Ben Johnson

,

Same-sex ‘marriage’: A welfare program, not a right

Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson

Despite all the Sturm und Drang about equal rights, ending prejudice, and transcending the final frontier of the civil rights movement, the homosexual “marriage” movement is essentially just a pitch for another welfare program. Yes, insecure LGBT activists want the government to formally legitimize their sexual behavior as “equal” to the nuclear family norm. But when one pierces through their pseudo-moral arguments and high-sounding rhetoric, one encounters an unremarked reality: it’s all about the Benjamins

Reading their complaints more closely shows, like all revolutionaries, they have a set of demands: They want government benefits, mandatory health insurance coverage, and tax shelters – an unearned wealth transfer from taxpayers or employers to themselves.

One homosexual told CNN it was “unfair” and “un-American” that he could not receive $2,000 a month in Social Security survivor’s benefits from U.S. taxpayers after his “partner” died. In a more costly move, the “husband” of late U.S. Congressman Gerry Studds is now suing the government, because he cannot receive the federal benefits other spouses collect when a congressman dies.

Marriage redefinition advocates also complain that, while most large corporations provide health care benefits for same-sex partners, they must pay more than married couples. One such partner called the extra $15 a month he must pay to enjoy insurance from someone else’s employer “simply unjust.” A lesbian activist lamented that the University of Michigan requires same-sex couples to prove their commitment by living together for six months before receiving university health benefits.

They also demand tax shelters heterosexual couples enjoy. “Queer advocate” Erik Lappman writes, “It is essential that progressives across the United States highlight” the fact that same-sex couples pay “on average at least $1,069 more than identical heterosexual, married couples in taxes.” 

There’s a bumper sticker: “Same-sex ‘marriage’: ‘Cause it’s not love if I don’t get a tax break.”

Same-sex couples must pay estate taxes if they inherit more than $5 million. Karen Mateer, a California tax attorney, claimed, “It may mean selling a home or business to raise cash to pay death taxes.” I’m opposed to estate taxes in principle, but as an example of “discrimination”? Cry me a river. 

Even same-sex divorce is about cash. Christel de Cries, a Dutch immigrant, grouses that she cannot deduct the alimony she pays her ex-“wife” from her taxes.

But why precisely has society arranged itself to provide health benefits and other temporal goods to support the natural family?

In the hoary long ago, we extended health benefits to employees’ spouses, because they were usually stay-at-home moms raising children. The government, which has an interest in well-rounded children from healthy homes, blessed and financially encouraged the decision.

Beginning with the Revenue Act of 1948, the government extended tax credits to offset the economic costs families face when raising children. This bill was passed in an era before widespread contraception, when abortion was illegal and children were still considered God’s blessings upon a healthy marriage. 

Social Security survivor’s benefits were designed to help women who spent their whole lives raising a family in lieu of earning a company pension. 

Although most Americans now work outside the home – often more by necessity than choice – most women still take time off to raise their children. Working women, in the workforce or at at home, focus more on their loved ones than slavishly climbing the corporate ladder. Thus, they have lower lifetime earnings than men and may, for a few years, have no income at all.

Homosexual couples, who can neither get married nor have children, need no such help from society.

Put bluntly, they could and should go get a job to provide for their own insurance and retirement. Society does not have the same interest in supporting their shacking up as it does in facilitating a married heterosexual family raising children.

Call me heartless, but I’d just as soon the private sector take the money it would have used to provide insurance benefits to workers’ paramours and use it to create more jobs. In a work-starved society, where more Americans are filing for disability payments than filling new jobs, this should be a top priority.

And I’d just as soon Social Security save the money it would spend to extend benefits to the survivors of homosexuals and use it to stave off the day of its rapidly approaching bankruptcy.

The logical position of the lifestyle Left is that Americans have to pay for benefits to allow homosexual partners to stay home and raise children they can’t have. Then, to rectify nature’s oversight, we must honor their associated “right” to have children – by adoption or surrogacy, a process that exploits vulnerable women in nations like India, Cyprus, and Ukraine. After all, this will allow gay couples to qualify for more child tax credits. 

Florida attorney Chuck Rubin noted federal government calculations about the health of Social Security, and federal tax revenues, were calculated under existing law. Changing the rules “does affect the budget deficit,” altering how much “the government is spending on benefits and receiving in taxes. It’s definitely going to increase budgetary pressures.”

