Try to reduce the emotion. “Roommates” is merely a metaphor for “gay” or “religious” or “veterans” or “diabetics” or whichever of a hundred different special interests that people use to appeal to emotion rather than simply fair governance. Follow the money.

Should “married” homosexuals receive benefits by law? Should “roommates?” Should “married” heterosexuals? It’s complicated.

You bring child rearing into the discussion. Which of the above groups should be legally adopting children? Who gets the tax credits? In Washington, the State makes handsome payments to adoptive parents. How should we prioritize? How much of this is really the State’s business?

This is a very complex issue. Some trends are fairly obvious, but still, I think the State should tread lightly.

Mr. Flanders-

The so-called ‘religious right’ votes one way and gays vote another. No surprise there. Nothing is fucked, dude. It’s too bad that issues of social cost accounting are settled emotionally. Again, that’s why I refer to it as a ‘roommate’ issue- let’s try to take the emotion out of it and do what’s fair.

“News Flash! They did for the past 8 years Dude! And they continue to have a lot of influence in the public’s political(and moral) opinion.”

No they didn’t. We live in a secular state. I don’t believe in their god, I don’t attend their church, and there’s nothing they can do about it.

“Finally… I’m sensing that you feel gay marriage is wrong, so why don’t you just come out and say it? Liberate yourself! You’ll feel better, once you just COME OUT!”

I’m surprised (and pleased) that it took this long for someone to accuse me of hating gays. As I’ve carefully stated several times, this issue is not about homosexuality. In fact, I don’t see any moral issue here. I don’t care who kisses who or who “marries” who. It is, however, the RESPONSIBILITY of government to fairly address issues of social cost accounting, collect taxes and fund necessary programs. Again, the real issue here is, do roommates deserve benefits by law? This issue is extremely complex and extremely relevant.

BGW-

Absolutely.

Up here in Pugetropolis (which is sort of like the Bay Area Jr.), there is a strong culture of the State placing children with lesbian women. It makes basic sense; kids need homes and women need kids. And while it makes sense and works most of the time (who knows, really?), I’ve witnessed first-hand some pretty weird shit. I met some kids who have three mommies and no father figure whatsoever. One woman was the biological mom of one kids and “divorced” from one of the others, and the “village” was raising them. If that’s bizarre and complicated for adults, how does a three year-old work it out in his or her head? Most kids will come out fine, but who knows? I think the State needs to tread carefully here.

…if it’s an honest, loving, long term relationship, i don’t see the need to discriminate…

BGW-

In my opinion, those people are idiots. Thankfully, they don’t run the government in this country.

“…a marriage is a marriage is a marriage…”

Here I have to disagree. The traditional man-woman marriage is supposed to provide a stable family structure for bearing and raising children. It more or less has for several thousand years. “Gay marriage” is something else- and it’s unclear exactly what.

That’s why I like to call it a “roommate” issue, to try and take the emotion out of it. As a social cost accounting issue, it’s extremely relevant.

…but while you’ve stated yer case well, you can’t deny that there is a large cadre of religious extremists who consider themselves “morally superior” & who find homosexuality immoral & therefore they will never accept same sex marriage from that standpoint…

…we’re talking about people who despite their supposed high moral stance are narrow minded, unenlightened & non-accepting of anyone & anything that varies from their limited viewpoint…yet they are allowed to affect the lives of millions of people who simply wish to live & share their lives w/ their chosen mates…& i believe ultimately, those folks can & should be accepted through the social programs you refer to…

…a marriage is a marriage is a marriage…

Mr Flanders-

Sorry, let me try to be more clear. I see a grain of truth in both claims I cited in response to Mr. Opus’ challenge.

“Both of those things sound like what our last president would say to try to scare people into hating homo’s.”

Off-topic. It’s not about homos, it’s about MONEY. The State doesn’t care whether its citizens want to kiss boys or girls. In the exact example of “gay rights,” it’s THE GAYS that make their sexuality an issue, in an effort to gain benefits they previously did not always enjoy. Follow the money.

“Health benefits at most companies are layed out by the employer. Some companies cover spouses and children, and some will make you pay for anyone other than yourself. And where does the tax increase come from?”

Quite so. If small businesses are compelled to provide health benefits to roommates of their employees, under some form of (explicitly discriminatory) “anti-discrimination” language, they may elect not to provide those benefits at all. “Married” couples lose benefits. As I said, health insurance is obnoxiously expensive, and it’s already a crushing burden to small business.

If the State is compelled to provide health benefits to roommates of public employees, tax revenues pay for this.

Again, this issue is not about homosexuality, it’s about money. That’s why I use the term “roommate.” The “gay rights” folks want some and the Rush Limbaugh types retardedly, regressively, conservatively don’t like paying.

There is no morality play here. This is an issue of social cost accounting. I’ve been to several lovely “gay weddings” which are not recognized legally in the State of Washington. The ceremonies seemed genuine and meaningful to me… sort of like the “civil union” my wiife and I got down at the courthouse back in ’92.

Peace out, Mikey

Okay, I’m back. Yes, I think that would be a most elegant solution to the issue. Civil union to deal with the legal aspect of marriage, and the religious ceremony (or not) to address the spiritual/moral/whatever side.