Things got a little heated at City Council this Tuesday, but it had nothing to do with the temperature. Or did it? City reps decided the previous to extend benefits to the unmarried heterosexual partners and partners of homosexual city employees. It's a little redundant to say unmarried gay partners because, of course, homosexuals cannot marry in the state of Texas. And therein lies the problem. People who are morally opposed to homosexuality are worried that providing benefits to the partner of a gay employee is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from providing the legal protection of marriage to those same partners. Some people don't even want to call these unions partnerships. They want to use a word that is better saved for the privacy of one's home into the fray.
In Tuesday's El Paso Times, there is a letter to the editor decrying the extension of benefits to "lovers" of any kind, hetero or homosexual. The letter writer wants to know why it is that the city is setting aside money for people who should get married if they want employment benefits. Um, that would be because they shouldn't have to, even if they could. Really, it's none of your business, moral or otherwise, if people choose to not get married. Even if they can. And really, "lovers"? Ick.
As with the Chico's Taco's kiss controversy, no one needs the mental image of people doing the nasty in their heads while we're talking co-pays. Or while people are waiting in an overstuffed waiting room to see a doctor because they have the sniffles. Or while people are anxiously awaiting test results to see if that lump in their partner's breast is cancer, or just a cyst that will resolve itself. Unmarried couples have the same highs and lows as married couples, and it's none of my, or your, business what happens behind closed doors between two consenting adults, that's why ''lovers" is, at best, a juvenile verbal rock to hurl. And if you've ever been in a co-habitational relationship, legal or not, you know a lot of what goes on behind those doors has anything to do with being "lovers". Unmarried partners go grocery shopping, complain about the other one hogging the remote, grumble while they do the dishes for, like, the seventh time this week. Just because there is no piece of paper between them doesn't mean there isn't anything other than hot, monkey sex between unmarried partners. There is love, devotion, and, for many, there is a lifetime together, and their legal status is no one's business but their own. Don't believe me? Then I guess you're qualified to cast the first stone.
So What's Love Got To Do With Taking the Moral Temperature Of The Sun City?
Now, before you scroll down to the bottom of the page to remind me that I don't agree with PDA's of any kind, hold on there, Skippy. Employee benefits are a legal question, not a moral one. We offer benefits to people who go to the courthouse, plunk down whatever the going rate for a marriage license is these days, and begin referring to each other by the same last name. They do the same grumbling about dishes and shop for the same groceries as unmarried employees do. Notice I'm referring to employees, not people. That's what we are talking about here, employees. People is what happens to you after you leave your office. Hopefully, those employees stay married and go on to use the benefits at whatever company they are employs them. But as sometimes happens, statistically over half the time, people break up. Employee A takes spouse A off their employee benefits. But as sometimes happens, statistically a bunch of times, Employee A finds spouse B, and the new spouse is now covered by the benefits of Employee A. What's the difference between EA and the respective spouses? A piece of paper. How many times do you get to enter into the legal contract of marriage and break that contract before you are considered immoral?I've been married and divorced three times, where do the morality police stand on that? I am not currently married because, well, that's none of your business. Would I like to have the opportunity to take advantage of Darren's employee benefits? Would he like that opportunity with mine? Again, none of your business. See how that works? My private decisions are none of anyone's business. Want to go poking around in my private business? Get ready to open your own door, because I'm coming in. That's what happens when you want a say in my life. I get a say in yours. I hope your closets are all in order - no pun intended - because I plan on walking through your entire house.
In the end, I think Jesus said it best when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He didn't say, "If you cast yourself to be a 'religious person', then by all means, let fly with the rocks". He never said any of us is capable of judging the other. He left that to His Father. I'm leaving the decision to provide benefits to unmarried couples, gay and straight, to my city council. After all, this is a legal question, not a moral one.
***
Patricia Martinez is the co-host of the Mike in the Morning Show on 93.1 KISS FM. If you are looking for some love advice from Patricia, or want to raise an issue, please send an email to info@epmediagroup.com with "Love" in the subject line. Click here for the WLGTDw/it archives.
