[kg_veteran]

[quote]
Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Mav_Kiki beat me to the "yes, gays cannot adopt in certain states" refutement. And did it much more articulately than I ever could have.

My statement was a bit too broad. What I meant to say was, "There is no law in Texas that I'm aware of that prohibits gays from adopting." I'm an attorney in Texas, and I have enough trouble keeping up with the law in Texas, much less the law in Florida. While I've handled over 100 adoptions, I can't state with absolute certainty that no such law exists in Texas -- just that I don't believe there is.

Well this is a first: I have never heard anyone defend the legality of firing someone because they are gay. Do you think people should be fired because of their race? Is that fair? If I'm gay, is it right for my boss to find out and fire me simply because he or she doesn't agree with what I do in the privacy of my own home? By that token, can someone be fired because they're Jewish? Or Muslim?

Where you and I differ is that I draw a distinction between classifying people based upon something they are born with or can't change (race, nationality) or based upon a practice they have that is constitutionally protected (religion) as opposed to what gender they choose to have sex with. I just don't see those as being on equal footing.

I've never said I think it's fair that a gay person is fired for being gay. I'm not sure where you'd get that from. I just don't think you can make a law for everything -- thus my example.

I think most people have huge problems with people being fired so capriciously, with no regard to job performance. And sexuality has NOTHING to do with job performance-- just as race doesn't.

I'm one of "most people". I think people should be judged based upon job performance. But my point was, there are certain things that are constitutionally protected, and certain things that aren't. I don't think that you can make a law that will prevent all forms of capricious firing, so you have to draw the line somewhere.

By your logic espoused above, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should simply be repealed, because no one should be protected from being fired because of their boss's philosophical/religious/political leanings and/or prejudices.

Not sure where you got that from. Homosexuals aren't protected by that Act.

And marriage is a state-sanctioned benefit. Tax implications, next-of-kin implications, medical/insurance/Social Security implications... and an infinite host of other government-dictated benefits, it will cease to be. But until then... homosexuals are being excluded from one of the basic governmental benefits.

Insurance plans depend on the insurance company, not on the government. As for the tax and Social Security implications, I would have no real problem if they changed the law to permit homosexual couples to file as "married" couples. That said, I don't think it's a huge travesty if they don't change the law, either.

Just my opinion.