🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3m1d8k$4cr@hpchase.rose.hp.com> karenk@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Karen Kimball) writes:
>bearpaw (bearpaw@world.std.com) wrote:
>: mikep@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
>
>: >	This certainly seems to imply that 'domestic partnership' and
>: >	similar efforts do indeed devalue marrage... (which is what
>: >	bothered Wilson the most, leading to the veto domestic partners
>: >	bill in CA.)  For if most registrants are opposite-sex, then
>: >	why don't they simply get married?  And if they are not willing
>: >	to get married, then why should society recognize their
>: >	relationship?
>
>: Perhaps they dislike some of the societal baggage that comes with being 
>: married.  Maybe they don't want to take advantage of something that's
>: available to different-gendered couples but not same-gendered couples.
>
>
>	Part of that societal baggage is the tax penalty for being
>married. 
>	Since married people have to deal with that, I am NOT in favor
>of people who have the _opportunity_ to get married getting all of the
>health care, etc. benefits that help balance this penalty out.
>
>	The real solution to this is to legalize gay marriages. No-one's
>brave enough to stand behind that in the open, so we get this waffling
>situation that effectively cheats those couples who _can_ and do get 
>married.

The real solution, imo, is to remove all penalties and benefits from "marriage">
and attach them instead to "childrearing and support", "powers of attorney" ,
"universal health care", etc.

As long as one accepts that married people *should get benefits/penalties
and single people *shouldn't, it's unfair that a)gays don't have the same
options and b)people can arrange to get the benefits without the costs.

However, people should be able to construct mutual support arrangements
around platonic friendships and sibling relationships also, imo.

Barbara