ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Why Gay Marriage Hasn't Happened In America Yet, You Might Be Surprised.

Updated on July 20, 2011

Written 04/26/09

Many people are up in arms over the issue of gay marriage, why it isn't legal in the USA and what keeps it from happening or the opposition view of it has begun in some states, what now?. Well listed here are several reasons and issues that have stopped this event from happening on a larger scale. Likely you'll find it no surprise that the hold-up behind most of the reasons is money, big surprise huh? As with so many things these days, often if you follow the dollar signs, you'll find your answer(s).

First I'd like to thank Miss California and Perez Hilton for bringing this issue to the forefront of news just in time for my post. To get started lets look at this on a national level, the federal government will not legalize it for 2 reasons, the stigma & divide surronding it, but more so because of the money issues assosiated with Social Security Insurance. I'm sure your all aware that both man and woman recieve S.S.I. checks upon retirement and that when the husband dies, the wife then recieves part of her husbands check in addition to hers, this takes place until she dies or remarries, what you may not be aware of however is that if the wife dies first, the husband does not get a portion of the wifes. This is an antiquated system, granted, but thats the way it is for now. With women moving more and more into the work force and in many cases becoming the family bread winners, this will eventually need to be addressed. But in the meantime the obvious problem is that if gay marriage were legalized, this current plan would have to be changed to cover both parties equally, in both straight and gay marriages. This in effect would nearly DOUBLE the payout of S.S.I. while not increasing intake at all. The other option would be to make it a person only pay-out where no spouse recieves anything from the other spouses S.S.I. which at this point in time would be a very unpopular decision with many seniors struggling to make ends meet as it is. In the event of death and minor children being in the home, the S.S.I. pays out on either spouse on each child to the age of 18 and this fact is often confused as the husband getting the wifes check, it's only a payment on the minor children which ends at the age of 18. Also the current President is on record as opposing gay marriage.

Now, you may have noticed that at the state level this seems to go much better, it is speculated that the Conneticut vote approving gay marriage was based on the allure of tourism dollars to the beautiful New England state. Yet at the same time the very liberal and "open-minded" state of California voted to over turn the court approved authorization of gay marriage, speculation on this was citizen outrage at the courts overstepping their jurisdiction. It's yet to see what the long term results will be in Iowa of the state legislatures approval of gay marriage, many citizens are not happy with the state government's taking it into their hands and not the voters. Speculation there also lies in the potential appeal of tourism dollars.

Next up is the very powerful insuance company lobbyists, more directly the health and life insurance companies. You'd think that they would approve as it would allow them that many more cutomers through spouse and family plans, but with gay men having the highest level of hiv/ aids related illness in the country the insurance companies are resistent as the medical advancements for the heath issues attributed to hiv / aids have come along way and can keep a person alive and well for many years, but are VERY costly. This said the insurance companies are playing or looking at it as an odds game, they aren't allowed to charge higher rates to gay people who may be at higher risk for certain illnesses like they do say a smoker, or like a person with a house in a "weather danger zone" so they resist through the lobbyists.

The 3 major Religions in the US are opposed based on their individual doctrines, they being Christianity, Jewish and Muslim/Islamic, there is confusion within many Churches about why gays would want whats seen as a Religious ceremony, I mean yes it's recognized by the state but thats another money trail, it's a license that you pay for, thats the states full commitment to it, just as important as hunting and fishing, licenses often available all in the same office. So you can see how deeply the state values marriage. But back to Religion, much of the issue there as stated previously is "perception" based on their beliefs they just don't see it, however there are a few Churches nowadays that are accepting of gay marriage, while at the same time many gays profess a Faith in varying Religious groups.

The alternative to the Religious groups would be the evolutionists, which when asked mostly had no personal problems with homosexuality, but did feel that "evolving" would be rather difficult within a gay community, having no set or specific moal "code" there were no ethical reasons for their opposition just scientific. Part of the issue for "outsiders" is the decline of American morals and the fact that they don't think about the relationship outside of the physical sense, of course there is a hypocrisy in many men, as to the difference between 2 men and 2 women and how it's viewed.

Many gay people feel poorly represented by the "spokespeople" for the gay community as they are often outlandish and flamboyant (think Perez Hilton) and with their antics often draw the focus to the physical instead of the relational, also many gays themselves aren't worried about marriage, and until theres a more unified grouping, with a deeper desire to pursue it, this may well stall the movement. In speaking to people over the years about this I've found more straight people fighting for gay marriage rights then I have gays fighting for them.

A couple of "throw in" points are this, many people on all sides are in favor of or support the idea of civil unions, it's a seeming compromise that would allow 2 people that have spent all that time together sharing a life to be there for one another in times of need, some see this as a fair compromise and others see this as "give an inch and it may go all the way through" and still others see this as an unacceptable compromise. So theres a pretty good divide on that issue. There are many things working against it but the point being it's not what you'd think. As to the "benefits of marriage", until a few years ago there was actually a "marriage penalty" in the federal income tax code and there are no "special benefits" now.

As to the Miss California vs Perez Hilton issue, my opinion is that #1) That should not have even been a question in the competition, what was the relevance of it in that forum. As it turns out it was Perez's question, which points to an agenda being behind it, there was no "right or wrong" answer as it's an opinion either way. Certainly Ms Prejan (Ms Cali) should not have been scored based on the content of her response but on the eloquence with which she said it and the knowledge involved in the answer. Perhaps if she had said "Well, like our President Barak Obama, I think marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, but I do support civil unions" she might have faired better. Following the event Perez Hilton showed his true colors in his verbal assault on Ms Prejan and I've not seen any "tape" yet, but it appears that Miss California has been a lady and kept her comments about Hilton to herself. I'll copy her and do the same, and no it's not him being a gay man that bothers me, it's his attitude and outlook.

Also why do some men, or women for that matter have to let their gayness define them? I don't let my straightness define me. I'm not saying all, but some, most of the gays that I know, you wouldn't know that they were gay in passing. It's not that they hide it or anything, they just don't let it define them as they are far more than "gay", they are people with careers, dreams and goals just like the rest of us. If someone spends all of their time trying to draw attention to their sexual preference I think the problem would lie within an identity crisis.

A counter to that, that comes to mind would be myself as a Christian, it's the core of what I am, but I don't feel that I need to "push" it on anyone. I'm often asked "are gay people are sinners", to which I reply, "well, yes BUT, we are all sinners that fall short of the glory of God, gay or straight". It's not always specifically a persons being gay that is their sin, it could be any number of things, as it is for all of us. Sadly over the years some Christians have elevated homosexuality to the "top of the heap" of sins forgetting that God says that all sin is equal and we all fall short and are sinners. My recommendation is to accept Christ and let Him begin His works in you, you don't have to be "good" to accept Christ, just confess yourself as a sinner (straight or gay) and seek God in Christs forgiveness and let Him do the works in you, with Jesus in your heart you'll make whatever changes He needs you to make. I was certainly no angel when I came to Christ many years ago.

Thanx for reading, hope you enjoyed, this isn't intended to "irk" anyone or stir up any controversy, just some aspects of this current issue of division that you might not have realized or considered.


In Christ

Jimm Bacon


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.