Banning Homosex "Marriage" Does Have Benefits

Rick Esenberg is an attorney--he has credibility on the question.

So when the Gay "Marriage" types make ridiculous and unfounded claims, it's worth reading what Rick says on the question.

Homosexuals generally claim that the following "rights" will be impaired by passage of The Amendment:

1. Health insurance for partner and/or children
2. Ability to take family medical leave if partner and/or child is sick or dying
3. Adoption
4. Ability to take funeral leave if partner or child dies
5. Right to receive medical records of partner (careful here, HCPOA does not allow this)
6. Right to view educational rrecords of child (assuming not the bio[logical] child)
7. Default position of medical decision-making
8. Right to be considered "family" in Intensive Care Unit or other emergent [sic] health situations.

Esenberg simply states that "all of these" are possible under the terms of The Amendment.

Today, two people can accomplish much of this by simple agreement. If the law were changed to allow two people to "co-adopt" a child, that wouldn't make those two people "substantially married." If an employer decides to allow you to designate a co-beneficiary for your health insurance, that doesn't marry you either.

Precisely what I have maintained: that simple Legislative action can be taken which allows "partners" these requests.

Esenberg goes on to outline his objection to Homosex Marriage:

The reason I oppose that is because I think it will inevitably contribute to a changed social understanding of what marriage is about, i.e., that it is merely about facilitating a sexual relationship that is chosen and defined by the parties.

The common-sense solution, in Esenberg's opinion:

If there is a social need to create legal avenues for same sex couples to make certain agreements or have access to certain benefits, then we should provide the right for two people to make those agreements or share those benefits.

It's a lot easier than attempting to use Positive Law to contradict the laws of Nature.

Another note of particular interest in the debate was in this morning's JSOnline, which published a story about the principals in the debate.

Describing the tactics of the Homosex "Marriage" proponents, a key item is here:

The campaign has added other wrinkles: fund raising through house parties; training 1,800 speakers to tell their stories so the issue becomes personal;...

It is no small irony that "emotionalizing" the debate is among the tactics here, especially when the campaign's manager says:

"If I can get every voter to think for 15 seconds, I can win this election hands down," he says. "I'm not glib about that. Getting voters to think for 15 seconds is really hard ...

Actually, when "most voters" think is when the "Fair Wisconsin" campaign is in deep trouble.