Mrs. Venation -- a.k.a. kpharmer -- replied to a letter in last Sunday's
Washington Post Southern Maryland Extra. Here's the letter she replied to (
second on this page):
In answer to the same-sex marriage proponents on getting benefits ("Same-Sex Marriage Decried At Forum," Extra, April 18): I think it should be remembered these benefits were put forward for the use of wives and mothers of children of the marriage and those children.
If the couple is same sex, chances are both are employed and have benefits from their jobs.Here's Mrs. V.'s letter, from today's edition (
again, second one down*):
This is regarding the letter published in the April 25 Southern Maryland Extra concerning same-sex marriages. The fact is there is no state or federal law or regulation that requires opposite-sex couples to procreate, to be able to procreate or to engage in procreative sexual activity in order to obtain marital benefits. Therefore, the argument that marriage laws were intended to benefit mothers and children is not fact but wishful thinking.
The conjecture that both parties in a same-sex marriage would have employment benefits is moot; in most opposite-sex marriages in the United States both parties are gainfully employed.
Why should my same-sex marriage be regarded in law any differently from opposite-sex marriages when both I and my life partner work, pay taxes and contribute to our communities in much the same way as opposite-sex couples do?
'Tis a puzzlement.:yourock:, baby!
* Be sure to read the third letter on this page, too.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
