Final Question Response from the Other Guys

Ingrid posts her final essay.

Sadly, about half of it is pure emotion. Stories. Hurt feelings.

When she does get around to facts, they are not really germane:

You simply can’t deny that Michigan’s ban is being used to take away domestic partner health insurance. Or that Ohio judges have cited their ban to dismiss domestic violence charges.

As we have noted before, "domestic partner" health insurance, when contracted or agreed to by a PRIVATE company, will not be affected. And when part of a union-contract with a public entity, they are not likely to be overturned (look, e.g., at Milwaukee County's retirement fiasco.)

However, "domestic partners" may or may NOT be homosexual. The public will not readily agree to offering healthcare benefits to anyone who is shacking up...and that discussion should be had.

As to "domestic violence," (also pointed out before,) this is also called "assault and battery." No problem. Cops arrest people for that every day. By the way, domestic violence of any sort is rarely something "out of the blue." Prudent people can read the signs of the times.

This debate has not been a "close call." Hypotheses about what might happen, what coulda/woulda/shoulda happened, and heartstring-pullers are not substantial, nor evidence.

It remains the case that the State cannot make licit what is naturally il-licit or un-natural, blackrobes notwithstanding.

Thanks, Owen, for a well-presented case. Ingrid was civil (better than some of her allies) and has our respect for that.

But not for her position.