|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#20 (permalink) | |
Horribly Creative
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
|
![]() Quote:
Point 1- Collecting a deceased's social security shouldn't really be an issue in a same sex marriage, as there is a strong liklihood that both partners would've been paying contributions anyway and why shouldn't a the partner of a deceased collect contributions that their partner has worked for and paid into, unless you're trying to claim that the marriage union could've been done with this future ulterior motive in mind! Point 2- Getting cover under a spouse's health insurance needn't be an issue either, in the USA health insurance comes as part of a workers package right? Or the person taking out the health insurance pays a premium dependent on their health and who is covered? If this be the case, insurance companies are taking a calculated risk with those that they cover, insurance companies as far as I'm aware usually make a nice profit otherwise they wouldn't be in business. Point 3- "The propagation of society is a compelling state interest" Now that statement is extremely debatable, in a country with a falling population that may hold some truth, but does the USA have a decling population problem? |
|
![]() |
|