|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 158 of 191:
| 
Sep 22 23:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 160 of 191:
|
Sep 23 01:57 UTC 2003 |
It is indeed a waste on from both sides.
If they are going to extend domestic partnerships, they shoulkd offer it to
everyone, no matter their orientation or situation, or just give it to those
people who are married.
|
i
|
|
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?)
|
tod
|
|
response 162 of 191:
|
Sep 23 04:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
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.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 164 of 191:
|
Sep 23 07:41 UTC 2003 |
re #161: are you talking about the same Canon 1084 that specifically
states: "Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility
neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage"? [We began this rather
pointless digression when Walter posed the question 'Don't several
"Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage in cases
where the couple wouldn't be able to have children' and I expect from
his decision to introduce Roman Catholic Canon Law to support his
point he believes the Catholic Church to be one of the "Christian"
groups he has in mind.]
As to your latter point, whatever it may be, whether you write it as
' "Christian" ' (with scare quotes) or 'Christian (sic)' I still don't
understand what you're trying to imply, unless it's that Roman Catholicism
isn't legitimately Chrstian by your own personal definition. If that's
where you're going with this I'm willing to concede ahead of time that
I'm not at all interested in debating you over your own private usage rules.
|
gull
|
|
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 166 of 191:
|
Sep 23 14:03 UTC 2003 |
It seems to me that an employer should be able to compensate their
employees anyway they wish. Gull is right of course that the only
really fair thing is to simply not provide health insurance benefits to
anyone except the employee. Otherwise married people end up with total
compensation packages that are greater than those for single people. In
other words, they end up being paid more.
|
remmers
|
|
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?
|
tod
|
|
response 168 of 191:
|
Sep 23 15:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 170 of 191:
|
Sep 23 17:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 172 of 191:
|
Sep 23 18:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
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)?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 174 of 191:
|
Sep 23 18:17 UTC 2003 |
I think what they mean is when insurance ispaid for by the employer. That's
when it's unfair, when the spouse is covered in the policy also. Single people
do not have this benefit.
|
rcurl
|
|
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).
|
other
|
|
response 176 of 191:
|
Sep 23 18:27 UTC 2003 |
Does anyone KNOW whether the benefit is for all domestic partnerships or
just for homosexual ones? I strongly suspect that anyone assuming the
latter is doing so without any evidence, despite the illogical nature of
the assumption.
|
tod
|
|
response 177 of 191:
|
Sep 23 18:58 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 178 of 191:
|
Sep 23 19:01 UTC 2003 |
Which then gives rise to the question- when do domestic partners of homosexual
couples get to the point where they're considered a spouse? And if this
distinction isn't there, this is unfair to single heterosexual people in
live-ni relationships.
|
tod
|
|
response 179 of 191:
|
Sep 23 19:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 180 of 191:
|
Sep 23 19:14 UTC 2003 |
Or they should allow homosexual marriages, so there's a strong distinction
between a gay spouse and a gay live-in lover.
|
slynne
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 182 of 191:
|
Sep 23 20:12 UTC 2003 |
What myxcat says in #180 was the substance of my #163 - but she has
restated it more succinctly. 8^}
|