Hmmm...I feel a little disappointed by this story, but I talked to one of the council members today and it sounds like the sticking point may not be so much the same-sex partner issue as concern over the costs when you include all the people who can legally marry but have not. It's not the end, by any means.
I know Mayor Isaac angered many over her initial introduction of the plan, but I do agree with her that in doing so she was upholding the city ordinance which prohibits discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. Since same sex partners are not permitted by law to marry, allowing domestic partner benefits helps bring equity. Obviously there are some who don't see it that way.
It sort of strikes me as a situation akin to those who disagree with both abortion and contraception. Really, if you want to reduce abortions, contraception is the way to go. I realise that there are religious concerns in some groups regarding the interference with the semen or those that prevent the implantation of an embryo (such as the 'abortion pill'). But the birth control pill, morning after pill, and other forms of contraception that work by preventing ovulation are an entirely different matter.
Likewise, there are some who say, well, we shouldn't let gays marry because that is somehow (I've never understood how) a threat to the concept of marriage. They cite divorce statistics and the unravelling of the American family, as if there were not complex societal reasons for that completely unrelated to homosexuality. But, that said, they are also against the equity of rights that can be done without allowing marriage, but for the same reason--it threatens marriage because then anyone could choose not to get married. You know what? People are going to choose for and against marriage for all sorts of reasons. It's just a shame that there are people out there who would love to get married who cannot. They're not out for the benefits. They're out for the chance to solidify their bond in the same way any other two people in love might. It's also a shame, though, that unless they go through a lot of legal preparation, a same-sex couple can't automatically inherit, aren't necessarily allowed to adopt as a couple, can be prevented--in the extreme but real-life cases of someone in a coma or otherwise incapacitated--from ever seeing their loved one because the 'real family' doesn't agree. That's ludicrous, but even more so, it's wrong.
Okay, I promise, this will be my last political rant of the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment