Not another 'not thought through policy'?

ScotsSubrosa posts on a dilemma from which she presently suffers.

One of the commenters, Woodsy42, raises, in my opinion, a pertinent question - one which demonstrates yet another example of the heading to this post.

"Anyone who decides to live together and share their lives should be entitled to the same benefits a married couple enjoy." I quite agree, but life is never that simple. For example if two single or widowed elderly siblings want to share a household. Not of course sexually but just to keep each other company and support each other in their old age. Why should they not be allowed to register a type of legal 'team' status to gain the tax and financial status of any other married/partnered couple?"

Those MPs representing 'far-flung' constituencies continually inform us that all their time is spent working; that they are 'in Westminster' Tuesday to Thursday, Monday having been spent travelling back to London; that Friday is spent returning to their constituencies; that their 'weekend is spent attending to surgeries and constituency 'events' - consequently, there can't be much time left for their sex lives.

On which basis therefore, their marriage/union is no more than one that allows them to keep each other company and support each other - which brings me back to the question raised by Woodsy42.

Oh no, not another 'one rule for them and one rule for us', surely?

Just asking....................