The first move, made by a notorious gay-hating public servant (?) in Mecklenburg County, to make sure that the passage of Amendment 1 will inflict real economic and emotional pain on real persons who are now rendered defenseless to this sort of persecution by all you "Christians" out there in Voter Land who needed to prove how much you love the Lord by punishing other people because they don't conform to your dogma.
You ought to be ashamed, but of course you aren't.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Way to go. Why are they providing benefits to gay couples anyway. I would find it very offensive if my company is providing benefits to a guy's boyfriend or a girl's girlfriend. It makes absolute no sense at all. If Watauga County is providing such benefits, I hope our county commissioners will take this stand.
How do we benefit if gay people don't have health care? In a complex, interconnected society such as ours, one sick person who can't afford health care could infect hundreds of people. Is anonymous really OK with a gay person dying for lack of access to health care? Do you want to see sick and crippled people begging in the streets, like in Mexico and other third world countries?
I don't disagree with a company who decides to provide benefits to a domestic partner. I do wonder however, what criterea they use to determine if someone is qualified?
Could I, for example, claim my roommate on my insurance even though we aren't "partners"? Who determines "partnership" and how?
I think this is up to the employer.
If the marriage amendment had failed and the current state law had been changed, then companies would have been forced to provide benefits which could have very well brought the end to all benefits for all employees.
This is one of the reasons we supported the marriage amendment.
This is why marriage had to be defined in the law in the first place.
It was the protection of the definition of marriage under the constitution that is giving employers the constitutional backing to do what they wanted to do in the first place.
What is Watauga County's insurance policy provide?
Inquiring Mind (Deborah Greene, right?), said "If the marriage amendment had failed and the current state law had been changed, then companies would have been forced to provide benefits which could have very well brought the end to all benefits for all employees."
IF the marriage amendment had failed and IF the current state law had been changed.
IF, indeed!
Who was proposing changing current state law, my dear? I believe YOU were, in your haste to scare all those good church people out there: "The gays are coming! The gays are coming!"
That's quite a stretch, even for you.
Republican pollster today, change your ways or lose republicans
Brushfire... No I am not okay with a gay person dying with because they have no health insurance. Gay people can have health insurance. I do not oppose to gay people having insurance but insuring their partner is a little over the top. I agree with the other post. How does a company decide who to insure in that type of situation. I agree it is now specified in the state constitution like many other states have accomplished.
The company I work for which provides outstanding benefits to its employees will cover any spouse (married) and their family. They will insure a single person, but they will not insure a single person's partner. I would object if they did and so would most people.
I am not sure if Watauga County insures a single person's partner, but if they do, I intend to approach our county commissioners as a tax paying citizen and call that they put a stop to this.
For IM and Anonymous anyone else who is trying to argue this issue from a fiscal angle, your arguments actually support making gay marriage legal, as it would do away with any murky partnership arrangements and give both gay and straight couples equal opportunities to affirm their love and commitment within our society. As it stands now, a man and a woman can marry for convenience or on a whim and reap all the subsequent benefits. But two men who love one another and have been together for over 40 years are denied any benefits reserved only for married couples.
IM, you say "then companies would have been forced to provide benefits which could have very well brought the end to all benefits for all employees". As Henery has already pointed out, this is factually incorrect because if the amendment had failed it would have changed absolutely nothing in regards to state law. However, I would like for you to explain why you think it is fair that (let's say) a woman who marries a male state employee after knowing him for 2 weeks, cheats on him throughout their entire marriage and divorces him after 3 years, is entitled to benefits through his work as long as they are married, while a woman who loves a female state employee and lives with her faithfully for 10+ years would be denied those same benefits. With your post you are inadvertently pointing out how incredibly unfair this system is to gays and lesbians.
To all Amendment One supporters: drop the insultingly weak fiscal arguments and admit that you supported this amendment because of your own personal feelings and opinions about homosexuality, and/or because of how you interpret your religion.
Watauga County barely provides benefits for its employees, much less for domestic partners. The clear answer for Anonymous 9:09 is - they don't.
Not really: I am curious about your quick judging of the reason I voted for this...saying I do not like homosexuals which is far from the truth. Reasons to support this amendment are not always because someone is a against homosexuals. I do have an issue with insuring gay peoples. Your argument is weak.
So, Anon 9:54, you say you like homosexuals (or at least don't dislike them) but you have an issue with insuring them... sounds sort of like "I have nothing against black people, I just have an issue with integrated schools". Look, either you think that gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, or you don't. And you clearly don't. I would really like to hear someone who supported the amendment spell out how and why that stance has nothing to do with their personal feelings or religious beliefs. I suspect they cannot. And before anyone trots out the "cultural tradition" argument, spare us. That's code for Christian tradition/religious beliefs. Marriage has a long and very storied history so I'd read up a little before trying that one.
Interesting post, Not Really. Do you really believe a private company should be compelled to insure someone not an employee and who is a high risk of catching AIDS? How about a smoker? Why it should have to provide any insurance if it chooses not to do so?
