Because Exposing all of your Property for a Few Benefits is SO Worth it?
Via the Marietta Daily Journal:
One woman who has not “gone red” is Georgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart of east Cobb, although she’s aware of the movement.
“Lord, I’m going to get in trouble over this, but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married,” Everhart said. “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship.”
“You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart said. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”
This is not a new assertion, to be sure, but it is worth noting only because it really is a ridiculous position because it is a terrible argument for at least two reasons:
1. If this is an argument against gay marriage it is likewise an argument against heterosexual marriage because, after all a male and a female could do exactly what she is so concerned the same-sex couple could do. (Unless, of course, free riding is ok as long as the right equipment is involved).
2. Getting legally married means joint ownership of property and creates a serious of potential liabilities that are one thing when shared with a life partner, yet another when shared with a friend. It would be rather foolish, for example, to put yourself in the position in which one was liable for the debts of one’s “spouse” just for the sake of good benefits at work.