In an era of trillion-dollar-plus deficits, is that what we need? And since when were liberals interested in giving anyone a tax break, anyway?

In effect, the Obama administration and LGBT advocates are saying we should go further in debt to China to provide benefits for those who could have worked but did not.

Their proposal will cost an already bankrupt nation money it doesn’t have to distort every facet of natural design in opposition to the will of the people.

Make no mistake: this is an economic debate, one that deserves a rational analysis of whether these costs are worth the “benefit” society would receive. And the burden of proof is on those who want to overturn thousands of years of tradition to put their hands in our wallets. 

It’s not just about money; it’s about other people’s money, our money. The greatest PR triumph of the socialist-progressive axis to date is to claim that if those who pay those tax dollars dare to object about the use of our money, it is an act of mindless bigotry. 

We reject the redefinition of marriage for many reasons, one of which is its proponents’ monumental selfishness and sense of entitlement. 

This article originally appeared on TheRightsWriter.com and is reprinted with permission.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Brian Fisher

Birth mothers: real heroes of the pro-life movement

Brian Fisher
By Brian Fisher
Image

What does it mean to be brave? Is it the doctor who dedicates himself to improving the health of a third-world nation? Is it the woman who faces her third round of chemotherapy to fight the progression of cancer? Is it the teacher who forgoes the comforts of a suburban school to reach minorities in the inner city? All of these are examples of bravery demonstrated in exceedingly challenging circumstances. And our society longs for stories of bravery to inspire us and fill us with hope.

As someone who works day in and day out with those on the front lines of helping rescue babies from abortion, I’m no stranger to stories of bravery. I see courage every day in the eyes of the men and women who sacrifice their time and energy to help women facing unplanned pregnancies. I see it every time a young mom — despite being pressured by her parents or significant other to get an abortion — chooses LIFE. And perhaps more profoundly than in any other situation, I see it when an expectant mom with no relational support, job, or income chooses to place her baby for adoption rather than abort her son or daughter.

This was Nicky’s situation.

When Nicky found herself pregnant with her boyfriend’s child, her life was already in shambles. During her 26 years, Nicky had already given birth to and surrendered sole custody of a little girl, committed several felonies, lived in her car, lost several jobs, and barely subsisted on minimum wage. So when she met up with an old boyfriend, Brandon, Nicky believed she was being given a second chance at happiness. “Our first year together was beautiful. We were getting to know each other and deciding if we would stay together forever.” Unfortunately, a positive pregnancy test result changed everything.

“When I told him I was pregnant, Brandon sat down on the bed, looked me in the eyes, and told me to ‘get an abortion’.” Nicky says those three little words changed everything for her. “I became depressed living with someone who wanted his child ‘dealt with.’”  Like thousands of women every day, Nicky began searching online for information on abortion, hoping her boyfriend would eventually change his mind. Through our strategic marketing methods, Online for Life was able to guide Nicky to a life-affirming pregnancy center where she received grace-filled counsel. “The woman I sat with was beyond wonderful. She helped me to just breathe and ask God what to do….And so I did.”

Nicky left the pregnancy center that day with a new resolve to choose life for her child, even though she still wasn’t sure how she’d financially support a child. “I was alone with just $10 in my pocket…and without any type of plan for what I was going to do.” So Nicky relied on the support of the staff she met at the life-affirming pregnancy center. With their help and through a chain of fortunate events, Nicky was put in contact with the couple who would eventually become her daughter’s adoptive parents.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

After meeting this couple face to face and coming to terms with her own desperate situation, Nicky conceded that the best thing for her unborn child would be to place her in someone else’s loving home. She told Brandon about her plans and he agreed that adoption would give their child the best chance at a happy and secure future. He even returned home to help Nicky prepare for the birth of their child. “The weeks leading up to my delivery were filled with a mixture of laughter, tears, protectiveness and sadness,” Nicky recalls. But one sentiment continued to be shared with her. “Brave…so brave.” That’s what everyone from the life-affirming pregnancy center to the adoption agency to the birthing center kept calling Nicky. “The nurses kept coming up to me and telling me they were honored to care for and treat someone like me.” After several weeks of preparation, Nicky finally gave birth to a healthy baby girl, and she made the dreams of a couple from the other side of the country come true.

