom. Muslims, Christians, Jews, all have those among them who teach against homosexuality. Will that become a crime?

Perhaps we in America should go back to letting people live as they want to, as long as they do not demand the rest of us endorse it. It is simple isn’t it? If you are gay or you like to swing with the neighbors, who really cares, as long as you do not ask the rest of us to pay for it or give you some sort of recognition for how you live. Blame that on my business background. I do not care what someone does in their bedroom and who they do it with if that person offers me the best product or service for the best price. That is business. That is the true American way.

It is the height of arrogance for anyone, gay or straight, to ask that they be a protected civil rights class for sexual preferences. Gays are typically among the most affluent among us. They simply do not have the strength of the arguments other protected classes have had over the years. Further, it is arrogant and ignorant for gay activists to demand the right to marriage, an institution clearly designed for pro-creation.

I realize that my remarks will be called by some as homophobic. That is the cliched response of the far left. I have no fear of homosexuals. I do not judge them. I think people who go around screaming at them or trying to “deprogram” them and things like that are unsavory. I have worked with and respected gay people in the business place. But, by the same token, as I would not tell a homosexual how he or she should live, I ask in return that they not demand that my government and my tax money be made to cater to them. I ask that they not demand the government call cherished religious values hate speech. It is time the far left learned that live and let live works both ways, not just for them. The heterophobia needs to stop.


  1. Someone emailed me your blog and let me just say three cheers. Your points are well made and well thought out!!!!

  2. AnonymousMay 08, 2009

    This is an outrageous and homophobic diatribe. Lincoln and Jesus both were gay, did you not know that?

  3. I guess who want both parties pissed at you. Wow. Just when I thought you were ready to be compassionate Democrat.

    I guess you are hellbent to be the bastard stepchild at both the GOP and Democratic family reunions.

  4. Obama ManMay 15, 2009

    Good God Almighty again, Cracker. Crackers like you did not want black men marrying your white women. And, we all know why. We can give those white women something that they can't get from a white man.

    What are you crackers pissed at now, that some woman can give a white woman something you can't?

    I wish the good lord would have given you crackers bigger crackers. Your cracker asses would be easier to live with if had bigger crackers.