In today’s letters column, Edward Styles writes:
“Marriage benefits originated not as a reward for monogamous heterosexuality, but as a means for humankind to perpetuate itself and to meet the huge needs of our dependent young. Redefining marriage would make these goals more difficult to achieve.”
As someone opposed to the FMA, I think Mr. Styles has inadvertently hit the proverbial nail head. Instead of redefining marriage, perhaps what we need to do is redefine the benefits, or rather how they’re parcelled out. That is, direct the social rewards based on relevant actions, such as providing for children, rather than a simpler definition such as a wedding ceremony.
Further, Style’s extension of the discussion to benefits like healthcare coverage reminds us that the current employer-based system leaves too many families and individuals without any, and burdens employers in ways that would be quite unnecessary in a universal system. If two people, or more, choose to make their lives together then more power to them in finding happiness.
BillSaysThis 