Let me tell you a little bit about my brother. He has the brains, while I'm just another pretty face. He can take a car apart and put it back together, while I still haven't figured out how to pop the hood. He goes to church twice a week, while I don't go at all, figuring he has me covered. His religious convictions tell him that same sex relationships are immoral, while I have no convictions at all and don't mind if three guys and one parakeet want to go to space mountain. I know my brother, who lives in Bethlehem, would be opposed to Mayoral candidate Willie Reynolds' stands on marriage equality and same sex benefits. I have reservations myself, although for different reasons.
At a news conference last week that I unfortunately missed, Willie Reynolds chose to make "equal rights for our LGBT brothers and sisters" a major theme of his campaign. He pledged that, as Mayor, he would insist on "diversity training for City employees, particularly our public safety personnel." Same sex domestic partners "would be provided with the same health care benefits as all other city employees." Finally, he vowed he would perform no marriages at all until he could do so for same sex as well as heterosexual couples.
Although Willie's stand should just about lock up the gay vote (and they contribute), this is not exactly what I would call a high priority in a City afflicted by a revenue-sucking pension crisis. In fact, as gay employees add their domestic partners for health benefits and pensions, this can only make that problem worse. It will cost the City money at a time when it should be trying to trim costs.
If Willie had proposed benefits for
prospective city workers in same sex relationships, this pill would be easier (and cheaper) to swallow. Those pension agreements are much more reasonable, thanks to negotiations by the Callahan administration. But under Willie's plan, he will add significantly to the City's pension crisis.
I could understand diversity training, so long as it can be done at no municipal expense. But why did Willie add that public safety personnel need it more than most? I would think police officers and firefighters, who see same sex unions night and day, could probably give Willie some diversity training.
Another point, and I one I find unnecessarily divisive, is Willie's pledge to refuse to perform any marriages at all until he can marry same sex couples. That is insulting to numerous innocent heterosexual couples who have nothing to do with the state's marriage laws. It is also insulting to many people like my brother, who for religious reasons, are offended by same sex couples. Who's to say my brother is wrong? Willie Reynolds? LGBT activist Adrian Shanker?
Worst of all is that, in the name of political correctness, Willie is diminishing the sanctity of the special relationship between man and woman. That is the only relationship that can actually produce new life. It deserves a special place and name for that if for no other reason. No same sex couple can produce children. To call their union a marriage diminishes the miracle of new life that is often produced by a real marriage. My objection here is mostly definitional. I would agree that same sex partners should have the same rights (and obligations) as heterosexual couples, but the union of man and woman deserves its own special word in our lexicon.
Willie is a progressive candidate with many good ideas, including district seats on City Council. Same sex couples certainly should have the same rights and protections as everyone else. But in a City with many other real problems, this should be a back burner item that needs to be approached with a little more sensitivity than Willie has displayed. You can't just force people to accept gay rights. You need to persuade them. And that takes time, not mandatory diversity training for cops.
I know I have several gay readers. Please tell me if you thing I'm wrong. It would not be the first time.