Nicky’s adoption story continues to be riddled with a strange combination of pain and joy. “I cry every day, but I know my baby, who came out of a very bad time, ended up being loved by people from across the country.” When asked what message she’d like to share with the world about her decision to give up her child for adoption, Nicky responds, The voice of the mother who gives up a baby for adoption isn’t heard. We need to change that.”

To learn more about Online for Life and how we’re helping to make stories like Nicky and her daughter’s story a possibility, please visit OnlineforLife.org.

Author, speaker, and business leader Brian Fisher is the President and Co-Founder of Online for Life, a transparent, metric-oriented, compassion-driven nonprofit organization dedicated to helping rescue babies and their families from abortion through technology and grace.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

,

New York farmers stop hosting weddings after $13,000 fine for declining lesbian ceremony

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

New York farmers Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who were ordered last week to pay $13,000 for not hosting a same-sex "wedding," say they are closing that part of their operation.

"Going forward, the Giffords have decided to no longer host any wedding ceremonies on their farm, other than the ones already under contract," said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) lawyer James Trainor. ADF represented the Giffords in their legal fight against New York's non-discrimination law.

Last week, the Giffords were ordered to pay a $10,000 fine to the state of New York and $3,000 in damages to a lesbian couple, Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, who approached them in 2012 about hosting their "wedding." The Giffords, who are Roman Catholic, said their religious convictions would not let them host the ceremony, but that McCarthy and Erwin could hold their reception on their property.

Unbeknownst to the Giffords, lesbian couple recorded the two-to-three minute conversation. After declining to hold the reception on the Giffords' farm, on which they live and rent property, the lesbian couple decided to make a formal complaint to the state's Division of Human Rights.

Eventually, Judge Migdalia Pares ruled that the Giffords' farm, Liberty Ridge Farm, constitutes a public accommodation because space is rented on the grounds and fees are collected from the public. The Giffords argued that because they live on the property with their children, they should be exempt from the state law, but Pares said that this does not mean their business is private.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Trainor told TheBlaze that the Giffords' decision to end wedding ceremonies at Liberty Ridge “will hurt their business in the short run," but that was preferable to violating their religious beliefs.

“The Giffords serve all people with respect and care. They have hired homosexual employees and have hosted events for same-sex couples,” he said.

However, "since the state of New York has essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all, they have chosen the latter in order to stay true to their religious convictions," Trainor explained to LifeSiteNews. "No American should be forced by the government to choose between their livelihood and their faith, but that’s exactly the choice the state of New York has forced upon the Giffords."

"They will continue to host wedding receptions," said Trainor.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

South African mom files ‘wrongful life’ lawsuit on behalf of Downs son

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

A South African woman has launched a "wrongful life" lawsuit against the Cape Town-based Foetal Assessment Centre, claiming a failure to inform her that the child she was carrying was at risk of having Down Syndrome prevented her from aborting her baby.

A twist in this lawsuit is that, unlike other "wrongful birth" lawsuits, the mother in this case missed the time limit to file the claim on her own behalf, so she is asking the South African Constitutional Court to allow her to sue the center for “wrongful life” on behalf of her now-born son.

“You have a duty to tell my mother carrying me that I'm malformed so that she can make an informed decision as to whether or not to carry me to term,” the statement of claim against the Foetal Assessment Centre reads, according to SABC News.

“It is not as if the foetus is sort of putting up its hand and saying why you didn’t destroy me," the mother's lawyer, Paul Hoffman, explained to Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke. "The foetus is complaining that its malformation, its development is the result of the bad advice that was given.”

The SABC report did not say what compensation the woman is seeking.

The scope of the case is similar to that of a New Zealand couple who won a lawsuit claiming monetary compensation after a routine 20 week ultrasound scan failed to discover that their daughter had spina bifida.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The mother, whose name has not been released, claimed that the continuance of the pregnancy was a “personal injury,” and, had she been given the correct diagnosis after that scan, she would have aborted her daughter.

"We consider that the continued pregnancy of the appellant following a misdiagnosis in the 20 week scan is capable of being an injury suffered by the appellant,” the court ruled, and directed the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to make the woman eligible for compensation for the ongoing surgical and physiotherapy expenses incurred by their child.

New Zealand disability advocate Mike Sullivan said the underpinning attitude behind the decision is that those with disability, both born and unborn, are seen as a burden on society.

“This is what happens,” Sullivan said, when “the children become reduced to nothing – wrong even to exist.”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook