🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

----------------------------
Karen Kimball


I  = (NOT(speaking for HP))
HP = (NOT(speaking for me))

{Combine, parse, and apply DeMorgan's.}
{Lather, rinse, repeat.}