SSM and public policy

[returningsinner]

All,

I live in a very liberal city where SSM was being discussed as a serious policy goal almost ten years ago and now here we are with the ball rolling with, IMHO, unstoppable momentum.

In the light of SSM being codified and the link between child rearing and marriage being severed, what are some of the secondary effects going to be?

A couple of thoughts came to mind regarding survivors’ benefits. Doesn’t the justification for providing benefits for what was to support, predominantly, SAHM who helped raised the children while Dad worked, fall away?

Given that marriage is now seen as a civil contract between people who like each other and thus not tied to establishing a stable family unit, how many years until we see legal poly-* “marriages”?

I am not sure if this is the right forum, but I am just trying to wrap my mind around these especially when my children are asking about it, and I feel that just questioning the underpinnings of SSM exposes me to accusations of bigotry.

I’ll link back to this post at the always good Rod Dreher blog about this battle between Postivie Rights and Natural Law in regards to marriage:

theamericanconservative.com/dreher/positive-law-natural-law-marriage-barro-anderson-douthat/

 

[Joe_5859]

I just started a thread yesterday about an article I cam across that talks about some of the public policy issues involved:

The Consequences of Redefining Marriage by Ryan T. Anderson

Of course, it can be difficult to predict future consequences with accuracy (at least for those of us with a limited gift of prophecy ). The above article mentions three proposals (throuples, monogamish relationships, and wedleases – all terms coined by the liberal proponents of those ideas) that will likely gain ground when the government de facto changes the definition of marriage to be the State stamp of approval on an adult romantic relationship.

Once the good of children is removed from the equation (as it is with same sex marriage), then any boundaries seem pretty arbitrary. Why limit marriage to two people then? Cannot three (or four or more) people together have a romantic interrelationship? The only barrier to accepting such things is that it doesn’t “feel right” to most people. But there is logically no difference. It is just a matter of time before people’s feelings catch up to their logic.

 

[Cricket2]

Frankly, anyone who raises a child should be allowed to leave survivor benefits to them. This should not be the sole privilege of the heterosexual world. I believe in marriage according to the teachings of the Church. However, who leaves who money in the form of survivor benefits is no one’s business.

I think most Christians would best serve the world by minding their business and not trying to run every political aspect of it. We live in a secular world that allows for freedom of religion. That means we can decide to be an Atheist if we want. How I live that life, if I were an atheist is not the Church’s business.

Faith is a choice, not a matter of law.

 

[Joe_5859]

Frankly, anyone who raises a child should be allowed to leave survivor benefits to them. This should not be the sole privilege of the heterosexual world. I believe in marriage according to the teachings of the Church. However, who leaves who money in the form of survivor benefits is no one’s business.

I think most Christians would best serve the world by minding their business and not trying to run every political aspect of it. We live in a secular world that allows for freedom of religion. That means we can decide to be an Atheist if we want. How I live that life, if I were an atheist is not the Church’s business.

Faith is a choice, not a matter of law.

I’m not sure why survivor benefits always get brought up in these discussions because it is really a practical legal matter that is not intrinsically connected solely to the marital relationship. Further, from what I have heard, these issues have been resolved already anyway apart from same sex marriage.

 

[PaulinVA]

Frankly, anyone who raises a child should be allowed to leave survivor benefits to them. This should not be the sole privilege of the heterosexual world. I believe in marriage according to the teachings of the Church. However, who leaves who money in the form of survivor benefits is no one’s business.

I think most Christians would best serve the world by minding their business and not trying to run every political aspect of it. We live in a secular world that allows for freedom of religion. That means we can decide to be an Atheist if we want. How I live that life, if I were an atheist is not the Church’s business.

Faith is a choice, not a matter of law.

As we create public policy around the redefinition of marriage, all citizens have the right to an equal say in what that policy is. It does not matter from where someone gets their political views. Religiously-informed views are just as valid in the marketplace of ideas as humanist-informed ideas or views originating from no belief at all.

I think most people would be best served by not trying trying to silence ideas that they don’t agree with, but, rather, to engage in discussion to foster understanding and helping us find common ground.

 

[kozlosap]

Frankly, anyone who raises a child should be allowed to leave survivor benefits to them. This should not be the sole privilege of the heterosexual world. I believe in marriage according to the teachings of the Church. However, who leaves who money in the form of survivor benefits is no one’s business.

