The Benefits of Homosexual Non-Marriage

Bryan Fischer at Idaho Values Alliance has an update up on the marriage Amendment and allegations that the lack of a freedom to marry hurts Homosexuals in regards to visitation:

Yet there is nothing in the amendment that prohibits individuals from entering into private contractual relationships with another individual regarding medical decisions and hospital visitation, and of course it’s possible to include anyone you would like in your will.

Under Idaho law, an individual may designate anyone of his choice to make health care decisions on his behalf. You may examine the legal form by clicking the link below. Due to a recent change in Idaho law, it is not even necessary to get this form notarized.

As Clayton Cramer points out in his blog, this process is actually less cumbersome than getting married.

This serves as a reminder that entering into marriage actually involves relinquishing certain personal rights and freedoms. In marriage, two individuals make a binding commitment to one another that involves the sacrifice of certain liberties. They do this willingly for the sake of the relationship and for the sake of the children they hope to conceive together and with whom they hope to build a family.

There is, of course, nothing in the amendment that prevents two homosexuals from making and keeping any kind of commitments they’d like to each other, but in reality they possess more liberty and freedom now than they would if they were married.

Bill Emory retors in the comments:

Perhaps your bill is not a barrier to medical visitation but is a barrier for gay and lesbian couples to seek to inherit their partner’s social security. This coming June 29 my partner and I will celebrate five years together, which is longer than most heterosexual marriages last. We have made a solemn commitment to each other’s well-being, and we are relentlessly monogamous. As law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, we contribute our fair share into Social Security.

Last year I contacted the Social Security Administration (SSA) to see if there was any paperwork or other arrangements I could make to designate Greg for survivorship benefits in the event of my untimely death. I was told I was unable to do, since we are not married. More recently I visited the SSA Web site and did some calculations concerning what survivorship benefits my spouse might be entitled to. Assuming I did the calculations correctly, I found out my married spouse would be eligible for over $800 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $800 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that Greg is not eligible for, because we are not married, nor are we allowed to get married.

I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I’m sure any married person would, but in essence I’m throwing away money on a fund that Greg is not allowed to take advantage of in the event of my death. At the very least, the government should allow gay spouses to designate each other for survivorship benefits under Social Security.

Well, then I’m sure Mr. Emory will support the creation of Private Social Security Accounts and make sure you can designate your own beneficiary. We welcome him to that cause. Second point, is that anyone who leaves their loved ones at the mercy of Social Security for subsistence isn’t worth their salt.

In addition, Mr. Emory’s got a few facts wrongs. From the Social Security benefits page:

Who can get survivors benefits based on your work?

Your widow or widower can receive full benefits at age 65 or older (if born before January 2, 1940) or reduced benefits as early as age 60. (The age for receiving full benefits is increasing for widows and widowers born after 1939 until it reaches age 67 for people born in 1962 and later.) Visit www.socialsecurity.gov/ww&os2.htm to view the chart that lists the percentage of benefits payable to a widow or widower based on their age. Your disabled widow or widower can get benefits at age 50.
Your widow or widower can receive benefits at any age if she or he takes care of your child who is entitled

If you are getting benefits as a wife or husband based on your spouse’s work, when you report the death to us, we will change your payments to survivors benefits. If we need more information, we will contact you.

If you are getting benefits based on your own work, call or visit us, and we will check to see if you can get more money as a widow or widower. You will receive the higher benefit, not a combination of the two types of benefits. You will need to complete an application to switch to survivors benefits, and we will need to see your spouse’s death certificate.

So, his “spouse” could only get benefits if the $800 a month was more than he’d earn on his own with Social Security and his spouse would get a whole $255 on his death.

The practical, actual effects of marriage to homosexuals can be obtained now with do-it yourself contracts that are much cheaper than actual marriage. What will Gay Marriage do, James Dobson has some quotes that provide some answers:

Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, “Abolish Marriage: Let’s Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms.” In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, “[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let ’em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.” Otherwise, the author warns, “it’s going to get ugly.”

Judith Levine, writing in The Village Voice, offered support for these ideas in an article titled “Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough.” She wrote, “Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, summed up the situation in a recent Weekly Standard article. He noted that if gay marriage is legalized, “marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female … the bottom of this slope is visible from where we now stand.”

We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous.

What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.

It is not that the radical homosexual movement is trying to make Homosexuals part of the traditional marriage ideal (with just the sexes reversed) but are trying to demolish society’s basic understanding of that institution. These are the stakes.

Gay Marriage

Linked to Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, and Rhymes with Right