🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <4ia6tu$h27@boulder.earthnet.net>, bob@compopt.com (Bob
Cormack) writes:
> 
[...]
> 
> > Child welfare is one reason for
> > government intervention in the marriage contract.  In the past, protection
> > of women may have been another.  So what is the societal need for extending
> > this contractual meddling to same-sex couples?  That they want it?  That
> > financial sanctions for being unfaithful (divorce settlements) may reduce
> > promiscuity and hence sexually transmitted diseases?

Surely you must realize that there are many, many more legal ramifications
of marriage than those you list. Inheritance, medical emergencies, medical
benefits, etc. etc. Friends of my family have lived in NYC as a gay couple
for the last 30 years. Why should they be denied the economic and legal
benefits my wife and I enjoy? They care for each other, support each
other, have amassed a considerable joint estate, and are generally
exemplary citizens who contribute much. If they wish to get married, why
stop them?

-- 
G. Boggs                     I'd rather be rich than stupid.
                                                 J. Handey