I totally support extending benefits to same-sex partners.  The relationships are as important and as valued as heterosexual relationships.

Otherwise, as I understand it, its perfectly OK for me to pay state taxes but to recieve far less state benefits than other tax payers?  I get to pay the same taxes as everyone else but recieve fewer protections from the state than other tax payers?  Why is this OK? 

Why is it OK for someone else and their religious beliefs to determine what benefits my state will or will not furnish its residents?  Or what my relationship can be defined as?  Take religion out of politics!  They are NOT joined at the hip nor should they be. 

And I somehow doubt that mere residence in the home of a state employee without the benefit of a romantic or familial relationship will entitle one too benefits.  I assume the statute would be more defined.

this not being a religious but a health care issue, so let's leave over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.