Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

Here's the question:

If a public entity, such as a University, uses private funds to pay for same-sex domestic partnership benefits, is that still unconstitutional in a state that has banned all government recognition of same-sex unions? Does the way the benefits are funded make a difference, since it's not taxpayer money?

Have a look at this story for some background:

Bill Would Ban State Funds For U. Florida Gay Benefits Package

[Valdimar]

That's just not right. There shouldn't be ANY kind of law dictating how a non-public organization delegates their funds.

[F'losrix]

It seems so often the argument turns to it being an issue that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund. But I doubt the supporters of gay marriage bans are going to look the other way just because private funds are being used. I don't think the money is really the issue for most of them. The issue for them is the recognition of gay couples' unions, period. Even if it were merely a symbolic gesture with no actual benefits or public monies involved, they'd still have a canary.

Have a look at the wording of the amendment in Michigan as an example:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

Do we put the emphasis on the purpose stated in the opening - preservation of marriage? Or on the latter part, "the only agreement recognized...for any purpose"?

The lower court ruling indicated that the words 'for any purpose' were an overextension of the stated intent of protecting marriage, bringing into question whether the amendment was really about protecting heterosexual marriage or if it was used as a disguise for targeting the unions of gay couples for broad-based discrimination. Amendment supporters argue that recognizing gay unions 'for any purpose' represents an endangerment to marriage and there is therefore no conflict of purpose contained in the amendment.

If the latter is true, then how the benefits are funded makes no difference. ANY recognition of any non-marital union by a public entity - regardless of funding issues - would be prohibited. The thing is, this amendment is really broad when interpreted this way. One could even make the argument that a court of law would be prohibited from recognizing otherwise legal contracts between private individuals that attempt to approximate a marital arrangement. I have to wonder how long it will be before the greedy family of some recently deceased gay guy sues his surviving partner to break his will, making a claim that to honor it will amount to the court recognizing a gay union for some purpose in violation of the amendment.

The amendment is built on two questionable assumptions:

1) That preventing the recognition of other unions will help to preserve marriage.

2) That recognizing other unions will be detrimental to marriage.

Neither has been proved.

These amendments aren't about preserving heterosexual marriages, they're about using the law to create financial and societal pressures on gay unions in hopes of destroying them. They won't have the effect of making gay people choose heterosexual unions just because it's the only option for marriage. They won't stop people from being gay and struggling doubly hard to make it as a couple in spite of these pressures.

The idea is to punish gay couples for being gay and daring to form families together. That's what these amendments are about.

[Valdimar]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: The idea is to punish gay couples for being gay and daring to form families together. That's what these amendments are about.
You make a lot of excellent points. It really all sums down to this. I mean, how dare gays and lesbians attempt to strengthen the institutions of marriage and family that are slowly being destroyed by those trying to 'protect' them. :lol: