However, on the other hand if couples don't get married and expect to receive the same benefits as married couples then what kind of example are we setting for our children? .
Fenton Johnson, who wrote an article in the Harper's Magazine, argues that, " if one subscribes to the principles that government should not serve specific religious agendas and that it should not discriminate on the basis of gender, there is no logical reason to limit marriage benefits to mixed-gender couples- (267). In this quote, Johnson indicates that the government should not discriminate between genders in the same way the government does not discriminate based on religious matters and/or beliefs. This statement seems unfair to the people with mixed-gender marriages or other domestic relationships. .
Many people do not accept the fact that people with same-gender marriages should have any benefits. For example, Brent Hartinger in her article wrote,.
Two women, Sandra Rovira and Majorie Forlini, lived together in a marriage like relationship for twelve years "and now after her partner's death, Rovira is suing AT&T, Forlini's employer, for refusing to pay the death benefits the company usually provides surviving spouses. (278).
For example, AT&T decided not to give certain benefits to this couple just because there were two females who lived to together rather than a man and woman. For instance, if it were a husband a man who died AT&T would more than likely provide deaths benefits to the surviving spouse. In a way AT&T is right not to give benefits to unmarried couples because the legal marriage had not taken place. Furthermore, maybe before the employee started the job there was probably an agreement specifically stating rules and regulations of the company, which he or she had to sign before they start the job.
Many domestic partners do not know the rights and benefits they qualify for. The policies of many companies do not support to give benefits to spouses of same gender couples.
