[Hodar]

Insurance companies are already able to discriminate with against smokers. I've seen the question on forms many times. Private pilots are also discriminated against. If you voluntarily accept additional risk in your life, there should be an associated cost to that.

Very good points. I would have no problem with the insurance rates providing a seperate premium rate for gay couples. This would be in the insurance company's best interests. However, previously the insurance agencies denied coverage entirely. Providing a rate that has been pro-rated, so as to be fair and equitable (again, your examples of private pilot and smoking are great examples); this would be fair to all involved.

[Rockitz]

I believe this is the basis of the semantics argument of not being able to call a homosexual relationship a marriage. Now gays can't check the box on their insurance subscription forms indicating they are married. It was a fight worth winning if that's all that it accomplishes.

[DameAutour]

I disagree. Previously insurance companies did NOT deny coverage entirely. A homosexual could get insurance coverage like anyone else.

You're talking about treating people in samesex relationships as if they are special. Why is it "fair" and "equitable" for two men to be able to get a family insurance policy, but not for one man and three women?