XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/4/2015 2:10 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 7/3/2015 5:30 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On 7/3/2015 7:51 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>> On 7/3/2015 4:42 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> That's not true.  For example, you can't collect spousal Social   
   >>>>>>>> Security benefits if you are not married.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Then modify the law to have the person name a beneficiary.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> There are over 1000 federal laws that would have to be changed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, just one.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Huh?  I gave one example (Social Security).   
   >>>   
   >>> And in that one example, one law has to be changed.   
   >>>   
   >>> Next.   
   >>   
   >> And over 1000 laws have to be changed in order for your solution to be   
   >> implemented (Social Security was merely an *example*).   
   >   
   > Sticking with your example, what is the justification for having   
   > /spousal/ SS benefits, as opposed to named beneficiary?   
      
   I don't know, but the answer is not relevant to this debate which is   
   focused only on whether gays should have equal footing with straights   
   when it comes to marriage.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)