Same-sex partnerships are not equal to legal marriage
By DOUGLAS GRIMM
I am continually amazed to read about the Alaska Supreme Court's decision ordering health benefits to be paid to same-sex partners. I salute anyone who is against this decision and encourage continued opposition.
We are a state and nation of laws. Same-sex relationships are not the same as a legal marriage between one man and one woman. Because these relationships are not legally binding, how can the state be ordered to accept them for benefit purposes?
If same-sex partners are allowed a legally recognized marriage, benefits should be provided. It is unlikely that this will happen. We have addressed this issue before, and the majority has spoken. Their decision should be respected by the minority who choose this "alternate" gay lifestyle.
For state employees in the system, think about what this type of action does to an already overtaxed system. Health-benefit costs continue to rise for singles and those of us who are legally married. This type of decision by a confused Alaska Supreme Court only opens the floodgates. What is next? Male-female shack-ups? Multiple partner shack-ups? Why should they also not be considered equal to married people and receive benefits?
It is a fact that most same-sex relationships rarely last. With no legal documentation as to when these same-sex relationships start and end, how in the heck are the benefit administrators supposed to do their jobs? As a state employee, I was required to present a marriage certificate before my spouse could receive benefit coverage. With same-sex relationships, what proof will the benefit providers require? A note from their "lover" saying they really are in a relationship?
Likewise, if these same-sex relationships end, it's very likely the partner will continue to receive benefits because there is no legal proof of dissolution of the relationship. How about the case where same-sex partners decide to switch partners? Again, no legal proof is available that any kind of relationship even existed. There is a lot room for abuse of the system with such an open-ended policy.
The vast majority of people are opposed to same-sex shack-ups and the very nature of this behavior is so disgusting to many of us that most people would rather not even think about it, much less speak out. Women who engage in sex with other women, and men who have sex with other men, and call it a loving relationship are simply deluding themselves into thinking it is OK. It is just flat out wrong, but as a free country we tolerate many types of distasteful behaviors. Tolerance is OK, but don't expect us to accept it.
Most people will agree with what I am saying, but few will speak out. The gays will obviously rebut this letter and scream "gay-bashing." I wish anyone who is gay no harm whatsoever. You do have the right to do what you do. Others have the right to say it is wrong. Should this letter come to print, it will likely cause a lot responses from the relatively few gays out there. Unfortunately, when you expose their behavior for what it truthfully is, they will get angry. It is predictable.
I strongly encourage all nongay citizens, legislators and judges to consider the truth of the matter. We all have a pretty good sense of what it is right and what is wrong; listen to your common sense. Any law or court decision can be changed. Have the courage to speak out on this. There is more at stake here than just health benefits. This decision is an attack on our social morals.
Finally, to you gays out there - seriously, listen to your own conscience and quietly reflect upon your behavior. Deep down inside, just admit it, you know it is wrong and you can change your behavior. If you can't be honest with yourself and admit your error, at least stop trying to cram your way of life down our throats; keep your sex life private, like any respectable person would, be they gay or not.
Douglas Grimm is a Juneau resident.
This letter reprinted with permission of the author.
It was published in the Juneau Empire on Dec. 28, 2006