CONSIDER "RECIPROCAL BENEFITS": Tim Nashif

...First, marriage was never intended as a means to access rights. I believe that degrades the institution. The rights and benefits associated with marriage are a byproduct, designed to recognize and encourage the contribution and strength traditional families make to society.

Second, same-sex civil unions grant rights based solely on sexual orientation. Many family arrangements that don't qualify for marriage are no less deserving of the benefits as are gay families. For example, two sisters living together, or two widows. Or a single man living with his aging mother. Should we extend special benefits to some citizens because they're gay, but exclude others because they're not?

I'm not unsympathetic to the challenges of non-married families. But I don't believe sexual orientation should be the litmus test for legal rights. Defense of Marriage is working to introduce a bill on reciprocal benefits.

It's similar to a law Hawaii adopted and several other states are seriously considering. It makes available helpful benefits, such as making medical decisions and automatical inheritance rights, to any couple that can't legally marry. Ultimately, the Legislature must decide what benefits should be included.

more
posted by Eve at 10:16 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home