OK, so I was thinking about this whole LGBTQ thing going on with marriage, the “attack” on the Biblical view of marriage, etc., and after doing some research, I learned that they already have something that’s just like marriage: it’s called “Domestic Partnership” (sometimes called a “Civil Union”, but also sometimes different from one, depending on the state). The Domestic Partnership (in most states) gives same-sex (and opposite-sex) couples almost everything that marriage offers:
- Rights for hospital visits
- Joint health insurance policies (I believe Allstate Insurance, for instance, grants joint insurance for all their coverage)
- Right to family leave for a sick partner
- Right to bereavement leave
- Relocation Expenses
- Access to company property
- Permission to attend company functions
- Adopting jointly
- Assets divided if union is dissolved
- (Some states offer more, some less)
The problems arise when when same-sex couples look at the federal side of things, for instance:
- At the moment, same-sex couples cannot file jointly on their Federal taxes.
- Surviving partner will not receive Social Security or pension benefits of deceased partner
- They don’t have the same Immigration rights that are associated with marriage
- Since Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are only state-level, not Federal, not all states offer them. So if a same-sex couple should not only move to a non-supporting state, but even just cross the state lines, they may not be able to keep their benefits.
So in other words, Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, though they each offer most of the same benefits as marriage in most states, they’re neither offered in all states nor on a Federal level. Also, not all states that do offer them offer the same benefits (however, Illinois recognizes Civil Unions as legal relationships between 2 people and provides all the legal obligations, protections and benefits that the IL law grants to married couples).
But now, here’s the thing: Even with these two options, LGBTQs have come to the point where instead of fighting for more rights under Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions, or fighting for Federal support for such, they’re fighting the Church, trying to force it to allow marriage among same-sex couples. And the problem that we Christians are having is that we hold to marriage as being neither created nor designed for gay unions, but only for heterosexual unions.
So I was thinking about an analogy for this, trying to help people understand from a Christian point of view. Because people are like, ‘well why can’t they have it?’ And Christians are like, ‘You don’t understand. They’re pushing and pushing towards something that they can’t have, not because we’re selfish, but because it wasn’t designed for them.’ And so I got to thinking, and remember those toys that we had as kids? It’s a little block of wood (many are plastic now), and they had little shapes on top of them, and the round circle could only go into the round hole, and the square could only go into the square, and the triangle would only go into the triangle (it won’t go into the square or the circle holes). Well, if we look at it where Christians are the triangle (because we have the Trinity), the world is the square (because the Bible talks about the four corners of the Earth), and then the gays are the circle (because they’re trying to fit into everything, and they want everything). They don’t really have any corners.
So you have the round, and normally you’d figure that it could only fit into the round hole. But then the government says, ‘Alright, we’ll give you a Domestic Partnership and Civil Union”. So, you can fit the circle into the square hole (I’ve seen kids do it before). But the problem is, now we’re hearing the LGBTQ saying, ‘Now we want to put our circle into the triangle, because we’ve already got the square, but we don’t just want the square anymore. Now we want the triangle, also.’ And the problem is, no matter what you try and do, that circle is not going to fit into that triangle. But they continue to try and push, pull, yank and everything, and they’re willing to throw up some tantrums and get people associated with the square to help them until they get what they want (that’s how we see it, anyway).
The problem, though, is that the LGBTQ’s are not willing to fit their circle into a triangle, instead they’re trying to get the triangle to fit the circle. And so once again, we’re saying, ‘well, the triangle is not designed for the circle to be allowed through it. You have to either become a triangle if you want to fit into the triangle-shaped hole, or you’re just not going to get it through. It’s just that simple, because the triangle is not going to change its shape to accommodate any of the other shapes, and that’s its right.’
But now the government, which is the square, is trying to take control of the triangle and order the triangle to change its shape to a circle, or just change its shape in some way so that the circle may be able to fit into it, and some triangles are being penalized by the square for not doing so.
Now I also remember that there was another shape that looked like an asterisks or a star, and I think that’s probably what they’re trying to turn the triangle into (or what the 3 combined would look like) so that the circle can then fit into it.
Please understand, I am in no way saying that I support the LGBTQ lifestyle or mindset. However, I don’t have anything against the square (Federal Government) granting them federal rights under Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions, or some other government deal, because that’s still the square, not the triangle. I mean, the government cares nothing about sin and holiness anyway, so if they want so badly to accommodate the circle (LGBTQs), then instead of coming after the triangle (Church) to change our shape, they should work something out under their own laws and designs to grant them their wishes. And if the state level governments want it so badly, but the federal government resists, then again, instead of coming after the Church and its beliefs and holy union between a male and female, which the Church calls “Marriage”, I believe the state governments should use their political powers and strengths to legally persuade the federal government into agreeing (isn’t that what they’re paid and designed to do?). Because again, that’s the square. Since they’ve already agreed to let the circle through, it would only make sense for them to share their benefits with them.
Now, I understand that many LGBTQ activists no longer look at Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions, not so much because of what we’ve gone over so far, but because of their terms – they may be like “marriage”, but they’re not “marriage” – it’s become an image thing now. So again, even though they already have the square, instead of pursuing the benefits of the square, they’re coming after the benefits of the triangle, which they can’t have, as we’ve already briefly discussed. So because the square doesn’t want to give them their full benefits, it instead helps the circle push up against the triangle for its.
Like I said, if the square (government) was to form something of its own, they can call it whatever else they want (just not marriage because it still won’t be marriage as God designed it), and even give the circle more rights and benefits of the square with it than triangles have with marriage if they like, then that would be fine. But the two blocks are just going to continue to create more resistance from the triangle if they continue to try and force the circle into it.
Now, as a married man myself, I do understand the desires of getting married, versus just receiving similar rights and benefits through a Domestic Partnership or Civil Union (however as a Christian, there’s also the blessing from God, entering into a covenanted union with my spouse and God, and the sinless sex that comes with marriage). But there’s something else that same-sex couples need to be aware of: and that is that the U.S. Government has created some penalty taxes against married couples. According to Forbes/Business, choosing domestic partnership or civil union would allow same-sex (and now opposite-sex) couples the ability to avoid paying a federal income tax marriage penalty (I understand it was originally to benefit same-sex couples who couldn’t get married in their state). And this is a penalty tax that married couples (of whatever gender) must pay if the spouses make similar incomes. (Another site I came across mentioned that many same-sex couples have even chosen to avoid marriage and stick with the state options in order to avoid these marriage tax penalties).
So civil unions and domestic partnerships will “make it possible for same-sex couples to enjoy state-level legal benefits of marriage without getting hit by the federal marriage tax penalty.” Therefore, if same-sex couples gain the title of marriage, they will also most likely gain this federal marriage penalty tax – which may be another reason to consider pushing the square into granting equal (or more) benefits through federal and legal means, rather than continuously trying to force the triangle into changing its shape or its stance on the meaning and design of “Biblical marriage”.
Here are some more links to learn more about Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions:
- DP vs. Marriage: Legal advantages and disadvantages of each
- How do Marriages, Unions and DPs differ? (Common Law Marriages are also mentioned)
- A Primer of Same-Sex Marriage, CUs, DPs, and DOMA
- Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships
- Info about all this and the Marriage Tax Penalty
- Marriage Penalty: 4 Tax Laws that Hit Couples Harder
What are your thoughts on this? Who’s responsible for the rights and benefits of same-sex couples? Do you have any other suggestions? Please comment below, I would like to hear (read) them.