Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.
Image by benchilada via FlickrOne of the key arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil “marriage” revolves around all the government “benefits” that homosexuals claim they are denied. Many of these “benefits” involve one thing—taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals of homosexual activists is to take part in the biggest government entitlement program of all—Social Security. Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits when one partner dies.
The fact that Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer has not kept homosexuals from demanding the benefit.
Homosexual activists are also demanding that children raised by a homosexual couple be eligible for benefits when one of the partners dies—even if the deceased partner was not the child’s biological or adoptive parent.
As another example, homosexuals who are employed by the government want to be able to name their homosexual partners as dependents in order to get the taxpayers to pay for health insurance for them. Never mind that most homosexual couples include two wage-earners, each of whom can obtain their own
insurance. Never mind that “dependents” were, when the tax code was developed, assumed to be children and stay-at-home mothers. And never mind that homosexuals have higher rates of physical disease, mental illness, and substance abuse,2 leading to more medical claims and higher insurance premiums. No, all of these logical considerations must give way in the face of the demand for taxpayer subsidies of homosexual relationships.
But these costs would be imposed not only upon governments, but upon businesses and private organizations as well. Some organizations already offer “domestic partner” benefits to same-sex couples as a matter of choice. Social conservatives have discouraged such policies, but we have not attempted to forbid them by law. Imagine, though, what the impact on employee benefit programs would be if homosexual “marriage” is legalized nationwide. Right now, marriage still provides a clear, bright line, both legally and socially,
to distinguish those who receive dependent benefits and those who don’t. But if homosexual couples are granted the full legal status of civil “marriage”, then employers who do not want to grant benefits to homosexual partners—whether out of principle, or simply because of a prudent economic judgment—would
undoubtedly be coerced by court orders to do so.
