Insult to injury
Imagine losing your life partner and then your financial security -- not because of poor planning but because you were stripped of a pension plan due to homophobic nastiness. Tragedy and then travesty.
File this one under WTF!?!
What good does taking away pension benefits to a surviving dependent have -- for anyone? Seriously, what possible explanation is there for denying a vested benefit to a loved one? He earned it, so what right does Congress have to take it away? It is a vested benefit, dammit. Denying survivor benefits only undermines that spouse's financial security, as well as policy goals (society doesn't need another person in an unstable financial situation). The only possible reason to do this is to make life harder on same sex couples. And that's just wrong. Sounds like good grounds for a legal challenge to me.
Those who say that defining "marriage" as only between a man and a woman is to protect "traditional" values -- not to hurt same sex couples -- is both willfully ignorant and mean.
Yes, mean.
File this one under WTF!?!
What good does taking away pension benefits to a surviving dependent have -- for anyone? Seriously, what possible explanation is there for denying a vested benefit to a loved one? He earned it, so what right does Congress have to take it away? It is a vested benefit, dammit. Denying survivor benefits only undermines that spouse's financial security, as well as policy goals (society doesn't need another person in an unstable financial situation). The only possible reason to do this is to make life harder on same sex couples. And that's just wrong. Sounds like good grounds for a legal challenge to me.
Those who say that defining "marriage" as only between a man and a woman is to protect "traditional" values -- not to hurt same sex couples -- is both willfully ignorant and mean.
Yes, mean.
<< Home