If the perk is that important to people, the free market will fix it because people would go to work at another place, assuming the country can recover from Obama's economy.
Anonymous said "Do you really believe a private company should be compelled to insure someone not an employee and who is a high risk of catching AIDS? How about a smoker?"
Are you serious? Don't you think that there are some husbands or wives in straight marriages who are smokers? And yet, those nasty smokers can still get insurance through their spouse. "Catching AIDS"?? What is this, 1982? Sheesh.
I agree with this Anonymous 3:58. Not Really, please stop trying to judge whether I am for or against gay and lesbian people. I am not. I do agree that it might have something to do with someone's religious belief or personal feelings. But why is this rights thing? What rights are being discriminated against? None whatsoever. I have trouble grasping this discrimination thing?
I saw a You Tube apparently filmed in North Carolina making an apology. Why does NC need to apologize. Speak for yourself folks. I have absolutely nothing to apologize for.
And please, people, stop calling people who voted for this amendment a bigot. That is simply a sore looser attitude who can't let it go.
Anon 3:58, if you want to debate this please stay on topic. Whether or not health insurers should be able to make coverage decisions based on people's health choices, like smoking or overeating or other risky behaviors, is another discussion entirely. You bring up AIDS but lesbians have the lowest rates of AIDS of any group (CDC reports NO confirmed cases of transmission between women) so according to your logic companies should be jumping to insure lesbian partners (and excluding any straight but obese spouses, I guess).
The question at hand is NOT whether employers should provide benefits to spouses of their employees. That is a separate question. The question here is: IF a company or govt. entity DOES provide spousal health benefits, how is it fair that only straight couples can receive those benefits, while gay and lesbians couples are excluded? The fact that everyone arguing in support of the amendment is skirting this essential question and instead going off on tangents about Obama and the free market speaks volumes, I think.
The free market will decide what a company does, including if and how it offers insurance, Not Really. Government should have no say in it. That is how fair is decided.
This thread brought up the issue of insurance. I didn't. I just commented on it.
Anon 10:18 says: "The free market will decide what a company does, including if and how it offers insurance, Not Really. Government should have no say in it. That is how fair is decided."
If this is what you believe, Anon 10:18, then please explain how you justify to yourself giving government MORE say in these matters, which is what Amendment 1 does.
Still none of these Anonymous posters have addressed the fundamental question, so let me repeat it:
IF a company or govt. entity DOES provide spousal health benefits, how is it fair that only straight couples can receive those benefits, while gay and lesbians couples are excluded?
Unless someone can actually answer that question in an intelligent way without setting up a straw man argument or changing the subject, I'm going to assume it's because there isn't any real answer that doesn't involve personal prejudice.
Amendment one harms nobody. It specifically exempts individual contracts.
Let me answer your question again. If you do not like the way your company is treating you, quit. If enough people do that, the company will change its policy.
Why do you think it is fair for the government to force a company to do something it does not want to do when the free market will fix anything that needs fixed?
The Amendment had nothing to do with anyone attempting to FORCE a company to offer domestic partner benefits. It quite clearly makes it impossible for companies or municipalities to offer them, even if they so wish...in other words, interfering with the Free Market.
"It quite clearly makes it impossible for companies or municipalities to offer them
This is blatantly incorrect. Private contracts sch as this were excepted by Amendment One. If they want to offer coverage, they can.
Hmmm. The last time I checked, a municipality is not a private entity. Neither are counties. It remains to be seen if they will be allowed to offer benefits.
County commissioners or city councilmen can make private contracts with their employees. They do it every day they hire someone.
I doubt if state or city officials can offer a private contract to an employee that goes against state law. Doesn't matter anyway... states and counties are not private parties.
When you are hired, you are under a contract with your employer even if it is the government.
So, I'm curious Anonymous. Would you be OK with it if Watauga County negotiated some of those personal contracts with its employees who are either unmarried or gay to include their significant others in county benefits just like married employees?
The county is free to offer whatever perks it needs to in order to keep good employees. I have no problem with that as long as the most efficient use of these perks helps the budget. If offering these perks increases efficiency, then fine.
However, as I understand it, they do not cover the spouses of their married employees now. If they want their unmarried employees to be able to add their partners by paying the premiums for them just like the married people do, there is no problem.
Why do you differentiate between gay and unmarried employees? By state law gay couples cannot be part of a marriage contract even though c]they can be part of a personal contracts just as straight unmarried couples can.
I don't differentiate between gay and unmarried. There you go again with your "personal contract" baloney. For the zillionth time, a personal contract can't force your employer to offer you benefits that they offer to married people.
Sure you differentiate between them.
Have you read your own posts?
Of course I read my own posts. The only thing that I have said was "Would you be OK with it if Watauga County negotiated some of those personal contracts with its employees who are either unmarried or gay to include their significant others in county benefits just like married employees?" In that post, I put gay people and unmarried people into the same category. They should be treated the same.
Post a Comment