Call me old-fashioned. Call me fuddy-duddy. Call me homophobic. But I’d prefer to have the term "marriage" retain its traditional heterosexual meaning: a man, a woman, a marriage license—that’s all.

However, gays have raised a noteworthy issue. As one letter writer in my local newspaper noted recently: Marriage brings at least one thousand financial and legal advantages. And since marriage is the prerequisite to these advantages, they remain out of reach for many who could benefit from them greatly.

From the gays’ perspective, legal recognition of homosexual unions would be a major step toward equality for all. But is it really for "all"?

What about the "asexuals"?

Why should government and employer benefits be based on bedroom activity? Why subsidize only sex-based partnerships? Why not subsidize asexual partnerships too?

Calling homosexual unions "marriage," with legal recognition, doesn’t do away with discrimination. Rather, it entrenches it. It makes it all the more unlikely that asexuals will ever receive equal treatment.

Thus I propose a highly inclusive new category of legally recognized domestic partnership. For lack of a better name, let’s dub it a "corporation of two" (C-2, for short).

A C-2 wouldn’t be defined by any love/sex prerequisite. Rather, the C-2 would be a legal agreement between any two adults to function together as a domestic unit, thus entitling the partners to the financial and legal benefits currently afforded in traditional heterosexual marriage.

Partners in a C-2 could be of the same sex or opposite; it would make no difference. And sexual orientation wouldn’t be a factor.

They could be siblings. They could be an adult child and a parent. They could be friends or business partners. They could be homosexual lovers. But for whatever reason, these people would choose to throw their lot together in a domestic partnership.

How would C-2s work?

Take the case of two single mothers who are struggling financially. Child-care costs are killing them. Yet they both have to be employed full-time in order to provide health insurance for their families.

They wish that one could look after the children of both, and the other be employed. Such an arrangement would be better for everyone—but only if the stay-at-home woman and her children could be covered by the other woman’s health insurance.

Enter the C-2.

Or take the case of two single brothers, one of whom would love to spend his full time pursuing his passion for art. But he can’t afford it, because it won’t guarantee him an income. And he needs health coverage.

The solution? A C-2.

What I’m calling for would definitely increase the cost of government and employer benefits. But it would also increase productivity in many cases by decreasing the amount of time many employees would have to take off from work to deal with family matters.

C-2s would open doors for an array of creativity. They would allow for better child care. They would reduce stress by allowing people to help each other in a supportive ways. The benefits are legion.

Of course, we would need a procedure for dissolution of C-2s as we currently have with divorce. And there would be a lot of procedural details to work out. But C-2s would remove a lot of inequity that currently exists.

It’s at least worth considering.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE