A tactical regrouping

A tactical regrouping

Homosexual activists have apparently realized that the push for gay marriage after the Massachusetts court decision was a tactical mistake. Rather than push Americans down the slippery slope as liberal social engineers have successfully done over the past 40 years, they moved too fast and alienated most Americans, resulting in numerous states passing constitutional amendments preventing the fiction called gay marriage.

Instead, they’re regrouping, backing up, and pushing for same-sex civil unions, which is marriage in every benefit and right but without the name. And then once that’s in place for a few years, they can then say, “We have marriage in everything but name anyway, so why not give us the name, too?”

“Whether it is called civil unions or it is called domestic partnerships or whether it is called something else,” [ACLU attorney] Choe said, the arrangements must “contain the full range of legal protections that married couples enjoy.”

The sad part is that many conservatives and even bishops have as much as conceded civil unions, so when the liberals all shift their focus, it will probably go through without much opposition.

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
6 comments
  • This gets back to the reason why people like Choe believe marriage exist: it’s a goodie bag of benefits handed out by the government.

    In New York City where it is officially called “domestic partnership”, it’s become a bit of a scam to allow people without an “attraction” of any kind to claim benefits and rights that were at the time of their legislative enactment were intended for families: money, pensions, a rent-controlled appartment, etc.

  • Yup, it’s going to happen.

    We might try to get some use out of it, such as benefits for two women living together in a non-sexual way (mother and daughter, for instance, or two sisters, or even two friends).  Considering the duration of homosexual “partnerships,” the mother/daughter or sister/sister partnership might actually be longer lasting.  Plus, if the legislation could be expanded to include non-sexual relationships, it might look less like “marriage.”  (Somehow I don’t think homosexuals would be overjoyed with my suggestion.)

     

  • Excellent idea, Carrie.  Might as well neutralize it that way.  Of course, it would screw up the benefits married people get—companies won’t want to pay them for all the combinations. But I think that’s going to happen anyway.

  • Can you imagine the good that could be done if you could get medical benefits for anyone under your roof, under the employment policy you already have?  Not to favor civil unions and all that, but if it happens anyway against our will, it can be used… if the lines can be blurred enough so lying about sexual activity is not involved.

    Principle of double effect and all that……

  • If it happens (and I agree it probably will) then it will evolve into two people who are in a partnership as you guys mention. Non sexual in nature. But companies can’t afford that for long and I wonder if socialized medicine will be the long term answer. 🙁

Archives

Categories

Categories