So? What’s the problem? If you want those things, get married. What’s to stop them? And since that alternative is available to them, why should they have them if they don’t get married? Why should they have these things available to them as unmarried couples just because they’re seniors?

I don’t think they’re arguing that those things should only be available to seniors. I think they’re arguing that all unmarried couples should have access to those things. It’s just that stuff like pensions, inheritence, and power of attorney are more important to seniors, since they’re more likely to have pensions, get sick, and die than younger people are.

The bill also affects younger single people. The problem is a vague clause in the amendment which says the state can’t recognize relationships that “approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage. (See: http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=13&ID=184579&r=0 )