Posted on 12/09/2004 8:54:21 AM PST by crushelits
To some major Massachusetts employers, this year's advent of same-sex "marriage" means the end of their domestic-partnership benefit programs.
The decision by IBM Corp., the New York Times Co. and Northeastern University to offer health benefits only to "married" same-sex couples pleases some advocates, but troubles others.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision, which legalized same-sex "marriage" as of May 17, "leveled the playing field," said Candace Quinn, vice president of Baystate Health System, which employs 90,000 people.
Years ago, she said, Baystate started offering domestic-partner benefits to its homosexual employees, because "they had no other option to cover their life partners."
The Goodridge decision changed everything for same-sex couples, she said, and because Baystate doesn't offer domestic-partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it created an unfair situation for them.
"So we are going back to the policy that we only supply benefits to married couples," said Ms. Quinn, adding that the policy change was announced in the summer so Baystate's 50 affected employees could make plans -- including wedding arrangements.
These decisions show that "corporate America is taking a step toward equality," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director at the Human Rights Campaign. "Equalizing benefits, responsibilities and rights for individuals by corporations was exactly what this [Goodridge] case was all about. It was about fair and equal treatment."
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
Indeed, we here at largest military contractor are so
steeped in diversity, we can get it online, instructor
lead and even the new diversity...Myers-Briggs personality
type. 16 Flavors
St. Theresa de Avila, "More tears are caused by answered prayers than unanswered ones."
But with the issue at hand you can and must compare them on the same level. If Company A is providing health care benes to the same sex partner of an employee because they can not legally get married and thus would never be eligible for spouse benefits then it is not only fair but proper that since they can now get married that to receive spousal benes they must get married.
To continue to provide same sex benes to unmarried same sex couples would be discrimination against unmarried hetero couples and thuse to be fair and just in their bene policies they must then offer spousal benes to ALL partners of unmarried couples.
This is so funny!
This proves it.....The entire homosexual 'agenda' is not about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance. It's not enough to say 'Look, what you do on your own time is OK, it's just not for me.' No, we need to teach our children that anything gay is OK, unless it's negative (depression, suicide, etc) and then it's not mentioned. We need to 'embrace' diversity, except for the bad parts that don't get mentioned (lower education, drug use, crime, etc.). And obviously, anyone that says different is a hateful bigot that needs to be re-educated.
I've always said that it's easiest for liberals to freely spend other people money and morality. Wife's friends are libs, and were expounding on the virtues of diversity at a recent get-together. I asked when the last time was that they spent in a soup kitchen, or volunteering at an inner city Y or school, or even just contributing $$ to a charity. Dead silence. One guy volunteered at a hospice for AIDS patients - 'safe', upper class, homosexual AIDS patients, but at least he put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, you never saw so many people shuffling and looking down at their shoes.
A liberal's definition of diversity is a white socialist, a black socialist, a gay socialist, a latino socialist, and so forth. There's all-inclusive diversity for you.
/rant off. I feel better.
How about taking all the money away from heterosexuals and dispersing it amongst the homosexual population. Would that please them?
That isn't the writing of crushelits. He mearly posted an article written by someone who supports the homosexual agenda over at DU.
Thanks.!
....."the state refuses to even recognize heterosexual couples that have been living together for years as common-law marriages. How the hell is that fair."........
Hey, no problem. 1. Get the car keys, 2. Get in, close the door, and drive to the local town hall. 3. Fill out form, dig $25 out of your wallet, get blood test, then, 4. Stand there with your partner while some guy pronounces you man and wife.
Every one of us heterosexuals have been doing this for centuries, some with lots of flair and fancy, some with none, but all it takes is the guts to make a decision.
Fair, Absolutely!
Yes but others in states without the wonderful laws of that state are now, after giving benefits to "same sex partners", are now offering benefits to "opposite sex partners" to avoid lawsuits!!
And then they wonder how to make a profit....
I agree unmarried couples don't deserve benefits but you missed the point. Assuming a homosexual is a NORMAL "couple" is where you begin to compare apples and oranges. The day will probably come when a person will be allowed to marry a pet - so should vet bills be covered? I would hope not but suggesting that a homosexual union is normal is as normal as a man marrying his dog.
And this government position ought to be recinded. When you want a good engineer, it matters not a whit if he is a homosexual, a woman, a minority or a majority. All that matters is that he is the best and wants to do the job.
All diversity does is ask the company to take a candidate who is one of the mascots of the left and pretend he is the best candidate and give him the job. This is silly and has been reducing the effectiveness of American firms since the policy got approved in federal contract law. It was dumb then and it is still dumb. Its time to look at it again.
Homosexual Agenda Ping. Good news or bad? You decide. I always like it when firms don't offer domestic partnership or whatever it's called benefits.
Astute comment:
***Unless the whole exercise was about somehing other than "having the right to marry" ...
DingDingDing! Winner!
Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
I agree with you, but I doubt that social engineering using tax dollars will stop in our lifetimes.
Heck, the current tax structure is social engineering.
This is hilarious. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.