People should be able to choose who can speak for them when incapacitated, regardless of being "gay".
Benefits being offered for reasons other than marriage ought to be available regardless of who is having sex with whom. I believe the law in question would allow an adult with no wife or kids to select another adult to recieve benefits (such as halth care) without regard to sexual relations. In other words, a company could not offer a "gay" couple or heterosexual unmarried couples any benefits without also allowing people who do not claim sexual relationships (such as a woman with a sister who depends on her for all her needs) to also sign up for such benefits.
In other words, the bill gets everyone out of the bedroom. Marriage benefits are for married heterosexual couples (who presumably have sex). All other benefits are equally available to employees regardless of sexual relationships. No special benfits base on who one has sex with.
This has been my argument all along - lets get employers out of the bedroom. Companies that offer marriage benefits to couples (hetero and homo) require these couples to affirm they are in an exclusive sexual relationship in order to qualify. This bill simply gets amployers out of the bedroom.
Marriage retains its traditional benefits based on the lifelong legal commitment people make to one another (althoug our laws have let us down and made a sham of marriage).