The main problem I have with the California Supreme Court redefining marriage is the slippery slope arguement. On TV we have seen gay relationships portrayed as normal. Now on HBO, the series Big Love treats polygamy as normal.
So since there is no state interest in denying gay marriages, what is the arguement for denying other definitions of marriage? Why shouldn't a man be allowed to marry three women? Why cannot three men marry five women? I predict a court case soon that will challenge the polygamy rule and that based on this precident, polygamy, in all its forms and fashions, will be allowed. And just think of the work for divorce lawyers! What if one person wants out of the marriage, but the others do not. How do you go about determining who gets what in a divorce settlement? Oh what fun!
Now, lets move to work-place benefits, specifically healthcare. My healthcare insurance plan has a family option that allows me to claim my wife and my children. (Note, my employer's plan also allows for "domestic partner" benefits already).
If I had three legal wives and ten children, would my company be compelled to provide insurance to all of them? My wife's sister does not have nearly as good of a medical plan as I do, so can I marry her also so she and her kids can benefit from the better insurance? I suppose these insurance plans already have restrictions in place that only allow one named spouse or domestic partner, but would that not be discriminatory? Insurance companies will begin dropping family coverage policies pretty darn quick, I would think. Luckily the government will be there for us so it can provide coverage for those who are dropped by evil Big Insurance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment