<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Phil writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT size=3>"So I guess I am wondering why it is that simply
because two people make a choice to sleep together and live together in some
sort of bonded relationship, those of us who have been there and done that and
got the <BR>Tshirt, but are not to particularly wanting to do it again any time
soon, are expected to pay higher taxes and spring for higher bills for insurance
and the rest, simply because somebody else is having a wonderful time of
<BR>matrimonial bliss.</FONT></FONT><FONT size=4>"<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Phil, I think that for many same sex couples, their
relationship is more than "sleeping together and living together in some sort of
bonded relationship." In <FONT color=#0000ff>actual practice and
feelings</FONT>, it would be hard to describe these relationships in different
terms from that of same sex marriage. That is where "equal protection" and
fairness comes in.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As a single person for a number of years, I received these
employer provided benefits. Divorced persons even with children received
these benefits. Many single gay, bisexual, and transgenedered people
received the same benefits. Of course, married persons also received these
benefits, except more of them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Why deny benefits to those that make a choice to share their
lives, raise children, etc simply because they chose to do this with a member of
the same sex? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It is a question of fairness. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Except for curiosity, couples' domestic arrangements and
proclivities, regardless of the gender of the parents, seem not a matter we
need be concerned about except where the partners' and/or children's
health/welfare may be at stake. This view is shared not only by
"liberals" and some conservatives, but many libertarians also espouse views with
the same practical consequences.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From: "Phil Nisbet" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:pcnisbet1@hotmail.com"><FONT
size=4>pcnisbet1@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>To: <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:12 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Subject: [Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=4>> There was a spirited
discussion on spreading benefits about for gays and <BR>> lesbians and
transgenders, etc. Though it has dried up, I was wondering,<BR>>
<BR>> Why is there a benefit for people simple because they happen to be
sharing <BR>> the same bedroom?<BR>> <BR>> Don't get it wrong, I
benefited from it back while I was married and before <BR>> I became a single
dad, but now I am happily not married and intend to spend <BR>> the rest of
my life in happy bachleorhood.<BR>> <BR>> So I guess I am wondering why it
is that simply because two people make a <BR>> choice to sleep together and
live together in some sort of bonded <BR>> relationship, those of us who have
been there and done that and got the <BR>> Tshirt, but are not to
particularly wanting to do it again any time soon, <BR>> are expected to pay
higher taxes and spring for higher bills for insurance <BR>> and the rest,
simply because somebody else is having a wonderful time of <BR>> matrimonial
bliss.<BR>> <BR>> As long as we as a society chose to favor couples with
tax breaks and <BR>> benefits, I do not see how all types of relationship are
not granted special <BR>> privileges equally.<BR>> <BR>> Those who
suggest that marriage is one man and one woman and deserve <BR>> benefits are
doing so based on the premise that this is about kids, the <BR>> having and
raising of them being something that society needs to assist. <BR>> But
there are one heck of a lot of single parents, people who do not have <BR>>
two people raising children or two paychecks to cover the costs who are just
<BR>> as deserving of assistance, but as singles are expected to shoulder the
<BR>> burden for those who are not single. And of course, lesbian and
gay couples <BR>> can have households with kids as well. Then you have
childless couples, the <BR>> Double Income No Kids (DINKs), who never are
going to have kids.<BR>> <BR>> So if taking care of children is the key,
why not attach the benefit to the <BR>> kids and not to the couples?
That means that DINKs do not get a benefit <BR>> simply because they are
sleeping together, but that struggling single <BR>> parents see the same
benefit as two parent households.<BR>> <BR>>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>> FREE
pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! <BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/"><FONT
size=4>http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>> <BR>>
_____________________________________________________<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT
size=4>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>
<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>
<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>