Liberal Crozier
07-09-2006, 03:33 AM
This is an interesting issue. On January 1, 2007, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it has been noted that domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples will end. If you want equality, they say, then you must marry by that date. They note that discordant or unmarried heterosexual couples do not have the right to access domestic partner benefits and also must wed.
On the surface, this appears to be fair and equitable. If you want equal treatment, then what is wrong with either opposite or same sex couples meeting the same criteria?
Well, for one, heterosexuals are not facing the loss of the marriage rights by a 20% constitutional convention vote in 2006 and a popular referendum in 2008. Secondly, the MA heterosexual marriage licence has both state and federal recognition and is not federally taxed at 60% additional income stream. More, the IRS requires MA same-sex couples to deny their marriage when filing federal returns based on DOMA.
I would not be as wary of the motive if not the actuality of the programme if there were not subtle and incipient malevolence in their decision. Why not wait until the referendum - a sure bet say political pundits - in November of 2008 since they also state that domestic partnership benefits are for states where same-sex marriage is illegal.
Of course, the theocons behave hypocritically. It is stock in trade. Spouse
On the surface, this appears to be fair and equitable. If you want equal treatment, then what is wrong with either opposite or same sex couples meeting the same criteria?
Well, for one, heterosexuals are not facing the loss of the marriage rights by a 20% constitutional convention vote in 2006 and a popular referendum in 2008. Secondly, the MA heterosexual marriage licence has both state and federal recognition and is not federally taxed at 60% additional income stream. More, the IRS requires MA same-sex couples to deny their marriage when filing federal returns based on DOMA.
I would not be as wary of the motive if not the actuality of the programme if there were not subtle and incipient malevolence in their decision. Why not wait until the referendum - a sure bet say political pundits - in November of 2008 since they also state that domestic partnership benefits are for states where same-sex marriage is illegal.
Of course, the theocons behave hypocritically. It is stock in trade. Spouse