In Michigan, a court has found that the state's law banning gay marriage means that no public institutions can offer any of the rights of marriage to non-married (read gay and lesbian) couples. To give benefits such as health insurance, tuition discounts, or anything else to a gay couple by a public school would be an offical state acknowledgement of that union. The court felt that the wording of the law banned any such acknowledgement.
This has huge implications that run in all directions. Will state schools be able to attract qualified and talented faculty and administrators if they are gay? How quickly will this spread? As a person working at a public school in the midwest, this is a very real concern.
So this is preserves the sanctity of marriage, the denial of insurance. Interesting.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
so what rights are adult white males not getting?
You seem to be the one seeing phantom enemies...anal sex cowgirls and masturbating professors.
Come at me with something of substance is all I ask.
I'm against gay unions having or harboring children.
I'm against using my money to support gay "families".
I'd go so far as to say a woman's place is in the home, not at a man's workplace. But, that's another less clear topic.
joe
Joe S.: 'harboring children' is an interesting choice of words. I don't know that you could prevent people from having children, harboring them, perhaps, but not having them.
Christopher: I iwhs the world were a more sane place as well. :)
Homosexuality is either inherited or learned. We don't want children in an enviornment conducive to "learning" it. And, we don't want the mutant genes passed along.
JMHO
John M.,
Yes, homosexuality is bad. Many if not most homosexuals are good. In another age, past or future, they may be kept is a zoo. 'for their own protection and others curiosity.
Joe, in what way and for whom is homosexuality bad? I would say that early in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, irresponsible (and ignorant, to be fair) sexual behavior among homosexual men was a large vector for disease spread, just as irresponsible heterosexual behavior in Africa is currently. So I'm OK with pointing out the bad parts along with the good. But to claim that "homosexuality is bad" seems like something that begs for explication and defense.
(I can start a new article and point you there if you're willing to engage on this, but don't think this is the appropriate place.)
I suggest a legal Union approach that is legally binding as a marriage is with the same perks, but a union and not a "till Death Do Us Part." This Legal Union can be upheld in court, and used as evidence of the love between two for whatever purposes needed. Why not the word MArriage..well as many GLBT say they want to be respected, allow those who disagree be respected by not using the word marriage...who really cares what the word is, if you get the benefits...right.
As far as health insurance, and other "spousal" benefits it would be up to the companies to entice the great employees from this community of people by offering the same benefit packages. There should not be any law forcing private or publicly traded companies that are for profit to offer these perks, benefits, reasons to work for a more accepting company.
The bickering is not working. The demanding is not working. The name calling just flames the fires of hatred on both sides. IT is time to actually use common sense, and come up with a "simple" solution to make 99% of the population happy.
Where is my suggestion failing in the basic approach. We need to start somewhere, and move forward. The unions need to be fine tuned as they are now allowed in states, because we need to make sure there is legal recourse for deaths, illness, etc. that are not covered currently.
Seems like a lot of people do. I do. I'd be happy with the legal union approach of there was no state-recognition of marriage and all citizens had access to the legal union. Individuals and churches and whatever other social organizations could choose to call such unions marriages or not. But as long as the term marriage carries special connotations, it should be available to all citizens equally.
This is a deeply felt issue on both sides. I suggested a foot hold for both to begin the healing process, and a workable compromise. It is not everything the GLBT wants, obviously they would prefer the word marriage, and it is not all that the people who do not want GLBT to create any union, by allowing the GLBT to have the same rights and priveleges, but by a second process/name that is equal to marriage.
How could anyone who wants true healing, compromise, and happiness for all not at least agree this is a good beginning. How could not one GLBT not say my suggestion is not miles ahead of anything currently available in 95% of the U.S.?
I truely believe this. I'm old (64), my health is compromised, I really feel that I should speak up on things that I've held repressed most of a lifetime. This issue is just one. I've always been bigoted. The 40's and 50's as a whitey in the deep South was a very happy time for me.
I don't even know what a transgender is. If it's only wearing women's or men's clothes, that's no problem - there seems to be little gender distinction in clothes today anyhow.
However, I'm gainfully employed and have very good insurance, highly subsidized by my company - but still pay big bucks for. It costs me very little to add my family to the insurance.
If my company had a choice for paying for insurance for a "legalized" co-habiting "partner", they'd probably do it. That would raise the company's cost for insurance, and/or dilute my benefits.
So, it's not really a prejudice thing as far as benefits are concerned, it's a pocket book issue. There's no free lunch.
On the other hand my religion, personal lifestyle, bigoted personality (previously repressed), and belief in the sancitity of heterosexual legal unions dictate that I should strongly protest exposure to this lifestyle.
Also, I believe that divorces and remarriages should be openly allowed, with the caveat that one of the divorcees should be executed following the ruling. My wife and I have both been divorced. We celebrated our 25th anniversy last Oct. We each had 15 years in prior marriages. I believe our kids from the previous unions have been permanently scarred. (or maybe my bigotry scarred them)..
