We shouldn't be so busy celebrating our recent victories at the Supreme Court that we forget that this battle for marriage equality is far from over. There are already pitiful rumblings of an anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment.
Also, the following graphic from the right-wing Heritage Foundation shouldn't be ignored:
All in all, it's the usual mumbo-jumbo about how heterosexual marriage is the best institution to raise children. However, there is an item which should give us all pause. The Heritage Foundation claims that one of the consequences of so-called "redefining marriage" is that the government would be forced to intervene and welfare programs would grow.
Now what the heck does that have to do with allow gay couples to marry. The slight sinister implications from that claim bothers me and I have a feeling we will be hearing more from this inference. In fact, probably more than we would like.
Also, the following graphic from the right-wing Heritage Foundation shouldn't be ignored:
All in all, it's the usual mumbo-jumbo about how heterosexual marriage is the best institution to raise children. However, there is an item which should give us all pause. The Heritage Foundation claims that one of the consequences of so-called "redefining marriage" is that the government would be forced to intervene and welfare programs would grow.
Now what the heck does that have to do with allow gay couples to marry. The slight sinister implications from that claim bothers me and I have a feeling we will be hearing more from this inference. In fact, probably more than we would like.
4 comments:
I imagine that welfare programs are already being needed more because of the difficulty of getting a job that pays a living wage. Seems to me that they picked something that is already underway so that they can say that the increase proves that marriage equality is harmful.
"decades of social science"--really? for the past few decades now, the social science research has been fairly unanimous that same-sex parents are at least as good for children as opposite-sex ones.
So, if marriage is based on reproduction, then why are women past child-bearing age allowed to marry? How come men and women in their 90s are allowed to marry?
You people really ought to think before you open your mouths!
I'm assuming that "government would be forced to intervene more often" is a reference to child protection. Which raises the very real possibility that these zealots might take it upon themselves to report same-sex-parented households to child protection authorities solely because those households are headed by LGBT individuals. And in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage isn't recognized, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that some child protection agencies and courts might buy into the idea that being raised by two moms or two dads is in "fact" not in the children's best interests. Very scary.
Post a Comment