From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 16:11:41 MST
James Rogers wrote,
> One of the things that really irritates me about this particular trend as
> is being implemented across several States, is that in virtually all cases
> the "domestic partner" laws only cover same-sex partners. This is really
> just piling one inequity on top of another.
Definitely. I have long argued this. Instead of making up rules of what a
partner is, I don't see why they don't let the individual decide. For
example, an employer should simply offer health insurance for the employee
and their chosen beneficiaries. Why should I care if the beneficiaries are
married, sexual partners, an aging parent being supported, an unemployed
freeloader that hangs around the employee's house, or whatever?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant, Newstaff Inc. <www.Newstaff.com> Board of Directors, Extropy Institute <www.Extropy.org> Cofounder, Pro-Act <www.ProgressAction.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST