Federal benefits extended to same-sex partners

[Kadarin]

Well, if you're seriously going to recognize "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" in lieu of gay marriages, then you kinda have to do something to actually recognize them. Otherwise you're just using those terms to justify institutionalized discrimination against a certain group of people.

 

[shangshang]

Lots of homophobic here lol. Didn't realize so much homo anxiety going on around here lol. peace.

 

[Double Trouble]

If these benefits apply to same or different gender couples, it's just going to result in a big spending increase for the federal government. If it only applies to same-sex couples, then it's clear discrimination against normal couples and should be struck down in court. Either way, not a very elegant solution.

The legislature should handle this issue, not an end run by the executive branch around DOMA.

 

[Kadarin]

If these benefits apply to same or different gender couples, it's just going to result in a big spending increase for the federal government. If it only applies to same-sex couples, then it's clear discrimination against normal couples and should be struck down in court. Either way, not a very elegant solution.

The legislature should handle this issue, not an end run by the executive branch around DOMA.

Easiest thing to do: Recognize and legalize gay marriages everywhere, and make whatever benefits revolve around the state of whether or not people are married. Otherwise we're just going through hoops to satisfy those who want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" or whatever.

 

[werepossum]

Well, if you're seriously going to recognize "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" in lieu of gay marriages, then you kinda have to do something to actually recognize them. Otherwise you're just using those terms to justify institutionalized discrimination against a certain group of people.

This is a very, very bad thing to do. Once you recognize "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" you now have two bodies of law which will inevitably begin to diverge, leading to a never-ending string of discrimination lawsuits (some justified.) It's asinine anyway to contemplate having two sets of laws to do the same thing for different groups of people. As we learned with segregation, separate but equal is never equal for long. Expand the definition of marriage to include any person of age rather than any person of age AND the opposite sex and all this silly stuff goes away. (And please note that I do sympathize with anyone who honestly believes that society, religion or marriage is being degraded by such a change; I just don't agree that anyone should have the right of controlling what two other free adults do if it does not directly and materially affect them.)

Easiest thing to do: Recognize and legalize gay marriages everywhere, and make whatever benefits revolve around the state of whether or not people are married. Otherwise we're just going through hoops to satisfy those who want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" or whatever.

Agree totally.