GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (37448)	2/15/2005 6:24:02 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 173976

"The issue with medical benefits is that if a company offers spousal benefits, it must extend that benefit to all full time employees within the group. However, it does not have to extend those benefits to same-sex couples. That is, there is no protection for same-sex partners to enjoy the same benefit as heterosexual married couples." There is no law that forces the company to extend those benefits to three-somes either. Granted a threesome is something very different than a couple engaging in the life long commitment of a vision of family and community and projecting that into the future. Likewise, a gay couple is a different relationship. Your point is, dependent 'partners' need benefits and it is your premise that the law should enforce some sort of equity in this matter. I agree. I think the law should force employers to include any members of the household including great aunt Mildred ... seriously. But, this is not accomplished by redefining marriage. Where there are inequities in the Tax laws or those effecting benefits to household members I agree that we should push for change. Redefining marriage is missing that particular target.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next