To: crushelits
The gays should be happy. No trace of "second class citizenship" remains. So they can get married up there and get their benefits.
Unless the whole exercise was about somehing other than "having the right to marry" . . .
2 posted on
12/09/2004 8:56:35 AM PST by
cvq3842
To: crushelits
I saw this on Special Report last night and thought it to be wonderful.
And they quoted someone as saying that this was an unfair move because the decision for gay couples to marry is more difficult than for heterosexual couples.
TS.
3 posted on
12/09/2004 8:57:15 AM PST by
Phantom Lord
(Advantages are taken, not handed out)
To: crushelits
Amusing "unintended consequences".
5 posted on
12/09/2004 8:58:57 AM PST by
rhombus
To: crushelits
Large employers terminating or phasing out domestic-partner benefits for some or all Massachusetts workers include
IBM Corp.,
Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center, Baystate Health System, and The
New York Times Co., which owns The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.
To: crushelits
The law of unintended consequences at work.
8 posted on
12/09/2004 9:05:20 AM PST by
TASMANIANRED
(Free the Fallujah one)
To: crushelits
I have been looking for this over at DU to see how they are reacting as I suspect it will be a fun fight to watch. Can't find it posted anywhere. If any other brave souls venture over there please post a link and ping me.
9 posted on
12/09/2004 9:05:33 AM PST by
Phantom Lord
(Advantages are taken, not handed out)
To: crushelits
Yikes !!! A twinge of common sense. Whoda thunkit !!!
10 posted on
12/09/2004 9:13:36 AM PST by
GeekDejure
( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!!)
To: crushelits
Baystate's 50 affected employeesIt's cheaper to pay the differential of $120,000 in annual medical insurance than to litigate in court (50 employees x $600/month insurance, less the difference for individual coverage) .
13 posted on
12/09/2004 9:23:19 AM PST by
angkor
To: crushelits
I'm a hetero who's about to take advantage of the domestic partners policy in my company...if it lasts. I'm getting my g-friend covered under my plan. Although I hope my company doesn't change its policies I'm definitely glad this is happening, even at the possible expense of my situation I'm still glad. For too frigging long every special interest group has had special laws written for them here, there, everywhere and all those laws did was discriminate against me, a single white heterosexual Christian late 20 male. If you think about my description you will notice that I qualify for absolutely NO special treatment because 1) I'm a man, 2) I'm white 3) I'm not gay and 4) I celebrate CHRISTmas. I'm hated even more because my parents were successful enough to bring me up in a suburb, another no-no.
In fact, 1-4 puts me directly in the cross-hairs of every single special interest group this country can come up with. I suffer because some white idiots 100+ years ago sold and bought black men,women, and children. My ancestors were in Ireland at the time, go figure. Even if they weren't from Ireland and I had slave owners as great great grandparents, what does that have to do with me? I'll tell you, it has as much to do with me as the black youth of today have to do with slavery. Prejudice this, and prejudice that, everyone has been discriminated against. Are there people out there stupid enough to believe that white heterosexual Christian males aren't discriminated against? A) No one can publicly celebrate my religious holidays if they REALLY believe and aren't just in it for the presents. B) I could never get away with rape by citing a boner, but a woman can kill her children and make the defense that hormones in her body made her temporarily insane C) Being white actually makes it harder to get into college or even certain HS.
Why are certain discriminations okay while others are not. Women's gym's? Asian student centers? Black yellow pages? United Negro College Fund? Affirmative Action policies? Why is it okay for everyone to discriminate against me? I can't get a scholarship for being white. I can't even keep women off a golf course, and forget about celebrating ST. Pats day with a St. Pats day parade because its now the GAY PRIDE parade.
Is it because of my skin color? Yes
Is it because of my gender? Yes
Is it because of my sexual preferences? Yes
Is it because of my religion? Yes
If I were black or Arab, a woman or gay, an atheist or Mulsim all of this would be condemned loudly by every left wing news outlet from Harvard to Hollywood, but no, because I'm white, because I was blessed with a penis, because I use the word blessed every once in a while, because I celebrate CHRISTmas and worship a women's body its okay to discriminate against me. Why? I'm beginning to think its because people are jealous. I'm beginning to think that everyone deep down wishes they were a late 20's white Christian male with a deep seeded passion for beautiful women.
For all the screaming the left does against discrimination, they are the most prejudice people I know. When are they going to wake up, take heed of the old adage, "two wrongs don't make a right" and end all these special interest laws. Racism, sexism, and all the -isms will never go away until we stop discriminating. It doesn't matter against who, or for who its still all discrimination.
16 posted on
12/09/2004 9:33:51 AM PST by
ReeseKev27
(Liberalism = Idealism; Conservative = Realism)
To: crushelits
The obvious is ALWAYS glossed over. Homosexual relationships are NOT normal.
Now ... "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."
You can not equate a heterosexual relationship with a homosexual relationship, married or not because one is normal, heterosexual and one is ABnormal, homosexual.
23 posted on
12/09/2004 10:23:56 AM PST by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: crushelits
26 posted on
12/09/2004 10:37:57 AM PST by
rawhide
To: crushelits
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. How about taking all the money away from heterosexuals and dispersing it amongst the homosexual population. Would that please them?
28 posted on
12/09/2004 11:21:19 AM PST by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...
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.
38 posted on
12/09/2004 7:19:39 PM PST by
little jeremiah
(What would happen if everyone decided their own "right and wrong"?)
To: crushelits
40 posted on
12/09/2004 8:38:34 PM PST by
BlessedBeGod
(George W. Bush -- The Terror of the Terrorists)
To: crushelits
43 posted on
12/10/2004 6:23:26 AM PST by
Grampa Dave
(Writers of hate GW/Christians/ Republicans Articles = GIM=GAY INFECTED MEDIOTS!)
To: crushelits
44 posted on
12/10/2004 6:29:52 AM PST by
Grampa Dave
(Writers of hate GW/Christians/ Republicans Articles = GIM=GAY INFECTED MEDIOTS!)
To: crushelits
Speaking of unintended consequences, One of the arguments AGAINST same-sex marriages is that the benefits gay people claim to need are already available to them with civil unions and domestic partner coverage. By taking away those benefits, gay people now have a legitimate argument in favor of gay marriage.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson