[lbo-talk] Man-on-dog

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Fri Jul 29 11:38:22 PDT 2005



> John Lacny wrote:
>
> >There's a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today
likening
> >homosexuality to dog-fucking.
> >
> >http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05210/545385.stm
>
> Doesn't your Senator - the one with the gay press aide - take that
> position too?

I guess, somebody's reading comprehension is not up to speed. The piece in question calls for the legalization of same sex marriages and uses the dog reference only in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Here is the text.

Wojtek


>>>The logic of benefits
Is anyone else confounded by the logic of the state in considering whether to grant health benefits to heterosexual partners of unmarried state employees? I can certainly understand extending benefits to same-sex partners since the state has yet to recognize or sanction legal unions between them. ("Same-Sex Benefits for State Workers Under Study," July 22.)

When unmarried, cohabiting, heterosexual partners are given benefits, an advantage of marriage is eliminated. Doesn't government serve to maintain the rule of law, and sustain society's institutions?

The solution is to legalize marriage between consenting adults without regard to sex or sexual orientation. Then married partners of employees are entitled to benefits in accordance with established law. Throwing hard-earned tax dollars at legally undefined lifestyles creates a gray area that can only lead to legal and bureaucratic nightmares. How many new state employees do you suppose it would take to record, and re-record the domestic partner of the month?

Should logic ultimately lose out to current government trends and anything goes, I'd like my dog's health care subsidized. We're in a committed relationship. <<<



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list