Gay men and women with health insurance start marrying gay members of the opposite sex in name only to share the benefits and tax credits of marriage. Then have unofficial unity ceremonies with their actual romantic partners and live with them.
That puts the benefits where they are needed and removes the argument that they'd be stealing.
Eventually the government would have to allow gay marriage since the financial side of the argument is already gone.
2007-04-25 08:36:43 · 4 answers · asked by Year of the Monkey 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
sounds like an adequate fall-back strategy, but I think most people would prefer to be who they are openly, legally and with equal rights.
2007-04-25 08:41:07 · answer #1 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I like it. That handles the Social Security benefits thing, and being able to make decisions when a partner is critical in the hospital, too, right?
As to medical benefits - my company just started splitting off working employee health insurance from retired employee health insurance. Of course, the retired employee health insurance went way up. So it is not just "gay partner" health insurance that might be costly. Other groups end up with high costs, too.
At least it is illegal to separate out disabled people's health insurance from non-disabled people's health insurance!
2007-04-25 08:52:39 · answer #2 · answered by Tina Goody-Two-Shoes 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds good til one side or the other wants a divorce and then you have to split up the property. I think there are a lot fo people that would take advantage of that type of setup for the wrong reasons!
2007-04-25 08:41:34 · answer #3 · answered by Brent W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Huh, that is a really good idea. It's sad that something like that would have to be done to get the same rights as heterosexual couples, but really, it sounds like it would work.
2007-04-25 20:28:46 · answer #4 · answered by T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