sshh, it's a secret ...
Really? You can lose a pension by getting remarried? Sounds like THAT'S the law that needs to be changed.
Not that secret; Arizona was the one state that didn't pass a same-sex marriage ban in the last election because there was a strong campaign to publicize how a law that said there could be no marriage-esque treatment of unmarried couples (no hospital visitation, etc.) would screw over old couples who were staying unmarried to keep their benefits.
And it doesn't hurt to add in an extra bloc of voters and legislators who might not have supported the bill without that addition.
Arizona became the first state to defeat a marriage-inequality initiative partly because opponents convinced the many seniors there that their live-in arrangement could be harmed by its passage.
DOUG: That isn't a feature of pension law. It's a feature of the employment contract into which the deceased spouse entered that provided him and his spouse with the pension benefit.
But don't worry, clearly the politicans are doing their best to subvert the intent of those contracts. God forbid that anyone have to make a trade-off or endure a negative consequence for any life decision.
Wow… so in the name of equality we are going to exclude “young” straight people who choose not to marry? That’s kinda screwed.
You know, that's actually really smart. That gets a bunch of straight old people supporting our cause. Just think, we'll be harnessing the power of the AARP.
why don't we just do what many european countries do? any two adults who want to share responsibility for one another can. elderly co-habitants, siblings that live together, same sex couples, straight couples, etc... makes sense, right? take the romantic aspect out of it all together. then lots of people could get behind it.
Oddly enough, a majority of AZ seniors voted in favor of the proposition you mention - denying themselves the same rights they were denying GBLT Arizonans. You can especially thank younger voters for the prop's defeat.
The discriminatory clause in the domestic partnerships bill regarding straight citizens 62 and older closes an ugly wound of inequity: where finding new love in later life can levy another lifetime's savings.
See, letting old people choose to stay unmarried but still have benefits of marriage just screws corporations. But letting young people do it would screw the government out of taxes. Can't have that.
This just goes to show that government should get the hell out of marriage altogether.
seriously, this stuff goes on all the time.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).