[Azred]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Sorry, but I find this reasoning to be shallow and inneffectual. Not to mention the total ignorance of some ( more than 1,000) crucial financial and legal rights granted by legal marriage unattainable to unmarried and same-sex couples (except in MA).

Shallow and inneffectual? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Perhaps...there are worse mistakes I could make. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] Total ignorance? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] I would beg to differ with that assessment, but I never beg.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Your example is flawed as well. I was able to add my fiance to my insurance under the domestic partner heading. I think the real problem is with that employer's benifits package if they only include same-sex couples as domestic partners.

It is impossible for my example to be flawed, as it was a fact. I certainly didn't imagine that ridiculous cannot-think-for-herself Human Resources director! [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

*****

Personally, I support those who happen to be homosexual and would like to add an offical, state-authorized marriage into their relationship. However, I have not yet heard any compelling argument as to why homosexuals should be allowed to obtain marriage licenses other than "Because we want to." Perhaps a better argument might win them some more legal battles.... [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]