|Indianapolis City-County Council to|
consider domestic partner benefits for
local government employees
... since same-sex couples cannot legally marry in the state of Indiana, extending domestic partner benefits makes sense to me.
I do have a problem with giving the same treatment to unmarried couples. And please note, I am not by any stretch the morality police, much to the dismay of my wife’s long-time pastor. My problem with giving the same treatment to unmarried couples is that it disincentivizes them to stop shacking up and tie the knot. Gay couples can’t get married. Opposite sex couples can. So if they want the benefits then they should do what my wife and I did three years ago on September 5 at 2:50 p.m. in Noblesville, get married.
I have never been a big fan of that living together stuff. It’s one thing if you’re doing it with the intent to getting married and staying together, but living together because no one wants the real responsibility and commitment that comes along with marriage, I have an issue with.Amen. I do not want to deny anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why, if I were on the council, I might well vote for domestic partner benefits solely because same sex couples can't get married. (I think legally there might be a problem if domestic partner benefits were just provided to same sex couples cohabiting but denied to heterosexual couples.) The minute though same sex marriage is legal in Indiana - and it is coming folks - I do not want my government providing benefits to "domestic partners" who prefer shacking up to making the ultimate legal and emotional commitment one can make to another human being - marriage. I believe very much in the institution of marriage and I don't want my government undermining it with "domestic partner" benefits given to unmarried couples who choose to live together instead of entering into the marriage commitment.