Recall that the standard liberal/gay agenda line on the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision was that it is wrong to have Big Brother entering into the privacy of people’s bedrooms and telling them what they can and cannot do. (Nevermind that this wasn’t what the Texas law or the case was about.) In fact, we could all go back to the Griswold v. Connecticut decision from 1965 that struck down laws against contraception and created a constitutional right to privacy that became the basis for Roe v. Wade in 1973.
So how do liberals justify this order from the University of Florida that employees requesting same-sex domestic partner benefits must pledge that they are having sex? Seems that privacy only goes one way, so to speak.
It also reveals the reality that liberals are obsessed with sex. It doesn’t seem to enter anyone’s mind that a true monogamous and committed relationship is about more than sex or even mere romantic love. It’s about a self-sacrificing love that always seeks the good of the other, cf. Pope Benedict’s “Deus caritas est” tomorrow.
Finally, what is the compelling government interest in these sex relationships? What benefit is provided to society by encouraging same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex sexual relationships? All it does is devalue real marriage and family and reduce the civilizing incentive to marry.
Update: A university official said that “the clause is one of several methods used to legally ensure that an employer is only obligated to cover employees in a committed relationship, not longtime roommates.” Since when does the fact that you merely have regular sex with someone mean you’re committed to them?
Technorati Tags: domestic partnerships, homosexuality, liberalism, marriage
