Home > News > God & Country > As Obama Extends Federal Benefits to Gay Partners, Poll Suggests Broad Support

As Obama Extends Federal Benefits to Gay Partners, Poll Suggests Broad Support

Reader Comments
Back to blog

It just absolutely floors me how so many seem to sincerely believe that Equal Rights for Gays is simply about money and benefits and that somehow the cost of benefits is going to be taken from their pocket.
And the bizarre assumption by some, too many, that Gays are sex crazed and certain to be involved with incest and pedophilia. How absurd.
Maybe I'm wrong seeing as how I'm straight but I don't see the issue that way at all.
I cannot imagine how painful it must be for Gay partners to be barred from the bedside of their dying loved one because society, with the backing of the legal system, refuses to recognize their relationship.
I cannot imagine how painful it must be to know that the country you love and wish to serve doesn't mind letting you become cannon fodder as long as you agree to live a lie and to accept that your country, your government, your society finds it perfectly acceptable to deny you your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I cannot imagine how painful it must be to know that others find it perfectly acceptable to deny you the right to love the person of your choice, to deny you the right to build a loving family, to deny you the right to openly celebrate your love and happiness as a family as other families are allowed to do.
I cannot imagine how painful it must be to have to hide who you are and the one you love from those in a position at your business to deny you advancement opportunities and at times to even deny your continued employment should it become known that you are who you are.
And for those who would deny extending Hate Crime legislation to provide protection to members of the Gay community, I have two words for you. Paul Broussard. You can easily find information regarding the tragedy of his death.

Dee of AR 12:02PM June 28, 2009

Wait wait wait... so you're claiming that straight people are terrorists to gay people. That somehow it is the straight person's fault for a gay person to be unable to physically reproduce. That because, perhaps, as a real minority, there is always the chance of extinction, that is the fault of everyone else? That somehow that constitutes a purposeful assualt on a community that can only have children through needles and adoption? I mean, race minorities have an obvious genetic material that is passed from one generation to the next. The not-so-obvious mechanisms behind the condition of being gay may or may not be genetically transmitted, but if they are, its certainly a losing battle. Or is that your point? That because there exists such a condition, it should florish? Should that be the rule for every condition?
So... you want to make a comparison to a culture that cries that it is not being accepted? Well... seems like most muslims outside the US chant "death to america", yet they send their families here. To that I say: get out. if you don't like it, leave. the same argument could be made here. there are established sets of rules. many states have banned gay marriages. there are plenty of other plots of land on the earth, if you don't like the culture, you know where the door is. i really don't think you gain acceptance by calling everyone that doesn't understand the condition of being gay a terrorist.

Brian of CA 9:12PM June 19, 2009

It seems to me, that to murder another person's spirit; to attack another person's family for simply existing, and to destroy their security and their freedom is a slower and more painful death than many other kinds of terrorist attacks. But that is the perpetual state of our existence in the USA. We, the GLBT community, have been under unrelenting terrorist attacks for nearly the last four hundred years in this country -- from colonial days to the present.
There has never been a shortage of people in the US who desire to destroy GLBT citizens. Some want to do it quickly with direct violence against one or a few of us at a time. While others, like James Dobson and millions of other assassins like him, exploit mindless fears and then pervert the law into their weapons of mass destruction -- thereby reaping a higher body count of ruined lives.
Who is really more dangerous?
Sadly, I don't think the so-called “news” media could give a crap either. At the most, the coverage of the mass murder of gays might just receive perhaps a few words in the moving scroll at the bottom of the tv screen during a newscast.
The captions might read:
"Dozens of homosexuals die in ricin attack…FBI may investigate…Congress to look into deaths perhaps next term after addressing the Economy... (JUST IN)... Brittany Spears accidentally suffocates pet poodle in handbag…Congress to hold hearings on Animal Abuse…New laws are expected to require breathing holes in large purses for pets; millions nationwide voice their concern...(Update)... Another twelve die in ricin attack in homosexual bars; FBI now says it is a local matter…With no federal Hate Crime law protecting homosexuals, Congress says its hands are tied...(Update)… Due to a flood of public outrage, Congress meets in emergency session and passes new laws to require breathing holes in large handbags for small pets…”
It is nothing to joke about, but that is exactly how most people in America treat our lives -- either as a big joke or some dangerous vermin infestation to be stomped out. But I believe the third kind of reaction to us is even more pernicious -- that is, Obama’s attitude: “Ignore them and maybe they will just go away.”
…You get the picture.
(C) Bud Evans
My blog is: rainfish2000 (dot) blogspot (dot) com

