Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Ms. "Bait & Switch" now claims that singles and gay rights will abolish ALL marriage

Stella Morabiito
Last April Stella Morabito claimed in The Federalist that same-sex marriage was a “bait and switch” proposition. The goal of the gay community wasn't equality, she claimed, but abolishing the institution of marriage. Exactly why we would go through this much trouble to effect a nuclear solution is never adequately explained. According to Ms. Morabito (a Defender of the Faith™):
Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies.
Those nasty elites (whoever they may be) are at it again. What is “unsustainable” is a reasonable argument to support a single sentence in that paragraph.

Now Ms. Morabito has doubled down (I'm beginning to hate that phrase). In a new piece in The Federalist, today, she claims that singles rights combined with same-sex marriage will abolish all marriage. All. According to Ms Morabito:
… one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.”
To be honest, I am not familiar with “singles’ rights” activism although Morabito does point us to a rather interesting article in Psychology Today. The author, Bella DePaulo, makes an argument that the government should get out of marriage and stop economically subsidizing it. By the way, when Morabito uses the term “central planning” she means Marxism.

Fine. Stella and Bella get yourselves a room and sort it out. The simple fact of the matter is that the government has no plans to relinquish the regulation of marriage. Nor, for that matter, is it likely to stop subsidizing marriage with potential tax breaks and other benefits.

Right now marriage is what it is and, as such, gay couples need to be participants. Irrespective of whether people are inclined towards civil or religious marriage the end result is the creation of a marital estate. The marital estate includes not only the immediate assets of the couple but future (or maybe current) Social Security, pension and insurance benefits. On a federal level United States v. Windsor establishes marriage as the requirement for federal benefits for same-sex couples. These not only define the amount of economic benefits but how those benefits will be distributed. For example, under federal law, a defined benefit pension plan becomes the property of a surviving spouse.

Moreover, people need to stop ignoring the fact that gay couples are raising children. The marital estate attempts to provide for both a surviving spouse and children. Marriage is necessary for this to take place and there is no substitute for marriage.

Furthermore, not all same-sex marriages are going to be adventures through fields of lilies and daisies. There will be divorces. Marriage and the marital estate provide for equitable distribution of assets and obligations as well as for the care of the couple's children.

Finally, while Ms. Morabito's Church will not consecrate same-sex marriages there are an abundance of churches and synagogues that welcome gay couples and are eager to solemnize their weddings. While the gay community is in a never-ending fight for equality with conservative Christians and the Catholic Church, gays are as spiritual as the general population. Many gay couples desire a religious ceremony. I guess that here is where I affirm that nobody will ever force a house of worship to marry a couple if doing so is inconsistent with their beliefs.

We are fighting for something that serves us as spouses and parents. It has been a very hard struggle and it continues in places like Mississippi, Alabama and my home state of Florida. It should be perfectly obvious that we don't want to get something so that we can blow it up. It should be even more obvious that we couldn't blow it up even if we wanted to.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.