To the Editor:
David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch propose a compromise that would ensure an array of rights, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance and protections against mutual incrimination.
But what about households with committed relationships that in no way resemble marriage? Where are their rights?
In my years of work as a psychologist in nursing homes, I learned there are many other types of enduring relationships that embody commitment without a hint of romance. There are brothers and sisters, parents and children, and platonic roommates who have lived together for decades, not once thinking marriage. Yet when the time comes to make a crucial medical decision for a patient in a coma or with severe dementia, nonfamily household members may never be consulted.
A blood relative fares only marginally better. A sister who has lived with her brother for decades—a very common household—will likely be called upon to make medical decisions if her sibling becomes incompetent. But if he had worked and she had managed the home, she’s out of luck for Social Security survivor benefits.
There is precedent for Social Security survivor benefits to unmarried members of the same household. Both children and dependent parents have been eligible for survivor benefits since 1939. Why not extend these and the other benefits of marriage to any household with committed relationships?
Ira Rosofsky
New Haven, Feb. 23, 2009
Note from KBJ: Homosexuals and their fellow travelers will not accept this. They don't want benefits; they want affirmation of their sexual relationship. If a brother and a sister are eligible for the same benefits as two men or two women, there will be no affirmation.
