hi clo,
sure.
i am saying i don't see why married people have an advantage over unmarried people.
if the argument is for equality, i think no one should have an advantage. so the rules should apply to single people, unmarried couples etc.
not sure why sexuality needs to come into it.
the issue is discrimination against ANYONE who is without access to advantages accrued by others. unless there is a public good that justifies it.
i acknowledge the public good exists where children are involved. but i don't see it simply because two people have written a contract of commitment to one another.
surely the justification isn't, "i love you and i want a tax refund." if it is merely about money, let us not put it in an egalitarian petticoat.
| 