Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Fallout from Amendment 1: Winston-Salem

No, no economic impact whatsoever.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

What economic impact does a perk that was not and now may not be offered by a municipality for its employees have?

Larry said...

Uh, when people lose insurance and get sick, Anonymous, who do you think pays for their care?

Anonymous said...

How did it have an economic impact when it changed nothing? They could still offer the insurance if they wanted to. It is up to the employers. insurance does not have to concern marriage.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of the economic impact I just love the irony right here (bolding mine)

"I think it would be appropriate for the city to wait for a court ruling before making a decision regarding the extension of health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of employees," City Attorney Angela Carmon wrote in an email. "The only way to know for certain is to wait for a court ruling on the matter."

Oopsies, there's those "activist judges" having to rule on A1 legalities again. Since as we all know they couldn't be trusted to protect marriage itself, just everything else.

Hypocrisy by the right at it's finest.

Anonymous said...

Goodness, did you really not pay attention to the problems created by this amendment? It makes "domestic partnerships" illegal, therefore municipalities cannot offer insurance to an illegal entity, therefore partners and their children cannot be covered by insurance. Not all couples are married. Some towns have been offering family insurance (to those who pay the higher premiums) to employees' partners and their kids.

Which part of this is unclear?

Anonymous said...

It does not make anything covered by a personal contract illegal.

Anonymous said...

The benefits offered by your employer are NOT personal contracts. Even legislative supporters of the Amendment agreed some would lose health insurance coverage. But of course, they didn't give a shit.

Anonymous said...

The conditions that are agreed on when a person is hired is a contract.

Oooooh said...

I don't know what world Mr. or Ms. Anonymous lives it, but he or she has been on nearly every thread lately spouting this bullshit about personal contracts. The benefits offered by a city or county are not personal contracts. There is no way that a personal contract can give a couple every benefit available to married couples.

Not Really said...

There's a whole lot of willful ignorance going around among supporters of Amendment One. Even as we are starting to see real repercussions in the form of legal wrangling over domestic partner benefits, they continue to wave their hands and say "nothing's changed, nothing's changed".

I think I'd have more respect for someone who was honest and said either that 1) They didn't care because they think it's okay for gay couples to be denied certain rights or 2) They didn't entirely understand the effects of the Amendment and are regretting their vote.

Anonymous said...

A contract is an agreement between tow parties. In this case one party has agreed to work for the other party under certain conditions. If the first party does not preform adequately, the second party can void the contract by firing him (in the case of the second party being a governmental body, the first party can challenge this in court if he feels it was done for some type of discrimination or a tenured teacher is pretty well protected no matter how poorly they preform). If the second party does not live up to their promises, the first party can void the contract and quit.

Being hired is a contract.

Moose said...

There seems to be two issues here: personal contracts, and rights of married couples. Yes, I agree that gay couples can draw up a contract to give themselves SOME of the benefits of marriage, but not ALL of them. There are things that simply can't be done in a contract, like filing joint income taxes. You can't force the state to recognize your union (or domestic partnership, or whatever you want to call it) when there is an amendment banning those unions.

Anonymous said...

Good post, Moose. You bring up the point that how income tax is administered is one of the problems you are complaining about. This has nothing to do with marriage or how it is defined.

The rules are the same for all unmarried people, both gay and straight. If you do not like tax law, change tax law.

Anonymous said...

The government has in fact created certain benefits for married people. Filing of joint income taxes is but one of many things 'benefits' that are provided to married people only. If you are in a domestic partnership with a same sex partner, you don't have the right to file joint taxes. Of course congress could legislate a benefit here if they so desired, but it is not something that 2 individuals can create for themselves with a private contract.

Similarly, your spouse is essentially exempt from paying inheritance taxes on whatever portion of your estate he or she inherits. No such tax break is available if you are not "married".

A surviving spouse can also receive social security payments from the spouses account when the spouse dies. How do I draw up a domestic partnership contract which provides social security payments to a domestic partner?

This post is not to take a position on Amendment 1 or gay marriage - but, if we are going to have a discussion about it, let's be sure we include a few facts along with all the emotion!

Anonymous said...

You are talking about tax laws that benefit married people, it is true. It does not matter because unmarried people are treated identically. Change the laws that favor married people, not the definition of marriage. The definition is not the problem.

Anonymous said...

If government programs are a problem, fix the programs, not the definition of marriage. They are different issues.

Anonymous said...

Fix the programs? Ok by me...of course that will mean that widows will no longer receive SSI benefits from a deceased spouse. Dependent children will have to make it on their own if their breadwinner father should die....Widows will have to pay estate taxes on what they always thought of as "joint property"......

Maybe we should eliminate all forms of SSI, surviving spouse benefits and any tax considerations for married people. OK by me, but think about what you are asking for.

Anonymous said...

Why would it mean any of those things, unless that is what you think it would take to fix the programs?

Your post is ridiculous.

Moose said...

One of the Anonymouses said: "The rules are the same for all unmarried people, both gay and straight. If you do not like tax law, change tax law."

Wow, you have an answer for everything, don't you? How easy... NOT. Changing the tax laws with a Republican legislature? There's no way that would happen. They won't do a single thing that would benefit gay couples.

Anonymous said...

If you cannot get the support, maybe the law does not need changed. isn't that how it is supposed to work?

It seems funny the laws should be a problem as Democrats have been in control for a long time. The laws should be perfect for you libs.

bettywhite said...

The Democrats who have controlled the NC legislature in recent years are hardly liberal. They have morphed into what the Republican party was back in the 1970's.

Anonymous said...

So you are saying the Democrats are not liberal enough to be progressive?

bettywhite said...

Democrats in North Carolina are not liberal enough for me, but what other choice do I have?