Voices : Benefits not tied to having children

Daily Egyptian Editorials, Columns, Letters to the Editor

Apts & Rentals

Photo Personals

Live DE NewsCam

Classified Ads

EMail This Page

Membership
DE Staff
Login

The Daily Egyptian is published by the students of SIU at Carbondale. Except during vacations and exam weeks, The Daily Egyptian is published Monday through Friday during the fall and spring semesters and TWThF during the summer semester."

[Macro error: Can't include because the file is larger than 32767 characters.]

Benefits not tied to having children

This is in response to an article on partner benefits by Suri Rajan. Mr. Rajan argued in his article that marriage benefits should be given to heterosexual relationships in return for their contribution of children to our society. I find this theory lacking.

According to this theory, heterosexual couples who decide not to have children (yes, this happens) should not be eligible for benefits, neither should couples who find they can not have children, and it can be argued that neither should couples whose children are no longer dependants.

Furthermore, why then would heterosexual couples that do not yet have children receive benefits? Are we as a society rewarding them for a potential contribution? What if they never deliver (pun intended), does society demand repayment? I could continue listing examples or hypothetical situations, but I think my point is made.

The article does address my above concern (non-childbearing couples); Mr. Rajan states that they cannot be denied benefits because that would amount to discrimination. I find this hypocritical. Discrimination is the act of making social distinctions based upon prejudices. In order for Mr. Rajan and myself to have this discussion we would first have to make distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

I am by no means claiming to understand the motives behind Mr. Rajan's ideas, but I am going to take this chance to address another personal concern. I am tired of hearing attempts at logically justifying pushing religious belief into politics. We all have the right to our own beliefs as long as they do not tread upon the rights of others. This current zeitgeist, turning religious moral into enforceable law, is really beginning to scare me. Is the job of government to enforce religious policy? I believe the job of government is to protect the minority from the majority.

Back to the issue at hand, in a place where all people are created equal we have two choices: One, award benefits to couples regardless of race, sex, creed, etc, or Two, remove them from all.

Kit Wilkerson
Murphysboro

[Macro error: Can't include because the file is larger than 32767 characters.]