I’ve said it all along — that what the homosexual activists are
really after is special rights for people based on their sexual
And now it’s becoming quite obvious that I was right.
I’m referring to the decision last week by the Big 3 automakers to
extend health-care benefits to partners of homosexual employees, but not
to unmarried partners of heterosexual employees.
“This is really a landmark,” explained Kim Mills, education director
of the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group in Washington
that tracks company benefit programs.
Indeed it is a landmark. Oh, it’s not a first. The same kind of
action was taken years ago by some of the Hollywood entertainment
studios. Disney, of all companies, took the lead on that fight. But that
was Hollywood. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are mainstream — or at
least they are supposed to be.
The auto companies say they did it as a low-cost way to lure new
workers in a tight labor market. But that doesn’t make sense. Because,
at the same time, the auto officials say they expect only about 1
percent of employees to take advantage of these new benefits.
“The benefit is saying to employees and future employees, ‘Look, we
are a diverse company and we do recognize not only race and gender but
sexual orientation,” explained David Murphy, vice president of human
resources for Ford. “When we’re in the labor market recruiting, we’re
sending a signal about how inclusive the Ford Motor Company is.”
I wonder if Mr. Murphy realizes his company and the others in Detroit
are sending other messages to other people. I wonder if they realize
that it offends some that big companies would cater to a narrow interest
group promoting a political agenda that is nonsensical and dangerous. I
wonder if they realize how many prospective employees and customers they
are turning off.
I’ve heard from quite a few of those people:
“I for one will not be driving a vehicle made by any of the Big 3
from now on,” said Wes from Alabama.
“I can’t believe this double standard,” said Sharon from Arizona.
And then this one from Anne: “I am a straight female. If my female
friend and I decide to share an apartment and living expenses, can we
qualify for ‘domestic partner’ benefits? If not — why not? If two
lesbian women can qualify for the insurance and other benefits, why
should my friend and I be discriminated against because we don’t have
sex together? Some husbands and wives have sexless marriages but still
qualify for benefits. I really want to know how they can legally exclude
my friend and I.”
Anne, I’d like to know, too. I’ve been writing about such
discriminatory practices for 10 years. They make no sense.
Are companies or insurance companies going to send sex inspectors
over to employees’ homes to ensure that they are actually having sex?
Why should the sexual practices of employees have anything to do with
company benefits? Isn’t that the kind of discrimination these activists
have claimed to be fighting for years?
It simply proves my point that what the homosexual activists have
always been after are special privileges — not equal rights.
Of course you can’t blame the automakers. They are hardly crusaders.
They are not on the cutting edge of societal evolution. They are merely
responding predictably to cultural stimuli. They are taking the course
of least resistance.
Cities like San Francisco have approved laws requiring companies
doing business in the city to offer “domestic partnership” benefits to
employees. So far, about 2,000 companies have caved into the demands.
The truth is you people don’t really care about this stuff nearly as
much as the homosexual activists do. You’re not willing to speak out.
You’re not willing to pay a price. You’re not willing to be vilified and
hated for standing up to injustice and calling demented ideas just what
I’m just afraid that, in a few years, my kids won’t even recognize
the United States of America as the land of the free and the home of the
brave anymore. It will be more like the land of the free lunch and the
home of the brave new world.