homosexuality 1

Document Sample
homosexuality 1 Powered By Docstoc
					                     Guide to the Issues:
                    Domestic Partners/Civil Unions

               Issue Summary:
               Domestic partner benefits are really another way of providing marriage benefits for homo-
               sexual partners and, in some instances, cohabiting men and women. At the heart of the
               issue lies the definition of marriage and family. It touches on the fundamental aspects of
               our social and cultural order. The implications go far beyond health care benefits. The
               issue represents a significant step in overhauling the mores of society. Marriage is a
               sacred institution rooted in the created order and nature. Ultimately, redefining marriage
               places the foundation of our society at risk.

               Redefining the family beyond heterosexual marriage would lead to cultural confusion and
               societal anarchy. In essence, it would be a declaration that it is no longer the standard of
               society to include a mother and a father in the lives of children. By definition, homosexu-
               al couples exclude one or the other. The definition of family shifts from a one-man, one-
               woman relationship to a “relationship of love”—the rationale given by gay activists for why
               they should be allowed to marry. Ultimately others involved in alternative arrangements
               will claim that their relationships of “love” are worthy of social recognition, whether they
               are bigamous, polygamous, or even incestuous relationships.

               Grounds for objecting to domestic partner arrangements must rest first and foremost on
               the declaration that legitimate marriage can exist only between one man and one woman.
               Society deems this relationship of such importance that it grants privileges and benefits
               to marriages and families that it does not afford other relationships.

               The state government must not take it upon itself to overhaul the definition of marriage or
               to change the standard of family in society. To do so would lead to long-term destructive
               consequences.




                                         • It is contrary to the state’s current   variety of health problems. Data
Talking Points                           policy. The state legislature passed      from the Centers for Disease
                                         the Defense of Marriage Act               Control       and    the      Justice
• It is reasonable to treat married      (DOMA), and state law limits mar-         Department’s Bureau of Justice
couples differently than those in        riage benefits to spouses and             Statistics found that rates of
other relationships. State law           dependent children for local units        domestic violence for homosexuals
requires a married person to sup-        of government.                            are 4 to 25 times the rates for mar-
port his or her spouse, but it                                                     ried couples (Gay 2002). The inci-
imposes no such requirement on           • Lack of equity for family mem-          dence of AIDS is approximately 21
unmarried partners. An unmarried         bers. Current family members such         times higher among homosexual
partner can terminate a domestic         as an elderly parent, grandchil-          men than heterosexual men.
partnership with no legal penal-         dren, ailing grandparent, or adult
ties, something a married person         child are not eligible for benefits. If   • Morally wrong. Domestic part-
could not do legally. Therefore, it is   we truly want to help family mem-         ner benefits force taxpayers to sub-
reasonable for the state to recog-       bers, these individuals should be         sidize behaviors many would
nize the additional legal duty of        helped first.                             object to for moral and ethical rea-
support imposed on state employ-                                                   sons.
ees by covering spouses of married       • Benefits are costly. Domestic
employees but not unmarried              partner benefits subsidize individ-       • Fairness issue. A state employee
partners.                                uals who are at a higher risk for a       who cares for his disabled, ailing

                                                                                                    Homosexuality 5-1
grandmother cannot get coverage        are not married but are cohabiting         • Domestic partner benefits will
for her under his state employee       are excluded from coverage simply          serve as a “homosexual recruit-
insurance plan, but under domes-       because they are not homosexuals.          ment program” since no other indi-
tic partners proposals, the state                                                 viduals will benefit from this pro-
will cover the unmarried same-sex      • Bad employee policy. Strong              posal. Proponents of domestic
partner who is fully employed.         marriages and families are essen-          partners benefits argue it is neces-
This is fundamentally unfair to        tial for a productive employee and         sary to attract good employees.
individuals who care for another       workforce. Domestic partnerships,          This is disingenuous because it
person but don’t have a sexual         whether homosexual or heterosex-           does nothing for the 99.5 percent
relationship with that person.         ual, are inherently unstable rela-         plus of the potential workforce
                                       tionships. A British medical journal       ineligible for these benefits. If the
• Accountability problem. There is     reported that in the Netherlands, a        state wants to recruit the best
no requirement that the domestic       country that officially recognizes         employees, it should propose
partners even live together. What is   homosexual relationships, male             something for all potential
to prevent a state employee from       homosexual relationships last an           employees.
covering a friend or continuing to     average 1.5 years, and gay men
cover an ex-partner?                   have on average eight partners a           • Unwise financial expenditure.
                                       year outside their “committed”             Marriage benefits for homosexual
• Same sex domestic partner bene-      relationship. Granting benefits            partners represent an unnecessary
fits violate the state’s Human         does not make these relationships          expense that should be dropped
Rights Act by discriminating           more stable but only gives incen-          given all the demands for revenues
against individuals based on sexu-     tives for more people to enter into        from other interests.
al orientation. Heterosexuals who      such arrangements (Xiridou, 2003).



                                                                   Gay domestic violence finally measured. (2002). Family Research
                                                                   Report. Journal of the Family Research Institute, vol. 16 n. (8).
                                                                   Retrieved on December 19, 2003 from: http://www.familyre-
 Recommendations                                                   searchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html

                                                                   Xiridou, Maria, et al., “The Contributions of Steady and Casual
                                                                   Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among
 • Pass a constitutional marriage amendment prohibiting            Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-38. Can
 the state from recognizing homosexual “marriages” and             be found at the Official Journal of the International Aids Society
                                                                   Web site: http://www.aidsonline.com/
 related civil unions and domestic partnerships. Marriage
 should be limited to one man and one woman, and mar-
 riage benefits should be afforded to only married couples.
                                                                                      Prepared by
 • Prohibit Minnesota state government from granting                          The Minnesota Family Institute:
 domestic partner benefits to state employees.                                  a non-profit, non-partisan,
                                                                                    pro-family group.
 • Prohibit any Minnesota unit of government from requir-
 ing private companies doing business with that govern-                2855 Anthony Lane South, Suite 150
 mental body to provide domestic partner benefits to the                  Minneapolis, MN 55418-3265
 company’s employees.                                                Phone: 612-789-8811, Fax: 612-789-8858,
                                                                              Website: www.mfc.org




5-2 Homosexuality

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1483
posted:5/25/2011
language:English
pages:2