In light of Casey's comment, perhaps some clarification is necessary. First, I have the utmost respect for anyone, regardless of their orientation, who desires to serve this country in the Armed Forces. I think the military's don't ask, don't tell policy is a good one. Soldiers have to trust their fellow soldiers with their lives. One of the concerns behind don't ask, don't tell is how openly gay soldiers could potentially prevent that trust for forming. I'm not saying that is a certainty, but it presents enough of a concern that the policy exists.
To answer Casey's question, I don't think this is a victory for people who are "anti-gay" or a loss for institutions that support anti-discrimination policies. It's a win against the elitist intellectuals who think they are entitled to the government's (read taxpayers') money while thumbing their noses at the government by preventing the military from recruiting on campus because they disagree with the military's policy on gays. They are not entitled to my money or Casey's money or any other taxpayer's money. The government doles out grants for research and such to colleges and universitys. If said money comes with some strings attached, the institutions don't have to take the money if they don't want to deal with those strings. My guess is that, even though these professors and the institutions they represent are arguing based on their "principles", not a single one of them will take a stand and refuse to accept government money in order to continue to keep recruiters off campus in occordance with their "principles".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hey Mike,
I am assuming you are against homosexual marriage, and that you are in disagreement with a homosexual couple having equal rights resulting from a civil marriage contract.
...So, I found it interesting that you respect the homosexual's desire to serve and fight for our country, yet you don't respect thier want to have basic civil rights that come with the marriage contract.
I realize I made assumptions, so please correct me if I am wrong.
peace dude
You assume right. I am against homosexual marriage. I don't oppose it because it’s the Republican Party’s stance or because I don't think they should have the same rights that heterosexuals do. I oppose it because marriage is an institution that was created by God, not by any government. God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Thus, a gay couple can no more be married than can a man and a cow. Marriage is not a right and the few benefits granted to married couples by the government are not rights that everyone is entitled to.
It is only in the last few decades that gay marriage has become an issue. Throughout history, the “marriage” of two men or two women has not been recognized legally or traditionally. In America, we who are married are afforded a few benefits by the government. These benefits are not rights, they perks that the government bestows on us. Marriage is not a right granted by the Constitution. Thus, any who aren’t married don’t gain those benefits. A straight couple living together don’t get any of these benefits either. Gay “marriage” does not fit the spiritual, traditional and (currently) legal definition of marriage and thus should not be recognized.
Even though I oppose gay marriage, I also oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. As far as I'm concerned, the federal government should keep its hands off of marriage. It should be left up to the states to determine how civil marriage will be recognized in each state, by way of the tenth amendment to the Constitution. If that were the case, then should Ohio, through its elected representatives, choose to define civil marriage as only a union between a man and a woman, it could do so. If Massachusetts wants to allow civil unions for gay couples, it can.
Unfortunately, gay marriage has been politicized beyond recall. It’s become a Pandora’s Box that cannot be closed. I know you probably don’t agree with me, but I hope this clarifies my position on the whole thing.
Mike
Yes, thanks for clarifying, and you are right about it being a "pandora's box".
I don't disagree so much - I am not for homosexuality or disagreeing with the definition of marriage (spiritually).
However, it is hard for me to boldly deny them these significant "few" benefits of marriage (especially if they are willing to join the military and endure a wartime period):
Tables of Laws in the United States Code
Involving Marital Status, by Category
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
Title 7—Agriculture
Chapter 5—Food Stamp Program
§ 2012 Definitions
§ 2014 Eligible households
§ 2020 Administration
§ 2030 Washington Family Independence Demonstration Project
§ 2031 Food stamp portion of Minnesota Family Investment Plan
Title 42—The Public Health And Welfare
Chapter 7—Social Security
Subchapter II—Federal Old-Age, Survivors, And Disability Insurance Benefits
§ 402 Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments
§ 403 Reduction of insurance benefits
§ 404 Overpayments and underpayments
§ 405 Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments
§ 409 "Wages" defined
§ 410 Definitions relating to employment
§ 411 Definitions relating to self-employment
§ 413 Quarter and quarter of coverage
§ 415 Computation of primary insurance amount
§ 416 Additional definitions
§ 422 Rehabilitation services
§ 423 Disability insurance benefit payments
§ 425 Additional rules relating to benefits based on disability
§ 426 Entitlement to hospital insurance benefits
§ 426-1 End stage renal disease program
§ 427 Transitional insured status for purposes of old-age and survivors benefits
§ 428 Benefits at age 72 for certain uninsured individuals
Subchapter IV—Grants To States For Aid And Services To Needy Families With Children
And For Child-Welfare Services
Part A—Aid To Families With Dependent Children [Effective until July 1, 1997]
§ 602 State plans for aid and services to needy families with children; contents; approval by Secretary;
records and reports; treatment of earned income advances
§ 606 Definitions
§ 607 Dependent children of unemployed parents
§ 615 Attribution of income and resources of sponsor and spouse to alien
Part A—Block Grants To States For Temporary Assistance For Needy Families
[Effective on July 1, 1997]
§ 601 Purpose
GAO/OGC-97-16 Enclosure II
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
§ 604 Use of grants
§ 607 Mandatory work requirements
§ 608 Prohibitions; requirements
§ 611 Data collection and reporting
§ 613 Research, evaluations, and national studies
Part D—Child Support And Establishment Of Paternity
§ 651 Authorization of appropriations
§ 652 Duties of Secretary
§ 653 Federal Parent Locator Service
§ 654 State plan for child and spousal support
§ 659 Enforcement of individual's legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments
§ 661 Regulations pertaining to garnishments [Public Law 104-193 provides for repeal of this section,
effective February 22, 1997.]