I think most Christians would best serve the world by minding their business and not trying to run every political aspect of it. We live in a secular world that allows for freedom of religion. That means we can decide to be an Atheist if we want. How I live that life, if I were an atheist is not the Church’s business.

Faith is a choice, not a matter of law.

EXACTLY

 

[revert_jen]

Frankly, anyone who raises a child should be allowed to leave survivor benefits to them. This should not be the sole privilege of the heterosexual world. I believe in marriage according to the teachings of the Church. However, who leaves who money in the form of survivor benefits is no one’s business.

AFAIK, survivor benefits are primarily related to Social Security. That makes it everyone’s business, because it’s our money that’s paying it. And minor children get survivor benefits directly.

When you talk about who is leaving money to whom, that is just a question of a will, and as far as I know, there are no restrictions (in the US) limiting how much you can leave to your spouse, or if not married (or even if married, depending on where you live) on how much you can leave whomever you want. (I am NOT a lawyer, however, so I welcome correction from someone who is or knows something specific that I don’t.)

If you are talking about things like insurance, or 401Ks or IRAs or whoever, if you’re not married you can leave them to whomever you want. If you are married, I think they have to go to a spouse unless (in some cases) you get permission from your spouse to leave it to someone else. In any case, nothing restricts homosexual couples from leaving whatever they want to each other. AFAIK, nobody is trying to hinder that.

If you’re talking about something else, I’m not sure what it is. Could you elaboate?

–Jen

 

[returningsinner]

AFAIK, survivor benefits are primarily related to Social Security. That makes it everyone’s business, because it’s our money that’s paying it. And minor children get survivor benefits directly.

…

If you’re talking about something else, I’m not sure what it is. Could you elaboate?

–Jen

I was referring to SS survivor benefits…

 

[Fusiontron]

I’m much younger (22) than most posters here. And I plan to work in a very liberal industry (tech/academia). I’m positive that in 20 years I will get the Brendan Eich treatment followed by being put in jail.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

AFAIK, survivor benefits are primarily related to Social Security. That makes it everyone’s business, because it’s our money that’s paying it. And minor children get survivor benefits directly.

When you talk about who is leaving money to whom, that is just a question of a will, and as far as I know, there are no restrictions (in the US) limiting how much you can leave to your spouse, or if not married (or even if married, depending on where you live) on how much you can leave whomever you want. (I am NOT a lawyer, however, so I welcome correction from someone who is or knows something specific that I don’t.)

If you are talking about things like insurance, or 401Ks or IRAs or whoever, if you’re not married you can leave them to whomever you want. If you are married, I think they have to go to a spouse unless (in some cases) you get permission from your spouse to leave it to someone else. **In any case, nothing restricts homosexual couples from leaving whatever they want to each other. AFAIK, nobody is trying to hinder that.
**
If you’re talking about something else, I’m not sure what it is. Could you elaboate?

–Jen

While nothing technically restricts them from leaving it to people who are not legally their spouse, it is much messier to deal with than if they were legally married.

 

[revert_jen]

While nothing technically restricts them from leaving it to people who are not legally their spouse, it is much messier to deal with than if they were legally married.

Not “much messier,” just they actually have to say who to leave it to, rather than it happening by default. I’m not married, and it is no more complicated for them than for me. I don’t think a slight inconvenience is really reason to pretend that marriage can happen between people of the same gender.

–Jen

 

[Cricket2]

I’m not sure why survivor benefits always get brought up in these discussions because it is really a practical legal matter that is not intrinsically connected solely to the marital relationship. Further, from what I have heard, these issues have been resolved already anyway apart from same sex marriage.

I agree. Guess that is why it annoys me so much.

 

[DAML72]

Frankly, anyone who raises a child should be allowed to leave survivor benefits to them. This should not be the sole privilege of the heterosexual world. I believe in marriage according to the teachings of the Church. However, who leaves who money in the form of survivor benefits is no one’s business.

I think most Christians would best serve the world by minding their business and not trying to run every political aspect of it. We live in a secular world that allows for freedom of religion. That means we can decide to be an Atheist if we want. How I live that life, if I were an atheist is not the Church’s business.

Faith is a choice, not a matter of law.

But when you are talking about benefits such as Social Security, there are no survivor benefits for adult children or non-spouses. So, where do you draw the line? Should I be able to leave benefits to my good friend who is also a struggling single mom? Public policy demands a line be drawn somewhere, unless we are going to bankrupt ourselves. The question is, where do we draw that line?