In 2004, I was so against gay marriage and I still am. However, I do have a little different perspective on this now that I saw Mary Chaney on Letterman. The thing she said was something to the effect that if her girlfriend of 13 years (surprised me) died tomorrow she would not get any social security (at 67 for her and of course herself)and that she does not share any tax breaks. If these are the real issues why not just pass something that gives them these two items. I think that would solve everything. First of all, Social Security is being given to illegal immagrants (possibly) and I truly would rather give it to Americans. Second, tax break can be done...why not? I would not have a problem with this if it did indeed save the sanctity of marriage. Does anyone at all agree with me or am I way crazy...I have been told that before so if I get called it again...no problem. I am just trying to be rational about something that is not necessarily something I agree with. I am trying to be adult about it...scary concept. LOL.
Homosexuality is about sex, not marriage.
If Mary Cheney wants benefits from her fellow citizens to subsidize her sexual proclivities, she is abusing them.
But one thing you pointed out is painfully clear, most of this is about money,,as usual.
Because it's NOT the real issue. The real issue is public recognition, then tolerance, then finally acceptance of homosexuality as an equally alternative lifestyle.
Same-sex marriage is one part of that process. Non-discrimination against homosexuals is another. Hate speech protection is another. Educating our children on homosexuality is another. Homosexual adoptions are another. Research into the genetic background of homosexuality is another.
Each are pieces of the whole.
So Mary Cheney doesn't pay social security in the job she holds? As to tax breaks, gee, that's too bad. I still don't support legalizing gay marriage.
If these are the real issues why not just pass something that gives them these two items.
I wouldn't support that. Why give them all the benefits of marriage? That's the same as saying "I'm against gay marriage. nug, nug, wink, wink."
First of all, Social Security is being given to illegal immagrants (possibly) and I truly would rather give it to Americans.
Instead of granting social security benefits to another new class of people, we should work to take it away from illegals.
On what possible grounds do you think that Mary Chaney, or any other unmarried person, should get someone else's Social Security?
That's like saying, "I want to will my Social Security benefits to the Cato Institute"
It doesn't work like that.
What is the purpose of both the survivor's benefits and the tax breaks?
The assumption that is behind these benefits is that the couple are actually "one." Also, the benfits are designed to support families which are raising children and one or both are working less to nurture those children.
None of which applies in same sex couples.