Gays at Globe told to marry or lose benefits

boston herald ^ | Saturday, July 8, 2006 | By Jesse Noyes

[ninonitti]

Memo to self: continue to avoid the Boston Globe

[Read2Know]

Talk about the gay marriage deal backfiring. I bet the gay marriage advocates never expected to lose their "protected status" by having the MA court rule in their favor.

[Darkwolf377]

Knowing the Globe as I do for four decades, I suspect the Globe's desire to legitimize gay marriage is a large part of this, and the stated reason is a bit of a smokescreen.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

You mean they are going to hold gay couples to the same standards as straight couples? That's DISCRIMINATION! Or oppression. Or homophobia. Or something...

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

It is impossible for people of the same sex to marry.
It is impossible for a person to marry an animal or a knothole.
Of course the people who accept the corrupted meaning of gay will also accept the corrupted meaning of marriage.

[joeu]

You hit the nail on the head.....Another step by the Glob(e) to push their agenda and support the Mass supreme court gay marriage decision.

[sgtbono2002]

You may be right about the reason for the Globe doing this. However it sure makes gay couples crap or get up off the pot.

[Huber]

Assume a more nefarious agenda on the part of the Globe and Pinch's minions. By eliminating any other path to benefits other than "marriage", the Globe (and its owners at the New York Times) are attempting to reinforce the position that "gay marriage" is a fundamental human rights issue. Perhaps they are attempting to build momentum among corporations to lobby for gay marriage as a way to ensure more manageable health care costs - it's much easier and probably more cost effective to offer benefits only to "married" couples - a certified test for insurability - than it is for a broader category of domestic partners.

The point is, never underestimate your opponent's strategy.

[johnny7]

Outside of their hourly personnel... that's 90% of their workforce.

[Puddleglum]

I find this to be perversely funny. In fact, it's almost the definition of perversely funny.

[Wristpin]

It will be interesting if lawsuits fly due to the termination of benefits. The Gays will be arguing that they deserve benefits not afforded to straight couples "living in sin".

[Read2Know]

"Assume a more nefarious agenda on the part of the Globe and Pinch's minions."

Good point. I think it's more likely they are afraid of lawsuits by unmarried hetero couples living together. Lets face it, offering healthcare benefits to couple A and not to couple B because couple A are gay is plainly discrimination.

[Diogenesis]

Another step by the Glob(e) to push their agenda and support the THEIR Mass supreme court gay marriage decision.

The Judge who created this, overruling God, is none other than
Ms. Anthony Lewis (aka Margaret Marshall), and Anthony Lewis
writes for the New York Times, which own the Boston Globe.

[Edgar3]

Damn! I thought for a minute that they were referring to the "Gayly Planet"

[Bernard]

This could be a case of "extreme agenda meets reality." If the insurance company told the newspaper that it would not cover unmarried dependents in a state which "allows" marriage, this would be economics overruling politics.

[Always Right]

Gee, know they just can't freely give benefits to anyone they please. Too bad.

[rod1]

That, plus the Globe is a financial diaster.

[theDentist]

Talk about mean-spririted and homophobic! LOL!!

[Darkwolf377]

The paper is almost unreadable. I get it at work and it just oozes bias. It is a lot more comprehensive than the Herald but the writing is Pravda-level one-sided.

[cgbg]

Regardless of the motive of the Globe--this will have the real-world effect of making the lives of many Gay folks much more difficult--forcing them to undertake a legal arrangement which they don't want.

"Liberal" policies have an amazing boomerang effect--they come back and smash the heads of their intended beneficiary.