Regis Nicoll gives an overview of what the big deal is when it comes to neutering marriage. He writes about what SSM is not about:
Echoing a point I have made:
So what is it about? Forcing public affirmation and support of private homosexual behavior.
Contrary to shopworn talking points, same-sex "marriage" is not about equal protections and benefits. In California, where Proposition 8 was vigorously opposed by the gay community, domestic partnerships already qualified for all the major benefits afforded marriage, including hospital visitation, right to make health care decisions for each other, insurance coverage, survivor pension benefits, and rights pertaining to property, inheritance, and parental privileges.
Same-sex "marriage" is also not about formal recognition and public celebration. If a homosexual couple wants their union solemnized in a public ceremony, there are any number of organizations across the country willing to oblige them.
Echoing a point I have made:
Additionally, if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, the demand for assisted reproductive technology (ART) will increase along with the exploitation of donors and the commodification of their reproductive "goods."If SSM is declared a fundamental right by SCOTUS, I would not be surprised if a "right" to federal funding for third-party reproduction follows, to "enforce equality" with heterosexual couples who can reproduce without such aid.
"If SSM is declared a fundamental right by SCOTUS, I would not be surprised if a "right" to federal funding for third-party reproduction follows, to "enforce equality" with heterosexual couples who can reproduce without such aid."
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point, but remember that SCOTUS is not in a position to decide if third party reproduction (or same-sex reproduction with lab-created gametes) is good public policy or not. They will note that it is not illegal, and assume that we want it that way, so they will likely rule that same-sex marriage should be legal as well.
My point is that we have to make same-sex reproduction illegal first, which we could do with a federal law, and explain that we feel it is better public policy to prohibit it than to leave it legal. And, we'd have to make a federal law that unified the effect of state marriages as approving and allowing the couple to reproduce with their own genes, so that no state could strip reproduction rights from marriage by pronouncing a same-sex couple married.
Then there is no way SCOTUS could rule for same-sex marriage.
The key is we have to take action to differentiate the rights of marriage from the rights of same-sex couples.