Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Non-marriage marriage
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The latest trend from California could be non-marriage marriage -- thanks to a new bill sponsored by state Sen. Carole Migden to expand civil unions to heterosexual couples.

You've heard straight supporters of same-sex marriage quip before: How can same-sex marriage affect their heterosexual unions? Unwittingly, Migden has given ammunition to those who argue that same-sex unions will change the institution of marriage for everyone, as she works to offer all heterosexuals Marriage Lite.

Migden is the author of the 1999 civil union bill that allowed same-sex couples to register with the state as domestic partners. Unfortunately, no state bill can offer same-sex couples all the protections of marriage, such as Social Security survivor benefits -- and that should change.

The 1999 bill also allowed heterosexual couples with one partner older than 62 to register as domestic partners -- in order to allow seniors to protect their pensions while enjoying some benefits of marriage. Migden had wanted civil unions to apply to straight and same-sex couples of all ages, but agreed to the over-62 compromise. Now with Senate Bill 11, she is pushing to extend the benefit of having it both ways to all heterosexual couples.

Migden's rationale? More than half of couples in the United States are living together without getting married. Migden, in a telephone interview, cited a New York Times article that reported on heterosexual couples who say they will not marry until homosexual couples can do the same. "It's not just Angelina Jolie and Brad," Migden noted. Brad, being Brad Pitt, who wrote in Esquire, "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."

Note Pitt wrote "consider." And for such commitment, California should change the law? Migden lauded the freedom in America "to choose or not to choose" to marry.

She's right, but that freedom already exists. SB11 is about allowing heterosexuals who don't wed to enjoy some benefits of marriage, without the covenant of matrimony.

An SB11 fact sheet notes that some 40 percent of unwed mothers are "professional, older women who want to have babies" and some "may simply have chosen to live with their significant others first. If those unmarried couples prefer registering as domestic partners so their children can have access to health and other benefits, they should be provided that opportunity."

Except: Whether parents marry or not, they have an obligation to provide for their children and can list their children as dependents for health care. SB11 would not affect children -- it would benefit unmarried parents. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
FDR4Rushmore / Hardly a sermon!


Sorry for the delay in responding, I am checking in as time allows.

FDR4Rushmore writes: “Thanks for the sermon Scott.. Maybe you should save it for the pulpit rather than this forum.”

Well, okay, but it was hardly a sermon! Just making a few of the more obvious scriptural counter-points to your points, that’s all. I try very hard to let the Word do the heavy lifting, without my own opinions or beliefs being the foundation of my position.

As for saving it for the pulpit, while I am not a preacher by profession, as a Christian I am obligated to stand for the truth, to the best of my ability, both within the church and without, both in season and out (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2)


FDR4Rushmore writes: “I don't want to inslut your religion, particularly as you are someone who clearly takes it very seriously, but it's not for me.”

Thank you for not wanting to insult my beliefs, that is kind of you and I appreciate your consideration. While I always try to defend my position to the best of my ability, there can be no compulsion in these matters, and I make no attempt in that regard. However, certainly there is a place for the Word of God in the arena of ideas, discussion and debate; His Word is not confined to the four walls of a church.

As far as “but it’s not for me” is concerned, it was not so long ago that I might have spoken those same words…


FDR4Rushmore writes: “If those are your answers, I wonder if you are capable of having a rational conversation with anyone...”

You need not wonder at all regarding my ability to have a rational conversation. Your greater concern might properly be that the scriptural case on this matter (or any other scriptural issue) is so compelling specifically because of the rational, reasonable and logical elements which can be presented. My belief is not founded upon a blind leap of faith, it is founded upon evidence. Evidence which, if properly presented, I believe would persuade an open-minded jury beyond a reasonable doubt.


TrueAm: Depends on meaning of "stable"
Most opposite-sex couples are sexually faithful to one another.  By contrast, David P. McWhirter, M.D. and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., PhD, found that the notion of sexual fidelity is anathema to long-term male homosexual relationships.  McWhirter and Mattison are themselves homosexual and a male couple. In their book The Male Couple (Prentice-Hall) they report the results of their study of 157 male couples. They concluded that “all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships," that “fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other," and that "the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel.”

Of particular interest are the following parts of their analysis. From pages 253 and 254:

"When we ask the men in this study why they want sex outside the relationship, their answers include the following responses:
"1. 'All my sexual needs are not met by my partner. Sex together gets boring at times, and I need new material for my fantasies.'
"2. 'My partner is not really my sexual type. I still like to have sex with a certain type of man.'
"3. 'It's fun and adventure. The more variety and number of partners, the more adventure and fun.'
"4. 'I have some kinky sexual interests that my partner doesn't share.'
"5. 'We have found that having sex with others often enhances our sex together afterwards.'
"6. 'Sometimes I do it with another guy because I'm so angry at my lover.'
"7. 'At times I get scared with how emotionally tied to each other we are. Having outside sex at times gives me a temporary distance I feel I need to have from my lover.' . . .
" 'We've never felt that either of us should be sexual only with the other. From the beginning that was absurd. He knew as well as I that we would trick out, so why start our relationship by making rules and denying the probability?' "

Page 255:

"Many couples in the earliest years together linked faithfulness with sexual exclusivity, while couples with a longer history think faithfulness has little or nothing to do with sex."

Page 256:

"As a result of this study, we believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel . . . by the end of the fifth year or relationship more than 95 percent are in this group [of 'sexual nonexclusivity']. Bell and Weinberg warn: 'Moreover, it should be recognized that what has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa . . . .' "

McWhirter and Mattison conclude their discussion on page 259 by stating, "We do not trust it [the 'sexual monster'] in our partners, and least of all in ourselves."

Intellectual honesty requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the institution of marriage; whether that which "has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa." For just one example, should adultery be excluded from the reasons for divorces of male couples? The answer appears to be, yes. If the marriage laws apply equally to everyone, then adultery also must be excluded as a reason for divorce among heterosexuals. This also raises the very real question of why male couples should be excluded from marrying as many men as they would like.

Intellectual honesty also requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the children raised in that environment. Accounts from those raised in environments of sexual licentiousness indicate that such an environment is very harmful to development.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.