Unions non-traditional in the US

Submitted by John Blakemore (United States), Nov 30, 2008 at 11:58

I think that in general the state benefits from having its citizens form stable unions with other people. The question then arises whether the state should provide assistance to the people in those unions that is more favorable than the assistance provided to others. Establishing laws, such as those that clarify what happens to the estate of these people when they die, seems useful to me. People who disagree can vote against the legislators who advocate such laws.

Establishing laws that provide direct monetary assistance such as tax deductions to people in these unions is an entirely separate matter, in my opinion. Experience in Western cultures over the centuries seems to suggest that it is beneficial to provide monetary assistance to unions of a man and a woman who have children and who presumably are raising those children to be good citizens.

But I object strongly to allowing judges the leeway to allow some people legal benefits that are not clearly specified by law. We have the opportunity to vote against legislators that pass laws we object to. Most people do not have the opportunity to vote against judges.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".