Al C
enthusiast
Posts: 5538
Loc: McKinney/Allen, TX
Reg: 02-16-01
|
08-06-10 09:52 AM - Post#116024
In response to nomoon
If a business offers health benefits to the spouses of hetero employees, can a gay employee sue if their spouse isn't offered benefits?
Most insurers already cover "domestic partners." Some will even allow the employee to cover parents if they live in the same house as them.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3163
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-06-10 10:40 AM - Post#116026
In response to MissingChico
If the goal is a legal recognition of the contract, then the name does not matter.
I have thought that if the term "union" was applied, they would have that already. It is the term "marriage" that gets people's dander up....we see that here.
Watching this debate years ago, I think there was some discussion of the word "union" vs "marriage."
I think the GLB community decided (or at least a significant portion) "we are equal, we will not use another word for our equality." I believe the point was that "union" would denote 2nd class status.
Now, as mgrayar points out, however, this may have hurt their cause...even if it is, as I conceptualize it, just a word--but as pointed out, words have, at least, emotional meaning.
I think this is VERY true. If they had gone for a "civil union" or just "union" it would be over and done with by now.
On forms that ask married/single/divorce etc. They could just add union or civil union. Kind of like they ask parent/legal guardian on forms now.
After they got this (which I think would pass in a heart beat) they could go to get the "legal" (government) name changed for all couples to "civil union". This name would include different sex couples and same sex couples.
They would achieve their goals MUCH faster taking this approach.
I do not recall off the top of my head, however there are very valid reasons for wanting "marriage". I'll have to find that and post it. It all seems like a matter of semantics on the surface.
I'll bet if a Muslim cleric proposed we apply Sharia Law to ban gay marriage based on Muslim teachings, we'd have enough outrage generated to pass gay marriage nationwide.
Chico, the point Aolain and I were making was this....since day one of this debate, there were basically two roads to accomplish the same goal. The first road (chosen by the activists) was to seek an expansion of the definition of marriage to include gay marriages (allowing for married same sex couples to be recognized and given equal rights under the law). This first road would have left the language of a Civil Union unchanged (and to your point, inferior to marriage).
The second road would have been to leave marriage alone, but seek to strengthen the Civil Union language to that of equal rights to marriage. This would have been a concession in WORDS, but probably would have been achieved long ago. Of course, the road chosen was their right, but it seems (to me) that their cause has been hindered by that choice. Sometimes you have to give a little to gain a lot.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3163
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-06-10 10:42 AM - Post#116027
In response to Al C
If a business offers health benefits to the spouses of hetero employees, can a gay employee sue if their spouse isn't offered benefits?
Most insurers already cover "domestic partners." Some will even allow the employee to cover parents if they live in the same house as them.
Correct, many companies have not waited on legal rulings. My company does cover domestic partners.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1971
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-06-10 11:03 AM - Post#116029
In response to mgrayar
Yep, my insurer covers "domestic partners". In fact, that's how my wife and kids are covered - as we are not "legally" married.
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1194
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-06-10 12:16 PM - Post#116032
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Jimi:
You admit you are living in sin!!!!!!!!!!???????????? ?
Dag nabit! Con-sarn it! Great Jumpin' Jehosaphat! Great Land o' Goshen!!
We-uns aint a-goin' ta' put up wif no sinners here!!!!
*begins to sing "give me that old time religion" while he furiously accesses the Bob Jones University website for guidance.....*
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 12:25 PM - Post#116035
In response to Aolain
All I can hear in my head is this.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmwh5df9gFk
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1971
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-06-10 12:29 PM - Post#116036
In response to Aolain
Jimi:
You admit you are living in sin!!!!!!!!!!???????????? ?
Dag nabit! Con-sarn it! Great Jumpin' Jehosaphat! Great Land o' Goshen!!
We-uns aint a-goin' ta' put up wif no sinners here!!!!
*begins to sing "give me that old time religion" while he furiously accesses the Bob Jones University website for guidance.....*
LOL!!
I not only admit it... but I am proud of the fact... and highly encourage others to follow the path of being one's own authority on human relationships, spirituality, and all things having to do with truth, logic, and reason.
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1971
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-06-10 12:32 PM - Post#116038
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Chico... LOL! That avatar pic is outstanding! Funny XXXX!!!
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
Edited by Webmaster on 08-06-10 05:10 PM. Reason for edit: circumventing the profanity filter
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 12:38 PM - Post#116039
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Chico... LOL! That avatar pic is outstanding! Funny XXXX!!!
It's the view from Canada
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1194
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-06-10 12:41 PM - Post#116040
In response to MissingChico
Chico:
LOL LOL
I fell out!!!
|
Maringa
enthusiast
Posts: 329
Reg: 11-06-08
|
08-06-10 12:43 PM - Post#116042
In response to Michael
What's going to happen next? Are they going to allow a man to have multiple wives? Like someone else said on here, a big can of worms has been opened.
