Gay rights advocates are getting some unexpected support. AARP has examined Ohio’s proposed anti-same sex marriage amendment; they concluded the restrictions will harm unmarried elderly people.
Rainbow Network quotes AARP :
“State Issue One would deny property ownership rights, inheritance, pensions, power of attorney and other matters of vital interest to the health and well being of unmarried older couples,”
Similar amendments appear on ballots in 11 states in November. Hopefully, AARP will evaluate, and publicly articulate their opposition to every one of them.
“State Issue One would deny property ownership rights, inheritance, pensions, power of attorney and other matters of vital interest to the health and well being of unmarried older couples,”
So? What’s the problem? If you want those things, get married. What’s to stop them? And since that alternative is available to them, why should they have them if they don’t get married? Why should they have these things available to them as unmarried couples just because they’re seniors?
“Why should they have these things available to them as unmarried couples just because they’re seniors?”
I don’t think they’re arguing that those things should only be available to seniors. I think they’re arguing that all unmarried couples should have access to those things. It’s just that stuff like pensions, inheritence, and power of attorney are more important to seniors, since they’re more likely to have pensions, get sick, and die than younger people are.
I think AARP is pointing out the provisions of the bill run counter to their interest. So, why support a bill that is going to hurt you?
The bill also affects younger single people. The problem is a vague clause in the amendment which says the state can’t recognize relationships that “approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage. (See: http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=13&ID=184579&r=0 )