Post
by eCat » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:45 pm
I can see that but I'm not so sure that it wouldn't work out for the better of everyone.
Insurance is offered as a perk, and if a company could get away with not having insurance to be competitive, they would.
That said, a company would recognize that the majority of its employees are going to need family coverage but a traditional marriage is what constitutes a family, so without formally recognizing marriage then the policies would be more in line with you, a significant other, and 2 or 3 children are covered under a family plan
and that would allow gay, straight, married, girlfriends, whatever or would promote a more cafeteria style insurance plan that meets the needs of each person without favoritism toward a wife or children.
Where it is shitty is if a guy is in the hospital and the hospital has a policy of family only and they don't recognize a gay partner as family or as a decision maker - and again, that is because of the traditional role of marriage as its defined.
The answer isn't to widen the definition of marriage, the answer is to eliminate the definition of marriage by the government.
But the definition of marriage has little to do with my concerns regarding who should raise a child.
I like the stinky pinky but only up to the first knuckle, I do not want a GD thumb up there--I've told her multiple times and I always catch her when she tries to pull a fast one---it's my butthole for Chrissakes I'm gonna know--so cut out the BS.