I am really getting tired of activist judges trying to MAKE law instead of interrupting it. This was completely against the constitution. Over 7 million Californians voted this law into effect and one judge says no. Give me a break!
Interesting...If three or more are consenting, under the same argument of same sex marriages, I don't see why bigamy should be outlawed. Traditional values are mostly based on spiritual traditions vs. legal/secular laws anyway, and it doesn't carry the same power like it used to in today's society. Perhaps bigamy will eventually revive itself, and enough activists will try to begin to overcome the existing legal hurdles. And no - this is not just a Mormon thingy...Like in the old Jewish times, a family would over time take in a widowed sister/sister in law, as a legal way of combining assets and protecting them. In today's world it could go the other way around - two or more husbands and/or two or more wives. Some could see this as an advantage to combine assets, as well as address non-traditional "family" values.
But boy, I would hate to see the outfall of a messy bigamy divorce!!!
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3163
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-06-10 12:46 PM - Post#116043
In response to MissingChico
Note to self, never click on Chico's links on my phone in a crowded hospital. Never seen so many heads turn in unison!
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 12:50 PM - Post#116044
In response to mgrayar
Note to self, never click on Chico's links on my phone in a crowded hospital. Never seen so many heads turn in unison!
Priceless.....
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1971
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-06-10 12:50 PM - Post#116045
In response to MissingChico
AHAHAAAHAA!!! LOL!! That is hilarious!
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-06-10 02:09 PM - Post#116048
In response to Aolain
Joe:
You make good points.
The "house" example was to demonstrate that two individual adults of the same gender can enter into contracts about property...and marriage has historically been all about property..that is why governments got into the "marriage business" during the modern period.
As to kids, I understand and even sympathize with your position.
However, if the ability to have children is a "must," then two people of,say, 65 could not get married. The arguement that kids "need a mom and dad" is moot because same sex couples cannot procreate.
I said that the intent to have children is a requirement for a valid marriage as it has been practiced for thousands of years. I personally know two different couples who were told that one parter or the other could not have children. Both of those couples now have a child, much to the surprise of their doctors. So I don't think a fertility test would be a requirement for marriage.
Again, I sympathize with your position, but the court ruled that there was no "rational basis" that same sex people could not enter into a marriage contract.
Marriage has always been used to define the core of a family for the last 4-6 thousand years and it has always been between men and women. It has only been within the last generation that any serious thought has been given to change the meaning of marriage. It seems to me that the definition has been changed to "you now have the legal blessing to have sex with each other". For other than that I can't think of any rational reason why a gay or lesbian couple would want to marry.
Anyway, I am not a wild supporter of gay marriage--I left my denomination because it is drifting toward gay marriage.
But I do understand the compelling logic of allowing same sex people to enter relationships sanctioned and recognized by law. If one takes religous dogma and emotion out of the arguement, there is no real reason to deny marriage to gay couples.
And as workingmom points out, gay couples should have the same basic civil rights as anyone else.
I do understand that many people hold the same position as you.
Do not worry, though, In my opinion, the Supreme Court will sustain Prop 8.
I very much agree that gay and lesbian couples should have the same civil rights as anyone else. But what is happening instead is we are changing the definition of the word "marriage" in order to allow gay and lesbian couples to use that word to define their relationship. I don't think this is going to do anyone any good, especially gay and lesbian couples.
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 04:04 PM - Post#116054
In response to Joe Schirmer
Thought this was fitting considering we'll soon be barraged with the Christian argument against homosexuality in the media. This is an open letter to Dr. Laura on the subject.
Why can't I own a Canadian?
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 1:27pm
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man,
and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room
here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a
Canadian)
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3163
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-06-10 04:30 PM - Post#116058
In response to MissingChico
Canadians cost too much to maintain, he really wouldn't want one!
That was a really well played response. Thank you for sharing. 
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-06-10 04:52 PM - Post#116059
In response to MissingChico
Thought this was fitting considering we'll soon be barraged with the Christian argument against homosexuality in the media. This is an open letter to Dr. Laura on the subject.
Your so-called "Christian" argument (of an observant Jew) is the weakest argument against same-sex marriage. We don't live in a theocracy, therefore what a person's interpretation of the bible has no bearing on the law.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1971
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-06-10 04:52 PM - Post#116060
In response to mgrayar
He should have added:
"PS: You look hot naked"
(I had something much more inappropriate in mind - but it's not for this forum)
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
08-06-10 05:59 PM - Post#116063
In response to MissingChico
Those would be Jewish reasons for opposing homosexuality. For it to be Christian you would need some citations of the NEW Testament.
|
