OK, so biologically, procreation is pretty essential to perpetuation of the species and all that, however in this day and age, the choice to reproduce is just that, a conscious choice.
In my union days, I always objected to the practice of bumping another member ahead of me in violation of my seniority because "he just had a kid." Well, I'm happy for him, but why should I be required to make a sacrifice to support someone else's offspring?
As has been observed previously in this thread, these issues are largely driven by the short sighted, bottom line policies of the insurance industry.
This position on the part of the insurance industry is inherently flawed, and in the long run, incredibly bad business.
For instance, in the case of a TS patient who is identified and treated early enough in life, this person is unlikely to live a long life of denial and suppression resulting in the reproduction of the national average of 2.5 children.
The insurance industry bears the expense of childbirth, at an average cost of about $30,000 per child, not to mention that child's health care for the next 18 years at heaven knows what cost.
The average cost of treatment of a TS person might reach a maximum of $80,000 - $100,000 ( a liberal estimate), and is a one time expense, as opposed to an ongoing expenditure.
Similarly, the average gay couple is unlikely to reproduce, and the assumption of coverage for same sex partners is equally more cost effective than the expenses associated with child rearing.
The GLBT community finds ourselves in the position of basically bearing the burden of supporting the choice of others to establish a family.
Please do not get the impression that I disapprove of the whole family thing. I just don't choose to be a part of it, and I feel it's unfair to ask me to pay for it.
The insurance industry will surely fight tooth and nail to bring a gay marriage ban to referendum, and will vigorously play on the religious angle to compel conservative voters to support such a ban. Sadly, the GLBT lobby, even HRC, lacks the resources to compete with the campaign that will be supported by the deep pockets of the insurance industry to ban same sex unions.
This battle isn't over by a long shot. It's only just beginning.
Don't forget, Robyn, that a same-sex married couple may also adopt children and take the cost of raising them off the taxpayers, are more likely to raise a well-adjusted child than if that child did not have permanent parents. They are more likely to intervene earlier to see that a child with emotional or medical issues is treated, cutting the cost of treatment compared to late intervention.
Marsha, the latest poll in CA shows that 51% of California voters will oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and only 42% will vote for the amendment. 7% don't care or are undecided. As I thought, the attitude of Californians has shifted due to the increasingly open integration of gays/lesbians into the mainstream culture and the shift to bias against them becoming politically incorrect. The LAPD openly recruits gay and lesbian officers now. I'm sure the increasing number of openly GLBT persons on television is having the effect of desensitizing people to differences. Since I lived in in Silverlake (a community of very out gays and lesbians) for about six years, I got used to people being more open about their sexual preferences. Now I live in a middle class community, yet I'm aware of more openness in public and in the media than I was in Silverlake 9 yrs ago. There is no way they will get 2/3 of the voters to alter the constitution of CA to deny same-sex marriage.
Wendy, I have no issues with a legal way to give same-sex couples the benefits of married individuals, however my preference is not to change the definition of "marriage" in order to do it. As for the polls, it is really to early to give them any credibility. I do believe the democrat presidential candidate was suppose to be Hilliary by a mile. You may very well be correct because California opinion does not often mirror the other 49 states, or maybe as Obama put it, "I've been in 57 states, (with) I think one left to go." And he is the likely democrat candidate, geez!
Hugs,
Marsha