Monday, July 9, 2012

Should State Be Forced To Provide Benefits to Same Sex Partners?

Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit in regards to forcing the state to pay benefits to partners in same-sex couples.

Contrary to what the looney left and gay-rights activists want us to believe, this is not a case of "fairness". Here's why...

The current ruling forces the state to pay for benefits for same-sex partners - period. It does NOT state that they must be in a formal, licensed relationship such as marriage or a civil union. In other words, it could be two gay people passing in the night, with no committment to one another. To provide benefits to them without also provided the same benefits to any heterosexual couple just shacking up is what would be unfair. A hetero couple, unmarried, are not entitled to the benefits, so why should gays get special treatment?

Now, if they go to a state where they can marry and get married, or enter into a civil union, then I say, "Fine, let them get benefits," whether or not Arizona recognizes such committments. Otherwise, not on your life! If a hetero couple shacking up without benefit of a licensed committment are not entitled to spousal benefits, the same should be true for gays.

But as it stands, unmarried (uncommitted) gays can get spousal benefits, but unmarried heterosexuals cannot. And THAT is unfair.


No comments: