Comment

Why I Left the Right, Exhibit P for Pawlenty

383
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]12/21/2009 6:29:19 pm PST

re: #381 lostlakehiker

If an employer wants to offer medical coverage for partners of gay employees, that would be their business. But why should the taxpayers of MN have to?

Traditional arrangements have an economic and social foundation that is now being forgotten, or shoved down the memory hole, have it whichever way you want.

Whoever is the primary caregiver for a child is going to have a very hard time finding full time employment. Unless they can earn a lot more than average, their income won’t reach to covering the day-care expenses. For this reason, we have social security rules that allow one spouse to receive a spouse-share of benefits, based on the earnings of the other. The same goes for medical coverage. The spouse who doesn’t have full time work won’t have any other way to get coverage.

Pawlenty is wrong on the topic of teaching evolution. But he’s not objectively wrong on benefits for gays. That’s a debate that hasn’t been settled.

One way to look at it is that this amounts to being against diverting scarce resources from those who really need them to those who just want them. That is not unethical.


Because straight people without kids are treated just like childless gay couples.

Oh yeah, and I guess there’s no such thing as gay partners with children. I must be imagining them. Some people are still more equal than others, I see! Thanks for reminding me.