Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Logophile

"Within that state, however, the name is relatively unimportant."

Not really. Within that state, gays will still be filing federal income tax separately, they won't be eligible for spousal social security benefits, they won't be permitted to sponsor partners for immigration purposes, etc... The GAO has recorded over 1000 federal benefits that do NOT apply to any partnership other than marriage.


197 posted on 10/25/2006 2:15:41 PM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]


To: Kahonek
Not really. Within that state, gays will still be filing federal income tax separately, they won't be eligible for spousal social security benefits, they won't be permitted to sponsor partners for immigration purposes, etc... The GAO has recorded over 1000 federal benefits that do NOT apply to any partnership other than marriage.

Yes, just after I posted that, I realized that it was not only state benefits that matter, but federal ones as well. You are right: what the relationship is called does matter.

That said, I believe we should not budge on the issue of "gay marriages" or civil unions, whatever they are called. Once such arrangements are established, it would be too easy for a federal court to declare that civil unions are essentially the same as marriage and should be recognized as such.

211 posted on 10/25/2006 2:23:54 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson