Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
It's been argued that there isn't really a tangible benefit that homosexuals are being excluded from because of the legal status of their relationships - is this accurate at all? This is the type of thing I was wondering about, and frankly, hoped that question could be asked and answered without it becoming a flurry of personal arguments for or against...so far, sadly, there's been little to no luck with that.
That is a good question. Without a CIVIL UNION, and legal status under it, a couple does not have rights to insurance, wills, Social Security, all of the other benefits that current married couples have.
An example. I have two gay friends who have been together for 40 years. One is a noted Psychiatrist and her partner has stayed at home and raised their four adopted children. When the Psychiatrist was taken to the hospital from a bad car wreck, the doctors could not even talk to her partner about her condition because they were not "married". Only a call from me at 3am to the Director of the hospital at his home got the problem solved.
Think of all the things you can do as a married person with your jobs health insurance, benefits, 401K, life insurance, etc. Now, if something happened to you and your wife had to go to court for each and every instance that she had to address an issue that should have been obvious and normal, you would be kicking and screaming that those issues should be taken care of.
That is all they are asking. You call it "me too". But that is a real big Fn "ME TOO".