When offered the same benefits as marriage but under a different name, the *edited* rights groups almost unanimously rejected it. That controversy isn’t about rights or pride, it’s about pushing their beliefs on others. You’ll find that >90% of people have no problem with *edited* “unions” because the vast majority of people don’t give a *edited* about what you do or who you live with in private. As a true conservative, what *edited*s do in their private lives should have no bearing on how I treat/view/respect them. Only their actions in public warrant scrutiny. /rant
Seriously though, just because this is a heterosexual relationship doesn’t make it right. In almost every state they can’t even marry. It’s wrong in so many ways… legally, morally, socially, biologically, genetically (w/o a donor), the list goes on.
I mean think about it, she’ll be dead in less than 20 years, probably in 10 or so. Actually, with Obamacare prioritizing care away from the elderly, it could be a good deal less than 10. That means that not only is the child going to have a really weird family life, when he/she hits their teenage years it’s almost guaranteed they won’t have a mother.
That’s a really bad time to lose a parent.
I find it interesting that her asset value wasn’t mentioned. This could be a way for him to get a sizeable inheritance.