I guess, somebody's reading comprehension is not up to speed. The piece in question calls for the legalization of same sex marriages and uses the dog reference only in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Here is the text.
Wojtek
>>>The logic of benefits
Is anyone else confounded by the logic of the state in considering whether
to grant health benefits to heterosexual partners of unmarried state
employees? I can certainly understand extending benefits to same-sex
partners since the state has yet to recognize or sanction legal unions
between them. ("Same-Sex Benefits for State Workers Under Study," July 22.)
When unmarried, cohabiting, heterosexual partners are given benefits, an advantage of marriage is eliminated. Doesn't government serve to maintain the rule of law, and sustain society's institutions?
The solution is to legalize marriage between consenting adults without regard to sex or sexual orientation. Then married partners of employees are entitled to benefits in accordance with established law. Throwing hard-earned tax dollars at legally undefined lifestyles creates a gray area that can only lead to legal and bureaucratic nightmares. How many new state employees do you suppose it would take to record, and re-record the domestic partner of the month?
Should logic ultimately lose out to current government trends and anything goes, I'd like my dog's health care subsidized. We're in a committed relationship. <<<