Bud Evans of KS 11:15AM June 19, 2009

Marc brings up some good points. There is nothing "equal" about these rights the gay community is demanding. Women have "equal" rights, but you do not call a man a woman. People of all colors have "equal" rights, yet a chinese man is clearly chinese, and not american indian. so, a civil union enjoys "equal" rights to a marriage, but they are not the same thing. if the hetero world came up with a word for a union between a man and a woman that sanctified the reproductive act of sex, i'm sure the gay community would be in an uproar and DEMAND that the same term be applied to them. ESPECIALLY if that term was used in any way to extend tax breaks, benefits, or any other monetary advantage to, say, fertility treatment. heck, if there was no money involved in marriage, gay people would not care one bit. so really, this is all about money. this is about gay people not wanting to pay taxes to support schools, hospitals, infrastructure, energy, etc etc just because they can't save a whopping $500 in taxes. wow. cry me a river.
i find it interesting that no one has yet to comment on the reality that one day it will be possible to manipulate whether a person is gay or straight. that scenario is far too complicated to comment on, I understand that.
and perhaps I was wrong to suggest spirituality is linked to sexual orientation. however, i just think its premature to imply that it is spiritual, since the very meaning of spirituality is definitely unknown. to me, it goes beyond sexual orientation. granted, that concept would imply that i should accept that gay people are entitled to BETTER benefits than me, a straight person. right? i mean thats what we're talking about here. we all know the "rights" of a standard relationship are abused everyday. i see it. corporate america and the rich abuse their power and take advantage of the common folk. but god forbid they take advantage of a gay couple the way they take advantage of a straight couple, then they would have every bleeding-heart liberal lawfirm all over their rearend and put them out of business. i guess thats "equal" huh? straight people get the shaft while we dance on eggshells around gays. whats new?

Brian of CA 3:15AM June 19, 2009

This whole argument that Gays are born Gay just kills me. This argument is made only to bring some kind of legitimacy to the whole Gay rights movement. Funny how scientist have found genes that they believe "may" cause someone to be fat or get cancer or even desire to cheat on ones spouse but no one believes that these people desire any special rights. We don't hear obese people asking to be married to food to save on taxes. We don't hear cheaters wanting to claim both spouse and girl/boyfriend on their health insurance because they were born that way. Yet we have to continually hear that because I was "born" gay I get rights.
Funnier still is that they claim they only want equal rights. Last I checked as a male I don't have the right to extend benefits to another male outside of my family. HMMM... Last I checked any male or female, gay or straight has the same rights. What they ask for is special rights for them. Make no mistake, they are not interested in equal rights.

Marc Zimmerstien of ID 4:56PM June 18, 2009

So far as I know, every major world religion considers human embodiment to be a mystery that serves spiritual aims or meanings. There's lots of variety in how that gets worked out, possibly, across world religions; but none in the world religions of whom I have any knowledge denies embodiment as irrelevant to spirit.
Typically, world religions also preach that there is always some downside to emobidment, too. And the spiritual nexus is nearly always some recommendation for how to cope effectively or positively or accurately with the down side of embodiment while respecting, following, or accurately responding to the spiritual side.
Our modern shift is that we now have good empirical indicators that being gay is part of nature, not contrary to nature. How much is biological remains to be seen, and in any case (A) the New Biology/Sciences will soon shine unexpected light on data to surprise us, plus (B) the going dominant model is Biology X Non-Biological Factors, not either/or, winner takes all. No matter how much or how little of biology contributes to sexual orientation variance, gay folks remain, functioning in ordinary to highly excellence daily life competence, right among us. It may be that gay folks end up being understood as being as natural as, say, being left-handed. Or gay folks might end up being understood as being as natural, say, as happening to speak several different languages quite fluently.

