|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 20 new of 191 responses total. |
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^}
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 183 of 191:
|
Sep 23 20:19 UTC 2003 |
Sometimes the simpler the words, the better it is comprehended ;) I haven't
been keeping up with this item,really, till maybe about 5 responses ago.
|
tod
|
|
response 184 of 191:
|
Sep 23 20:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
drew
|
|
response 185 of 191:
|
Sep 23 21:03 UTC 2003 |
I'll second the idea of leaving marital status entirely out of it and letting
employees put a specified number of people of their choice on the policy,
depending on what the company decides to offer and|or what the union manages
to negotiate.
|
jep
|
|
response 186 of 191:
|
Sep 23 21:10 UTC 2003 |
I came into the discussion about the gay couple, beginning with
resp:121, late because I was out of town last week. It seemed to me
that some were objecting that the customs officer shouldn't have
prevented the couple from entering the country because it's wrong US
law doesn't recognize gay marriages. I wonder if those who argued that
way would also say that, if the law is changed, it's okay for the
customs officer to refuse to obey the law, and keep gay couples out
because he feels *that* law would be wrong?
I'm afraid I don't have any regard for foreign people who won't obey US
law when they come to our country. This is our country, and we'll dang
well set whatever laws we want.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 187 of 191:
|
Sep 23 21:19 UTC 2003 |
I think the question was if you're a national of another country, and that
country recognises you as a married couple, why should the US govt object to
let them in if they are entering the country as tourists? I can understand
if they were looking to become permanent residents or citizens or even stay
for an extended period of time to work, but telling them they can't enter the
country because their marriage isn't recognised in this country, never mind
that they are legally married in the country of their origin? I don't think
thje question of "obeying" the law comes up here. It's not like they're coming
here to get married.
|
tod
|
|
response 188 of 191:
|
Sep 23 21:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 189 of 191:
|
Sep 24 01:27 UTC 2003 |
I don't agree with banning the couple from the country. That seems
foolish to me. It shouldn't be national policy. My point is solely
that it is not up to a foreigner to determine US policy.
If they came here to make a point, as it surely seems, then I don't
think they had any business doing so. I don't mind that they were
sent home in that case. I assume they could have just complied with
the law and been admitted.
Now that they've been sent home, though, it's US citizen's business to
change the law so the same doesn't happen again. I'm not interested
enough to become an activist on the issue myself, but if others here
are moved to get involved, you can have my support.
|
gull
|
|
response 190 of 191:
|
Sep 24 14:29 UTC 2003 |
I think there's exactly zero chance of changing that law under the
current administration. In fact it wouldn't surprise me to see it
toughened.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 191 of 191:
|
Sep 24 16:20 UTC 2003 |
Not if the Supreme Court voids it.
|