The "mainstream media" continues to give an unwarranted amount attention marriage neutering advocacy. See this article by Maeve Reston in the Los Angeles Times.
I appreciate all who have served honorably, but has Romney made a secret of his positions?
But he wanted more than a yes or a no; he went on to talk about benefits, completely ignoring the fact that spousal benefits were set up to aid in the formation of sex-inclusive families that naturally created the next generation of citizens in a way that recognized the fact that there would usually be a division of labor between the spouses. Specifically with military personnel, it was expected that the wife would be taking care of the children while the husband was off at war or training or anything else related to being in the military.
Garon talks about equality, but his argument appeals to military service. Not all people do or are even able to serve in the military, so Garon supports, apparently, treating people differently depending on what they do – which is exactly what the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing or federal recognition of marriage does.
New Hampshire voters pride themselves on vetting and testing their candidates, and Vietnam veteran Bob Garon waited for more than two hours at a Manchester diner Monday to get Mitt Romney's views on the proposed repeal of New Hampshire's law [neutering] marriage.
I appreciate all who have served honorably, but has Romney made a secret of his positions?
Eventually Garon, who is 63 and [has a "marriage" license with another] man, got his chance for a one-on-one exchange. Noticing Garon's black Vietnam veteran cap, Romney sat down beside him and tried to strike up a conversation about his military service as reporters and cameramen crowded around the booth.
"I've have a question for you," Garon said, cutting off the former Massachusetts governor’s attempt at chitchat. "New Hampshire has some legislation kicking around about the repeal of [neutering of state marriage licensing]... All I need is a yes or a no."
But he wanted more than a yes or a no; he went on to talk about benefits, completely ignoring the fact that spousal benefits were set up to aid in the formation of sex-inclusive families that naturally created the next generation of citizens in a way that recognized the fact that there would usually be a division of labor between the spouses. Specifically with military personnel, it was expected that the wife would be taking care of the children while the husband was off at war or training or anything else related to being in the military.
Garon talks about equality, but his argument appeals to military service. Not all people do or are even able to serve in the military, so Garon supports, apparently, treating people differently depending on what they do – which is exactly what the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing or federal recognition of marriage does.
There was recent passage of a law that parents of unwed military personnel, may be buried next to their child in U.S. veterans cemeteries.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationaljournal.com/a-mother-s-fight-to-rest-beside-her-fallen-son-20110701
If congress can pass laws for unwed military personnel, who may not be married for the benefit of designated kin. Right now we only have one way of designating kin, outside consanguinity.
Marriage serves a social and legal purpose, that acknowledges how consanguinity is created through sexual relations between a man and a woman.
It doesn't mean we can not create new terms and understanding both socially and legally to serve non-married individuals veterans or non-veterans.
Personally I'm was for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, since women are allowed to serve.