response 157 of 191:

Sep 22 23:29 UTC 2003

Apparently a right-wing group has filed a lawsuit, based on the Michigan 
1996 Defense of Marriage Act, against the Ann Arbor Public Schools 
because of their provision of health benefits to same sex partners, which 
the plaintiffs claim equates those relationships with marriage in 
violation of the law.

So, the fucking idiots will eat into the already strained resources of 
the school system just because they know that the schools might concede 
the point rather than engage in a protracted and expensive court fight.

response 159 of 191:

Sep 23 00:04 UTC 2003

I didn't say they weren't.  And I don't agree that what they're wasting 
money to stop is indeed a waste.  I believe it is an investment in 
improving the quality of the education available to students in the AAPS.

response 161 of 191:

Sep 23 02:50 UTC 2003

(Re:  #154/155/etc.
Start with the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, Book 4, 
Part 1, Title 7, Chapter 3, Can. 1084.

If you prefer, i can use 'Christian (sic)' instead of '"Christian"'.
Would you view either 'People's Democratic Republic (sic)' or
'"People's Democratic Republic"' as valid (if editorial) usages in
the context of a Stalinist dictatorship?)

response 163 of 191:

Sep 23 06:13 UTC 2003

The extension of health and other benefits to domestic partners would make
most sense if such partnerships were also legally recognized in Michigan.
It makes sense for married couples because of the legal rights and
responsibilities between such couples. This would also be the case with
same-sex married couples. Therefore an objective should be the adoption
of a Michigan law equivalent to Vermont's and California's, creating
unisex marriages. 

response 165 of 191:

Sep 23 13:41 UTC 2003

Re #147: Bru, any comment on whether they'd be guilty of a crime if they
lied on their customs forms by indicating they were single?  This
strikes me as a bit of a catch-22 situation.

Re #149: Me too.  But on the other hand, they did overturn Texas's
anti-sodomy law.  (Which surprised me.)

Re #162: Does their policy favor homosexual partnerships over other
partnerships?  It seems to me they're just elevating partnership
relationships to the same status as marriages, which is of course what
the lawsuit is about.  The fair thing to do, of course, would be to
simply not provide health benefits to anyone except the employee.  This
would save even more money in the budget you're so concerned about.

response 167 of 191:

Sep 23 15:04 UTC 2003

"...an employer should be able to compensate their employees anyway
they wish."  For example, by giving less compensation to non-Caucasians
for the same work?

response 169 of 191:

Sep 23 17:00 UTC 2003

re#167 - good point. Employers should compensate all employees who do 
the same work equally. Which does make me think that maybe it is just 
better for employers to stop offering health insurance to spouses/live 
in partners etc. Either that or they can say that the employee is 
covered as well as any one other person that employee chooses to have 
on their insurance. 

Tod says in resp:168 - "Giving benefits to one particular group of
"partners" without providing to all "partnerships" is favoritism. "

So if they offer benefits to spouses (which is just one particular 
group of "partners") then it wouldnt be fair to not extend the benefit 
to any other partnerships such as same sex domestic partners. 

response 171 of 191:

Sep 23 18:00 UTC 2003

Offering benefits to spouses effectively means that married people get 
paid more money than single people or people living in domestic 
partnerships. 

response 173 of 191:

Sep 23 18:11 UTC 2003

I had to pay for my extra coverage (for Bruce and kids) for the whole time
I've had health insurance. When I finally took Bruce off it this year, I went
from paying $60 plus/week to only $19/week for my health insurance. Why is
that unfair to my coworkers, since if they were single, they would have been
paying the $19/week all along  (or whatever the current price was over the
last twenty years)? 

response 175 of 191:

Sep 23 18:23 UTC 2003

I think that there is confusion over "providing health care to spouses". 
This can be simply including them in the same group health insurance plan
but still charging for the extra persons (as anderyn illustrates). The
most important part of company health insurance plans is the creation of a
"group" - of mostly healthy (i.e., gainfully employed) workers. This
reduces considerably the actual costs to the insurer (and company).

response 181 of 191:

Sep 23 19:56 UTC 2003

Of course if we had a national health care system where everyone was 
covered, none of this would be an issue.