§ 662 Definitions
§ 664 Collection of past-due support from Federal tax refunds
§ 665 Allotments from pay for child and spousal support owed by members of uniformed services on
active duty
§ 666 Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support
enforcement
Part E—Federal Payments For Foster Care And Adoption Assistance
§ 679a National Adoption Information Clearinghouse
Subchapter V—Maternal And Child Health Services Block Grant
§ 710 Separate program for abstinence education
Subchapter VII—Administration
§ 907a National Commission on Social Security
Subchapter XI—General Provisions, Peer Review, And Administrative Simplification
Part A—General Provisions
§ 1319 Federal participation in payments for repairs to home owned by recipient of aid or assistance
§ 1320a-6 Adjustments in SSI benefits on account of retroactive benefits under subchapter II
§ 1320b-1 Notification of Social Security claimant with respect to deferred vested benefits
§ 1320b-9 National Commission on Children
Subchapter XVI—Supplemental Security Income For Aged, Blind,
And Disabled
Part A—Determination Of Benefits
§ 1382 Eligibility for benefits
§ 1382a Income; earned and unearned income defined; exclusions from income
§ 1382b Resources
§ 1382c Definitions
§ 1382d Rehabilitation services for blind and disabled individuals
§ 1382g Payments to State for operation of supplementation program
§ 1382h Benefits for individuals who perform substantial gainful activity despite severe medical impairment
§ 1382j Attribution of sponsor's income and resources to aliens
Part B—Procedural And General Provisions
Page 2 GAO/OGC-97-16 Enclosure II
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
§ 1383 Procedure for payment of benefits
§ 1383c Eligibility for medical assistance of aged, blind, or disabled individuals under State's medical
assistance plan
Subchapter XVIII—Health Insurance For Aged And Disabled
Part A—Hospital Insurance Benefits For Aged And Disabled
§ 1395i-2 Hospital insurance benefits for uninsured elderly individuals not otherwise eligible
Part B—Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits For Aged And Disabled
§ 1395p Enrollment periods
§ 1395r Amount of premiums for individuals enrolled under this part
§ 1395s Payment of premiums
Part C—Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 1395y Exclusions from coverage and medicare as secondary payer
§ 1395gg Overpayment on behalf of individuals and settlement of claims for benefits on behalf of deceased
individuals
§ 1395mm Payments to health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans
Subchapter XIX—Grants To States For Medical Assistance Programs
§ 1396a State plans for medical assistance
§ 1396b Payment to States
§ 1396d Definitions
§ 1396p Liens, adjustments and recoveries, and transfers of assets
§ 1396r Requirements for nursing facilities
§ 1396r-5 Treatment of income and resources for certain institutionalized spouses
§ 1396u-1 Assuring coverage for certain low-income families
§ 1396v References to laws directly affecting medicaid program
Chapter 8—Low-Income Housing
Subchapter I—General Program Of Assisted Housing
§ 1437a Rental payments
Chapter 8A—Slum Clearance, Urban Renewal, And Farm Housing
Subchapter III—Farm Housing
§ 1471 Financial assistance by Secretary of Agriculture
Chapter 32—Third Party Liability For Hospital And Medical Care
§ 2651 Recovery by United States
Chapter 130—National Affordable Housing
Subchapter I—General Provisions And Policies
§ 12704 Definitions
§ 12713 Eligibility under first-time homebuyer programs
Subchapter III—National Homeownership Trust Demonstration
§ 12852 Assistance for first-time homebuyers
§ 12854 Definitions
Subchapter IV—Hope For Homeownership Of Multifamily And
Single Family Homes
Part B—Hope For Homeownership Of Single Family Homes
§ 12896 Definitions
Page 3 GAO/OGC-97-16 Enclosure II
I do think that as a "civil union", they should have these same benefits, whether given by the nation or by the state.
I understand it is not a simple issue, but especially if a homosexual couple has children they are raising up in the institution of the family, then some of these benefits or rights must be essential.
Are there other issues that I am missing? I ask because I appreciate and respect your knowledge of our government.
peace dude
If we set aside the spiritual nature of marriage and the moral implications of gay marriage/civil unions and look at it strictly from the point of view of the government, then yes, it is hard to see why a gay couple should not gain the same benefits as married couples. Some would argue that gay couples should receive the benefits of marriage based on the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Amendment XIV Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Believing as I do in the strict interpretation of the Constitution, using the equal protection clause as the basis for an argument for gay marriage takes the clause out of context. No law has been made that abridges the rights of gay couples juxtaposed with a traditional married couple. As I mentioned yesterday, marriage (and its benefits) is not a right granted by the Constitution and thus equal protection doesn’t apply in my opinion.
I firmly believe that laws governing gay marriage should be left to the States to decide. Amendment X grants all power not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution to the States. Since there is no mention of marriage at all in the Constitution, the power to pass laws related to marriage rests with the States. The only issue with that is whether the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV would trump one state’s ban on gave marriage in favor of another states allowance of it. For example, if Ohio prohibits gay marriage and doesn’t recognize gay marriages or civil unions performed in other states, what happens when a gay couple living in California (which allows gay marriage) moves to Ohio? It’s a sticky problem and one not easily solved.
I don’t know what the solution is. If I look at the issue from a sterile, logical standpoint, I would agree with you that a gay couple should be given the same or similar benefits. However, I cannot simply set aside my feelings and opinions about gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Those feelings and opinions are part of who I am and were formed by how I was raised and many other factors. I can’t really give you a hard and fast reason why I don’t think gay couple should receive the benefits that married couples do. It’s not from lack of compassion, I just think it’s wrong. I know that isn’t much of an answer, but I don’t really know how to put it into words.
Mike
There certainly is not an easy, good answer.
I do appreciate and respect your opinion and knowledge of the whole situation.
Post a Comment