drdanfee of CA 4:06PM June 18, 2009

Brian of CA commented:
"Gay is not a spiritual state of being, it is an oddity of genetic coding that somehow a person is sexually excited by the same sex, instead of the evolved response to be excited by the same sex (for obvious reasons of furthering a species)."
So, you admit the "evolved" response is to indeed be excited by the same sex.

Karen of MA 10:12AM June 18, 2009

Brian said "Gay is not a spiritual state of being."
Brian, if you're not gay, which seems to be the case from the way you speak about gays, then how would you know if it is a "state of spiritual being" or not? The greatest spiritual moment of my life occurred when I came to accept that I am gay and that it was ok...ok with me and with God. This after years of denying it and even attempting suicide in desperation. Yet, when I was able to affirm what God affirmed all along... in that moment I was calling out to God and God's response was "Here I am." I have never felt so loved in my life and because of that moment I'm here today, more alive then ever before, and working in the ministry.
As for the topic of benefits for same-sex partners, it is, in my opinion a breach of the core values of our democracy and the principles of basic fairness and justice for the government to demand payment of taxes from its gay citizens, who live and work and raise their children just like their straight friends and family members, without full benefit of citizenship.
Peace and blessings to you all.

Sebby of CT 8:43AM June 18, 2009

The act of being turned on by someone of the same sex is undoubtedly a physical phenomena. Gay is not a spiritual state of being, it is an oddity of genetic coding that somehow a person is sexually excited by the same sex, instead of the evolved response to be excited by the same sex (for obvious reasons of furthering a species).
What will happen when our knowledge of the human body is extensive enough to understand these mechanisms? what happens when we learn to manipulate those pathways? will straight people apply to be gay? will gay people apply to be straight? will humans witness speciation, with gay being its own species? rightly, a species is separate if it cannot create offspring with another member of a different species. a gay man can't reproduce with a straight woman, and a gay woman can't reproduce with a straight man, since they are inherently repulsed by the very act. There are countless species in the world wherein it is possible for reproduction to happen between them, but it doesn't because the species can just never get that far in the courting process.
I don't know how much weight to give these issues to call for a term like "abomination" to be used, as the bible does. what I do know is that it is difficult to come to agreement when the very question of how a person is gay is still in the opinion stages and not in the realm of fact. when you throw public money at that same debate, it gets even stickier.
frankly, my benefits are being taken away working in what is a backbone industry of ANY economy. so... if my benefits are being taken away, why should my tax dollars go to GIVING benefits to an unsettled debate? sheesh, I wish there was a way to turn me gay, i would have better benefits under this new proclamation than i do now! and yet the gay community still complains and whines and moans and cries hate crime discrimination BS. if the gay community hopes to be accepted by everyone else, for all the small percentage they are, they would be best to learn that everyone has real life problems to deal with, and just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are entitled to complain and whine more about it. economic discrimination happens WAY more often than sexual orientation discrimination, but you don't see the media hopping on that. you don't even see the gay community hopping on that. self-absorbed and self-serving interests, just like straight people, just like everyone else.

Brian of CA 4:35AM June 18, 2009

.......the employees in question work for those benefits, it's not a handout or a bailout. If the concern is conservative evangelicals paying tax dollars for these benefits -- well racists don't get to say I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for benefits for minorities, or muslims don't get to say that regarding jews or vice versa.
Truthfully the Federal Gov't has been getting a free ride for decades in not having to pay these benefits to gay employees.

Chris of CA 2:46AM June 18, 2009