Had She Had a Penis… How Gay Marriage Would End Discrimination Against Straight Couples
I was in one of these long-term, committed relationships that the Republicans tonight said should be “good enough”… There’s no reason that we should have been allowed to call that “marriage”, even if we wanted to. We should have been happy to have been allowed to be together. She was Mexican. I was white. In the values of generations past, which the conservatives long to get back to, that might not have even been allowed.
Then, she got laid off from her job and lost her health insurance. I wanted to put her on mine. Now, this was 7 or so years ago, and even back then, as an employee of a middle-of-the-road big corporation, I could have added my significant other to my health insurance if we had been a same-sex couple. Had she had a penis,
I could have paid another $100/mo and had her on my Blue Cross. Kudos to Sears & Roebuck for having such an enlightened policy in light of the inability for same sex couples to marry, but as a heterosexual couple, that policy, was, at its very essence, discriminatory!
So we got married.
For health insurance reasons.
It should be no surprise, the marriage didn’t last.
These Republican opponents of same-sex marriage stake their position upon a claim of the sanctity of the institution. What kind of sanctity is there when folks get married at a Las Vegas strip chapel just so that they can share health insurance?
By same sex marriage not being legal across the country, companies which provide benefits have needed to make special exceptions to retain their capable and valued gay employees. These same benefits are not provided to their straight employees. This is a simple reality wherein the market has dictated terms that the government has not yet caught up to. These conservatives pay so much deference to market forces, then they should pay attention to what American corporations are already doing and allow same sec couples to have the same, or as my anecdote demonstrates, even more rights than their straight counterparts.
End the discrimination against long-term, committed heterosexual couples! Allow gay marriage!
To conclude, a new “random” video, set to the Duke of Uke’s Born Bad.
“She was Mexican. I was white. In the values of generations past, which the conservatives long to get back to, that might not have even been allowed.”
Yeah, and I suppose that in the past, everyone MIGHT have been named “Herbert,” too. But no, that was not the case. And neither was there ever a time in any portion of the USA where Hispanics were classified as part of some special racial categorization where they were ineligible to enter into lawful marriage with Whites. Not in 1850, not in 1790…not ever. Any speculation to the contrary is the purest fiction. I realize the assumption that Whitey-was-always-an-asshole-in-every-conceivable-way is the single political idea that unites the entire American political left, but surely you can do better than just making up bullshit that never happened?!?
Meanwhile, marriage is clearly what it actually is ie., an innately heterosexual institution that derives its form from the practice of monogamous sexual reproduction. The fact that some people would like it to be something else is all very interesting, I suppose, but the state no more has the legitimate authority to declare that marriage is a sex neutral institution, than they have the power to declare venison to be a form of vegetable matter. Any marriage license issued by the state would thus be a lie, and it would be a lie effectively issued in the name of every citizen, and I have a legitimate interest to seek not to have lies issued in my name.
I do agree that corporations that make health insurance benefits available to co-habitating homosexual couples, ought to extend those same benefits to co-habitating heterosexual couples.
Actually some of the anti-miscegenation laws specified “all non whites”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States
This admitted injustice seems brought about by some (far from all) big corporations seeking to level the field by offering to same sex couples what hetero couples have access to through marriage. (as you say) All attempts at justice will have mixed results as long as we tie lower health insurance rates to pools through employment and tie that to the state sanctioning or not a partnership.
The thing that kills me is that virtually EVERYONE DEMANDS that other people be involved in their wedding, if they have one, and usually that includes either the church or the state or both. WTF happened to person A marrying person B…end of story?
I can’t believe we have to work for a company that we can buy a group policy from to have Health Care.
Marriage is the marriage of 2 peoples financial concerns. If I can not marry because of Religious reasons and not secular reasons then that should be unconstitutional and discriminatory against my Religious believes.
The Reality of Gay Marriage, is Next of Kin Laws. Property distribution due to Death. Child Care and custody. Next of Kin rights at Hospitals and Funeral homes.
The real injustice in Joko’s blog is that deceit was necessary in order to secure Health Care.
That is the real injustice.
Imagine a world without Health Insurance companies. Its easy if you try.
Marriage is nothing more than a social partnership agreement. It provides the parties of that partnership basic rights, responsibilities and benefits by law (which usually cannot be contested by outside parties) rather than by a written agreement (which can always be contested). Why should people who wish to form such a partnership be limited by their gender? From my point of view, limiting the parties of a social partnership to be opposite gender only is no different than limiting the parties in a business partnership to be only people or entities that have a net worth of $5 million or more.
Maybe instead of defining the term “marriage”, the legal reference to those rights, responsibilities and benefits should be changed to the term “social partnership”. Instead of marriage licenses and certificates they should issue social partnership licenses and certificates. That way marriages could be had by those that hold the term “marriage” near and dear in the privacy of their own partnering ceremony and everybody else can just have the legal rights, etc. that they are actually partnering up for.
I wrote this today for another social media but it applies to this discussion.
A single, straight, white man’s thoughts on marriage, civil unions, and significant relationships.
Disclaimer: I have been married twice, am not in a relationship and at 61 don’t see that changing.
I think all branches of government should view all of the above equally. Whatever you call yourself, your relationship should have the same rights as any of the others.
The only advantage of marriage under that circumstance would be you would have to pay a fee to get married and pay courts and a lawyer to get a divorce.
All three require (at least are supposed to require) a special loving relationship. No other requirement should be added.
“She was Mexican. I was white.”
This happens to me all the time too.