|
No doubt most of the people who want to remove the right to same-sex marriage from the California Constitution, Proposition 8 on the November ballot, are perfectly sincere.
They really believe it is "God's will" that a marriage contract can only be between one man and one woman and that this has been "the definition of marriage since the dawn of time," as it's poetically put by Frank Schubert, who is co-managing the Yes on 8 campaign.
That must create an uncomfortable disconnect for Yes on 8 leader Michael Bumgarner, a retired insurance executive and devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, with a long history of marriages involving one man and several women.
Schubert heads the Sacramento political consulting firm Schubert Flint Public Affairs. One of the partners is Richard Wiebe, a former California deputy insurance commissioner.
Oh wait – insurance again? Isn't that the industry that was so prominent in opposing the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s?
Ellie Smeal, founder of the Fund for a Feminist Majority and former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), reported this to the 1995 National NOW Conference: "The real opposition to the ERA was silent and stayed in the background." For example, during the Illinois campaign for passage of the ERA, Smeal was shown an internal General Electric memo outlining their reasons for opposing the ERA. She says, "It talked about wages, benefits, health insurance and money. At the time women were making 59 cents for every man's dollar. Someone was pocketing 41 cents. If you think the ERA was a debate about the draft or single-sex toilets, you're wrong; it was and is about money.
"Insurance companies were also major players behind the defeat of the ERA. They wanted to continue their discriminatory practices. In Florida, the 'dean' of the Senate was a partner in a law firm that represented 14 insurance companies. Guess which way the Florida Senate voted? The same was true in many other states; the number one ERA opponent in Louisiana was a state legislator who was an insurance defense attorney."
A major contributor to the Yes on 8 campaign is the Knights of Columbus, which kicked in a million dollars recently. Easy to understand, right? The K of C is a Catholic men's organization, very active in charity work, very family-oriented. And did you know the Knights' 1.7 million members include "over 1,200 full-time life insurance professionals"? They do far more than sell insurance, but it is a major function of the organization and a major reason to join. See www.kofc.org/un/insurance/index.cfm.
The ERA says this: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
The campaign against it relied on some pretty twisted arguments, including drafting women into military service. And today we have no draft. Unisex toilets were a prominent threat, although they don't seem to have caused the downfall of some European countries which have them, or of the many families which share a bathroom.
The current arguments seem equally silly. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in May of 2004, and California in May this year. Canada approved it in 2005,the Netherlands in 2000,Spain in 2005 – you can read more about other countries' laws at www.ilga-europe.org/europe/issues/marriage_and_partnership/marriage_and_partnership_rights_for_same_sex_partners_country_by_country.
If those laws have caused problems for heterosexuals in any of those places, the stories are not showing up on Internet searches.
For insurance companies, the ERA would have meant equalizing pay for many women employees, and extending benefits to women that, in some cases, were reserved for men. Today, some companies offer a broader range of benefits to spouses than to domestic partners. At a minimum, insurance companies will have considerable expense for revising and rewriting their policies.
This isn't about California. It's about precedent for a nationwide spread.
Here's the good news: Equality can be good for business. The Boston Globe reports Provincetown's tourist business has been revitalized since Massachusetts repealed a 1913 law which banned same-sex marriages for out-of-staters.
Full disclosure: Sophie Annan Jensen has no dog in this fight. She's a straight woman who intends to stay happily unmarried. She doesn't know of any gay relatives and has no interest in her friends' sex lives. She has always supported the ERA.
Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)
|
-- Well said!
cheated) out on by not being allowed to enter into a matrimonial state of being! The legal rights to claim that which they may have shared a lifetime in building with a partner that little nest egg that they will never see any monetary gain from. This is the only legal hurtle still left to be overcome; all other issues can be circumvented by one legal document or another. A well drawn up Will and a limited power of attorney for health issues can provide all the protections a partner could need. I say if you are not willing to give survivors benefits to one segment of our society then do away with the benefits for all. Oh I forgot they can not file Federal or State income taxes thus they are being decimated against by not being allowed to claim head of house hold. 
are going to accept gay people if it is not their choice to do so; and why would any want to join a group 
.