Hi, I'm Earth. Have We Met?

Dumbass of the Day (emphasis mine):

Last month President Obama issued an executive order granting some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Now there's a push on Capitol Hill to give partners of gay federal workers the same employment benefits as spouses of heterosexual ones.

Bill sponsors say about 30,000 federal workers would benefit. During a hearing on the legislation, Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz stirred remarks by posing this question.

"Doesn't it discriminate in terms by giving same-sex couples greater federal benefits than opposite sex couples who may not be married?" he asked.

Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly said he found the question to be odd.

"The screaming contradiction of that question is that marriage is available to people in that situation and it is not in all but a handful of states to those of same-sex partnerships so that's why you have to look at other ways of trying to address the issue," he said.

Effectively, Chaffetz's argument is: We can't give same-sex couples something opposite-sex couples don't have, just because opposite-sex couples have something same-sex couples don't have! It wouldn't be fair. Idiot.

The thing is, he would have a point, if he were arguing from a womanist/feminist, progressive, and/or religious freedom perspective that straight people shouldn't have to get married to get benefits. It's a deeply antifeminist requirement, given that it is disproportionately women who are likely to be underemployed in positions lacking benefits or willingly unemployed to stay at home for child-rearing, and it is plainly discriminatory against people who choose not to be married.

The best solution is thus a comprehensive one: Give same-sex couples exactly the same marriage rights as opposite-sex couples, and then give every person the right to share benefits with a partner, married or not. Done and dusted.

But, until that happens, Chaffetz just needs to STFU about the "discrimination" of giving same-sex couples partner benefits, as if it's some kind of grand scam. I'm quite certain they'd happily choose full equality over some jury-rigged attempt at benefits parity. That it isn't being offered them isn't a reason to deny them even this sad substitute.

[H/T to Shaker Em_and_Ink.]