Yes, that is an interesting article, and it does make some compelling arguments. A couple things, though.
It should be qualified exactly what argument the article is making. Is it talking about federal restrictions on marriage, or state-by-state restrictions? It seems to be a state issue as it now stands, but the article cites the cost of transferring (federal) social security benefits to a surviving spouse, as well the cost of providing a (federal, presumably) tax exemption for a spouse. Either I don't understand this correctly, or the author should clarify the argument.
The article also cites the cost of health insurance policies being extended to spouses. As far as I gather, this is primarily a private business matter. And I believe there is already the precedent of health insurance companies--even some for government employees--extending benefits to same-sex partners.
I'd like to hear those questions answered, for starters.
|