Sexual Imorality

[infinite monkey]

In higher ed, there is a push for benefits for domestic partners. This would not have been an idea except for the fact that gays cannot marry. This is what makes benefits unfair: a couple cannot have the extended family benefits because they cannot marry.

Of course, a straight unmarried couple could not enjoy extended benefits either.

I never thought much about this: the couple times I've lived with someone I wouldn't have dreamed that there should be benefits for domestic partnerships because, let's face it, it's awfully hard to define. Joe and Joann may just be roommates, but can use the same insurance that Mark and Marsha, who are legally married, use. It's really insane when you think how far this can extend. I mean, Homeless Guy Parasite could have been covered under MY insurance. Uh. No. I don't even want that option.

The solution is so obvious I can't stand it. Gays should be able to marry. There should be no difference between ANY kind of married couple or ANY kind of 'domestic partnerships.'

If Joe and Joann, Mark and Marsha, Jim and John, and Blaine and Bill want the economic benefits, they get married.

I don't get why this is such a big deal.

Oh yeah, religious wingnuts who know what is best for everyone.

[henry quirk]

The real solution to the 'problem' is, of course, the one no one brings up, that being: remove gov sanctioning of marriage, return the event to the religious sphere and leave it there.

Under this scheme: no one gets any financial breaks by way of marriage (and the 'state' gets no licensing fees). If Joe and Jack wanna tie the knot: find a Unitarian Universalist minister, or, go to war with the Roman Catholic Church (or the Jewish or the Islamic Orthodoxies).

Government (those 'in' it) wouldn't (shouldn't) have any say either way (in sanctioning or condemning).