From: Bill Lucy 

In article , richhong{at}hawksci.com says...
> >> Here are a few benefits that state-sponsered marriage confers upon a
> person.
>
> >> 1. Spousal health benefits
> >> 2. Spousal pension/survivor benefits
> >> 3. Spousal share in testasy.
>
> Bill,
>
> While I support gay marriage, my first preference would be for the state to
> end legal recognition of marriage, period.
>
> As far as I can see, #2 and #3 above could and should be handled by a simple
> statement of who is to be a person's beneficiary.

I agree that it should. But in some instances (including ours), #2 is a
statutory issue. And not everyone dies with a will that sufficiently
protects a significant other. "All my assets" isn't always good
enough.

> #1 is something which
> bothers me because the health premium cost for a couple is less than if they
> were two separate singles, and that is wrong.  Each person should be
> responsible for their own costs; a married couple's health insurance premium
> should be 2X a single person's.

If an employer picks up all health care premiums, do you propose that the
employee gets dependent coverage for free?

If you are proposing that the employee pick up 100% of health care premiums
(including employer cost), I'm with you. The "hiding" of health
care cost through employer pickup has gone on too long.

And that still doesn't answer the question of "who is a
dependent". Is it Grandma? Uncle Joe? Your neighbor?

Or the person you've chosen to devote your life to?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5