When I fill out the income tax form (hopefully) before April 15th every year, there are a couple of boxes I have to check. One says "Single," one says "Married, filing jointly," one says "Married, filing separately," and one says "Head of household." When both members of a married couple have income, they get the best tax break by checking "Married, filing jointly."

The form does not give the option "Civil Partners, filing jointly." If civil law defines "marriage" as a union between man and woman only, then same sex couples in a civil union do not qualify for the tax breaks that heterosexual couples get. If a committed same-sex couple tried to take advantage of this tax break, they might find themselves liable for a charge of tax fraud. Thisi is discrimination.

I am retired, my wife is still working. I qualify for Medicare, but as we all know, Medicare is pretty piss-poor coverage. My wife has health insurance as one of the benefits of her job, and she includes me under her insurance as her spouse—her marriage partner. There is no option for "civil partners." Once again, discrimination against same-sex couples.

This, and many other things, discriminate against same-sex couples, even in "civil unions," by denying them the rights and benefits that marriage would allow them.

These things are not a matter of someone's preferences or distastes. They are objective, concrete matters of discrimination against a specific minority.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, there is also the matter of the population explosion. Same-sex couples do not add to the problem. There are a few places in the world, specifically parts of Indonesia, where homosexuality is encouraged in hopes of keeping the birth-rate down.

But since heterosexuality and homosexuality are not matters of choice, there is little chance that these governments' efforts will accomplish their desired purpose.