Christopher, If you want to start another conversation, I'll join in.
joe
Sorry you're so closed minded. But, in this country we have a right to be prejudiced.
'didn't intend to use health as a crutch. It was only a spur for me to quit pretending to be "normal". Normal is a prettly low rung on the social evolution ladder.
joe
How would you feel if your company decided to drop you from thier insurance b/c you cost them too much?
I'm glad that you're feeling yourself enough to be open with your ideas about the world, getting them out into the marketplace of ideas is the first step.
Christopher: Thanks so much for your ideas, the world is benefitted by having folks like you in it; those who are willing to take up issues that are not directly their own. :)
Good picture.
You said:
<<It's a shame you couldn't open your mind more toward tolerance of people from all walks of life. ...
You say that a certain group of people should be locked up like zoo animals and I'M the close minded one?>>
None of the above agrees with what I said. I believe your filtering things to fit your concept of the way my mind works.
I said:
"Yes, homosexuality is bad. Many if not most homosexuals are good. In another age, past or future, they may be kept is a zoo. 'for their own protection and others curiosity."
In the past - more than once, governments have tried and failed to eliminate homosexuals. Fortunately, in this age we don't. I'm perfectly happy for people to pursue any sexual lifestyle they want, except maybe beastiality. I believe prostitution in any gender mix should be allowed. However, these are adult decisions and should not be taught to children as "normal". It just isn't.
The vast majority, in my opinion, do not accept it as "normal", and if political correctness expands much beyond its current bounds, I'll predict a backlash. Or, maybe the zoo I alluded to.
By the way, what's a transgender?
joe
"old" is relative to each persons expiration date. When the big soccer ref in the sky blows his whistle, it's over.
you said:
<<How would you feel if your company decided to drop you from thier insurance b/c you cost them too much?>>
That's their prevledge. One of my first bosses said that when you get your paycheck on pay day, all allegence between you and your company are satisfied. Don't get mad if you're fired, the company shouldn't be mad if you don't show up at work the next day.
I stayed with that company for 27 years, until they went out of business. Same at the next company for 10 years, 'til they went out of business. 4, so far with the current company - maybe they won't.
Relatively recent laws have changed the rules a little. Americans with disabilities, HIPPA, etc. Public companies vs private companies vs size of company. I work for the largest company in my business in the USA, and it's my first private company to work for. I feel fairly secure, but who knows?
Shit happens.
joe
Transgender (to we who are out of the loop) is an umbrella term that describes people who fall into a wide variety of circumstances. As I understand it, this includes transvestites who dress across the standard gender roles for their society, sometimes passing, or trying to, as a member of the opposite sex. It also includes people who believe that they were placed in the wrong kind of body and that they really, truly _are_ a member of the sex opposite what their gross anatomy would suggest. (Maybe those folks are called transsexual?) Some of those go on to legal and medical gender-reassignment procedures. (I think they are technically transgendered.) Also bear in mind that the words that the TG community prefers have changed over time and some words that were once mainstream-acceptable are now considered offensive, and I might not know what's what. Does that answer your question?
Joe, I've decided not to take this to another article for now. I think what your biggotry comes down to is that you're willing to hurt others for no better reason than it makes you more comfortable. That is alien to me. I would rather hurt me because I can't be comfortable while hurting others. I don't have the ego that you do. I think. Hopefully that didn't sound like an attack, it wasn't meant to.
Normal is just a point on a scale of measuring. You can have bad rocks, normal rocks, and good rocks.
You'd get rid of bad rocks if they were in your living space. Normal rocks would probably be ok. You may go out searching for good rocks and pay something in order to get them moved to your living space.
It can be applied to judging people. Normal people go-along to get-along. Bad people are removed from society, depending on how bad. Good people contribute and add something to the evolution of the species (science, social, artistic, etc.). Many, probably most homosexuals are good and are known for their contributions to the arts and sciencies (not sure about social).
There are adult, eyes-wide-open, concepts that I consider should be withheld from children until they're the right age, or need to get some distorted message from their peers rectified. I don't trust today's school system to do that job very well.
A 5th grade great nephew came home from school the other day with information from his teacher, "second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke". Several of his relatives who are smokers were sitting outside smoking when he made the announcement. As a group we said WHAT?, where'd you hear that? We were astute enough not to critizise his teacher. But.. wrong information is worse than no information.
You're right. I would like to hurt those such as many of the gay groups who try to push their mores to the main stream of accecptability. Remember, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
But, this thread has gotten dull for me. I'll have more fun bashing "global warmists". And I know better of which I speak in that vein.
Regardless of how my mind works, or my decision to speak my (and the majorities) convictions, I'm not misinformed.
There's normal and abnormal, it's black and white. Or if that's racially offensive to you, blue and red, the opposite ends of the spectrum.