Should the Federal Government Recognize Same-Sex Pairings?

That is a larger issue that encompasses the issue in this story by Ruben Vives of the Los Angeles Times on a rally demanding Social Security benefits that recognize same-sex pairings as couples. The rally, according to the article, is a kick off to a national “grass-roots” campaign.

At the rally, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood), who is a member of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, announced that she would sponsor legislation to provide equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

How would that work, exactly? Would any same sex-couples be recognized, or would they have to have state marriage licenses? Would registered domestic partnerships or civil unions be counted?

"I don't think it's right that Americans should be treated differently by the country they love because of who they love," she said, triggering thunderous applause and cheers from the crowd.

She doesn’t really mean that. People get treated differently all of the time based on "who they love", I’m sure with her blessing. If Tiger Woods is divorced from his wife, she's going to be treated plenty differently based on who she loved as compared to a woman who was married to a low wage earner. People who love more than one person can't be married in the eyes of the law to all of them.

Pairing up with someone is a choice, and it is okay to treat people differently based on different behaviors. All law does that.

[More after the jump.]

"Right now, same-sex marriage couples pay equally into a system that they don't receive equal benefits from in return," Sanchez told the crowd.

The same could be said about their taxes paying for education, since they are less likely to be raising children. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. If it was up to me, the federal government would not be involved in charity or "saving" your money on your behalf. But I realize that isn't the main focus of this blog, and like it or not, Social Security does exist and people pay into it regardless of sexual orientation.

As of now, people in same-sex relationships are denied Social Security survivor benefits from their deceased partners because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships as valid relationships.

Should it? If so, why should it, and on what basis should it?

How is a "couple" legally distinguished from friends? What if someone is physically averse to ceremonies or paperwork?

Wasn't the original idea based on a division of labor?

Sanchez's bill calls for the Social Security Administration to recognize those civil unions or domestic partnerships as valid relationships for the purpose of disbursing survivor benefits that heterosexual couples with a marriage certificate now receive.

Why not any people living at the same residence?

There were some comments on the website.

"Gary S" at 8:55 PM April 11, 2010:

the system is bankrupt, where do they think the money will come from?

Good question. Why don't we just print money for anyone who says they want more?

"cranston36" at 4:58 AM April 12, 2010:

The problem is not ensuring that people who have sex with people of their own sex are able to get their hands on the social security benefits of the person they had sex with after that person dies - the issue is more rightly - why are women who raise children not provided coverage throughout their lives as individuals rather than the slave property of their male masters?

1968 is calling. They want their radical feminist mindset back. I'll remind my wife that I am a "male master" the next time she gives me a honey-do list. Should she ever divorce me, I will remind the judge that I am my wife's "male master" and I'll see how far that gets me when it comes to stopping the divorce or when it comes to alimony and community property.

Ignoring the fact that Social Security is a misguided mess to begin with, I see these as the big issues here:

What should the criteria be for "survivor" benefits, and by what justification?

Doesn't the federal government have an interest in promoting, supporting, and regulating the kind of relationship that is naturally procreative that it doesn't have with other kinds of relationships? Even cultures that have promoted homosexual behavior have set marriage apart.

One question I like to ask is, "Why should the government be involved in a voluntary personal relationship?" There's a reason why our governments have long been involved in marriage.