Domestic Partners?

Dare I delve into this controversial mine field and risk incurring the wrath of the homosexual community? Sure, why not, this isn't about homosexuals or gender. You see, my city has just decided to extend benefits to domestic parnters, but they were very smart about their approach. Historically, a married employee has been allowed to include spouse and children in the employer's group health plan. Often, employees pay very little, sometimes nothing at all, for their health insurance. Some employers incur the expense of extending health benefits to the family, probably the biggest employer to do so is the US Armed Forces. However, few employers allow "domestic partners" to be included in the health plan, and they are less inclined to do when they are paying part of that insurance premium. Understand that the the term "domestic partner" usually means a homosexual relationship. Hence, my trepidation for "going there." In this case the city decided to include heterosexuals who are "shacking up" in their definition of domestic partners, providing they met some reasonable criteria. Sounds fair enough, until I consider that these heterosexuals couples have willling, knowingly, and deliberatly abdicated these benefits by not marrying. They have no reason not to marry. So, why extend to them a benefit they do not want and they have chosen not to pursue? Please, do tell, why? Since I can't think of a good reason, then I have to oppose this policy because, after all, my city taxes are paying for benefits that these couples have rejected by their insistance on not marrying. More troubling is the timing of this policy. The city just recently announced a multi million dollar deficit. They are proposing a tax rate hike. The city just experienced an embarrassing situation in which a gay couple was ejected from a restaurant for kissing. At a time when the city leaders do not want to appear homophobic, at a time when they are short of cash, they increase the budget by extending benefits to heterosexual couples who, by their own choices, rejected those benefits. Please, do tell, why? Once again we get "government speak" instead of the truth, just like their policy to raise taxes disguised as user fees. They raised the trash tax, we know it as the solid waste fee on the water bill and champion their fight to curb tax increases. They offer benefits to those who don't want the benefits to hide the benefits to the intended beneficiaries, a policy that, as we saw on the news, is highly controversial. Anyone for heaping spoon of pandering?