Anything But Civil
You can call it civil, but the reality will be anything but.
The drumbeat of homosexual marriage continues to reverberate through the states houses of congress across the country. After the Iowa Supreme Court overrode the will the people by declaring their state constitution amenable to homosexual marriage and the Vermont state legislature narrowly overrode the governor’s veto of the same issue, state office fillers are looking for a way to placate their homosexual constituency without causing a drop in their poll numbers amongst heterosexual voters.
In Illinois the state may soon be considering a bill proposed by Chicago Democrat Representative Greg Harris granting both homosexual and heterosexual couples the right to a civil union status. This civil union would hold all the same rights as marriage without being called marriage. It is a bit of smoke and mirrors designed to accomplish both of the above stated objectives.
The problem is it won’t work.
First off, the homosexual activists driving this debate will not be satisfied with anything less than a union called marriage. They don’t actually want the legal benefits as much as they want homosexual marriage accepted by law in all 50 states. Even if this bill passed and all the legal rights were granted, the homosexual community would still not be satisfied with a civil union and claim it was a second rate solution which treats them like second class citizens.
The reality is that the vast majority of the homosexual community would not consider entering into a marriage agreement. Monogamy is a difficult proposition in the heterosexual community. It is all but non-existent in the homosexual community. It is not about getting married for most of those actively seeking it, but rather a rallying cry for homosexual rights.
Secondly, the heterosexual voting bloc will not hold their representatives harmless once the true costs and ramifications of civil unions became apparent. They think civil unions will have no effect on married couples. They are wrong.
The first thing heterosexuals will notice is the dramatic increase in their already outrageous insurance premiums. As civil unions will be allowable between either homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, a live-in girlfriend or boyfriend will become eligible for employer subsidized health insurance. This may ease the burden of the uninsured on the health care system, but it will have a profound impact on the employer’s costs of health insurance. Employers will be forced to either offer the same plan to civil union couples as they do for married couples or they will be forced to reduce or completely terminate the premium subsidy currently provided. It will also be almost impossible to check for fraud as the couples will not have the legal restrictions of marriage and it is unlikely anybody would change their name. The risk of fraud is so great it will likely influence the time new enrollees must wait before coverage becomes effective. Anybody with a sick friend can now claim a civil union and garner insurance benefits without the ramifications of dissolving a marriage. If the effective date is extended for civil unions it will by law be extended for married couples as well.
By law unmarried civil union couples will have the ability to qualify for insurance benefits for their companion’s children as well further increasing costs and threatening benefits. All this with very little ability to verify actual eligibility.
It will extend survivor benefits to a live-in unless a legal will is in place that specifies otherwise. This includes social security benefits tacked onto an already bankrupt system. It will open the door to all sorts of legal questions regarding property settlements in the case of death or even in the case of a breakup. A whole new set of benefit laws and probate laws will need to be established to accompany this flawed piece of legislation. Even children custody rights will be called into question.
Insurance and probate are just a few of the areas that will make civil unions unworkable. Just think of every other financial area that marriage entails and you can see how a civil union will have a detrimental effect. The idea that civil unions will be a cheap and easy alternative to traditional marriage is both shortsighted and patently incorrect. It will only reduce the current benefits enjoyed by married couples and increase fraud at every level. Once again, politicians are looking to appease their constituents by lowering the standards instead of increasing responsibility.
Cheap and easy. It’s fine when you’re talking about a TV dinner, but is that what we should be striving for in our relationships?
