Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts firms drop domestic-partner benefits
washingtontimes.com ^ | December 9, 2004 | Cheryl Wetzstein

Posted on 12/09/2004 8:54:21 AM PST by crushelits

To some major Massachusetts employers, this year's advent of same-sex "marriage" means the end of their domestic-partnership benefit programs.

The decision by IBM Corp., the New York Times Co. and Northeastern University to offer health benefits only to "married" same-sex couples pleases some advocates, but troubles others.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision, which legalized same-sex "marriage" as of May 17, "leveled the playing field," said Candace Quinn, vice president of Baystate Health System, which employs 90,000 people.

Years ago, she said, Baystate started offering domestic-partner benefits to its homosexual employees, because "they had no other option to cover their life partners."

The Goodridge decision changed everything for same-sex couples, she said, and because Baystate doesn't offer domestic-partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it created an unfair situation for them.

"So we are going back to the policy that we only supply benefits to married couples," said Ms. Quinn, adding that the policy change was announced in the summer so Baystate's 50 affected employees could make plans -- including wedding arrangements.

These decisions show that "corporate America is taking a step toward equality," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director at the Human Rights Campaign. "Equalizing benefits, responsibilities and rights for individuals by corporations was exactly what this [Goodridge] case was all about. It was about fair and equal treatment."

(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: benefits; domestic; drop; firms; homosexualagenda; ibm; massachusetts; northeasternu; nyt; partner; samesexmarriage; wetzstein

1 posted on 12/09/2004 8:54:22 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: crushelits

The gays should be happy. No trace of "second class citizenship" remains. So they can get married up there and get their benefits.

Unless the whole exercise was about somehing other than "having the right to marry" . . .


2 posted on 12/09/2004 8:56:35 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
I saw this on Special Report last night and thought it to be wonderful.

And they quoted someone as saying that this was an unfair move because the decision for gay couples to marry is more difficult than for heterosexual couples.

TS.

3 posted on 12/09/2004 8:57:15 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: crushelits

Amusing "unintended consequences".


5 posted on 12/09/2004 8:58:57 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
Large employers terminating or phasing out domestic-partner benefits for some or all Massachusetts workers include IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center, Baystate Health System, and The New York Times Co., which owns The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.
6 posted on 12/09/2004 9:01:16 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

I wonder just how many gay people work for Raytheon... :P


7 posted on 12/09/2004 9:02:45 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

The law of unintended consequences at work.


8 posted on 12/09/2004 9:05:20 AM PST by TASMANIANRED (Free the Fallujah one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

I have been looking for this over at DU to see how they are reacting as I suspect it will be a fun fight to watch. Can't find it posted anywhere. If any other brave souls venture over there please post a link and ping me.


9 posted on 12/09/2004 9:05:33 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Yikes !!! A twinge of common sense. Whoda thunkit !!!


10 posted on 12/09/2004 9:13:36 AM PST by GeekDejure ( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII

http://www.raytheon.com/feature/outandequal/

Apparently Raytheon has five LGBT networks and an active human resources program.

I do know that they match donations to Gay-Straight Alliances in schools.


11 posted on 12/09/2004 9:14:50 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

They never really said it was about equality anyway.


12 posted on 12/09/2004 9:17:23 AM PST by Jaded ((Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. - Mark Twain))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
Baystate's 50 affected employees

It's cheaper to pay the differential of $120,000 in annual medical insurance than to litigate in court (50 employees x $600/month insurance, less the difference for individual coverage) .

13 posted on 12/09/2004 9:23:19 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

O_O wow, who'd a thunk it?

You'd figure a military contractor would be about as manly a work environment as you could get.


14 posted on 12/09/2004 9:26:15 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

I Subscribe to the Homosexual Agenda

DU Homo subscriber

December 9, 2004
By Joseph Hughes


I also subscribe to Newsweek and Spin, for what it's worth. Seriously, though, I am so tired of hearing bigotry masquerade as "values," hatred as "compassion." I'll be blunt: If you do not accept homosexuality, do not think that gays should marry, you are a bigot. You're not old fashioned. You're also not Christian. Again, you are a bigot. And an idiot. And I'm tired of people not calling things what they are.

So let's spend a little time discussing the "homosexual agenda."

These homosexuals – who (and I checked) are actual people and not a nameless, faceless, well-dressed mob – are apparently out to get special rights and privileges from the government. They want - gasp - to be able to marry and enjoy the benefits associated with such unions. They want - God forbid - to be able to visit their dying partners in the hospital, to make arrangements should they die. And they also want - heavens - to be treated with the same dignity the rest of us are afforded.

The nerve.

Why would homosexuals want these things? Why would they, for some strange reason, want to be on the same footing as the rest of society? Why? Why are they so in our faces with the "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!" chants? Why do they push their radical, let's-all-have-equal-rights agenda down our throats? Why would they stop with one single-sex marriage partner – why not marry their dogs?

If you asked any one of these questions without tongue firmly planted in cheek, there are several things you should know: This article isn't for you. You are a bigot. You are an idiot.

You'll hear the Right claiming to not be homophobic. They'll tell you they live and let live (as long as you don't live next to them). They'll also tell you that, like them, most Americans agree that the "institution" of marriage is something worth protecting. As if homosexuals and like-minded individuals everywhere are – as seen in that hateful campaign brochure distributed this fall – out to ban their Bibles.

Let's look at this confusion in depth.

If someone's religious rites don't respect everyone's basic civil rights, then something is wrong. They see it as "us" (for lack of a better term) trying to change their religious standards. But it appears to me that their religious views – views that not everyone subscribes to (different religions, no religion, etc.) – are being used to prevent someone from holding their basic rights.

Again, there's no army of homosexuals on the prowl to ruin someone's religious rite. Let's say Ohio's Issue 1 (constitutional ban on same-sex marriage) failed or is somehow ruled unconstitutional. A church could still refuse to marry homosexuals, because it doesn't have a legal obligation to do so. Do I agree? No. Could they? Sure. But I don't think a religion has the right to tell the state how it should govern a legally-binding agreement.

There are two definitions of "marriage" being discussed here: Religious and civil (not as in civil unions, but the "marriage" that comes from getting the paper at the courthouse). How churches and theologians legislate the former is their business. How the government legislates the latter is their business. Never the twain shall meet.

If you don't like the idea that a church may in the future marry homosexuals in the religious rite, that's up to you. But it's not up to you to use your religion (one of myriad religions) to define how the state sees marriage. Because, if you do, you're somehow suggesting there's a state religion – something, if I'm remembering correctly, we fought back in the day to avoid.

Plus, why do we never see the religious marriage-defense roadblocks fly up when two atheists get married? Because homosexuals – like blacks and women before them – are easy targets for them to marginalize. Where does it stop? When will it end?

Here's something you won't hear in the bigots' anti-gay posturing: They're scared. They are more afraid of "Will and Grace" than al Qaeda attacking their local Piggly Wiggly. They see Janet Jackson's nipple on television, see "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," and they are scared. It wasn't so long ago that the sight of a black person in their diner provoked the same response. Fear of change is a dangerous thing. Dangerous for those afraid to change and, even more so, for those seen as the "changers."

This fear has led many to develop a terribly misled view of homosexuals. If gays are allowed to marry, they say, marriage will be ruined. Why, then, is the state that allows same-sex marriage (Massachusetts) the one with the lowest divorce rate? If they're allowed to raise kids, they say, those children will grow up mal-adjusted. Why, then, was it reported recently that children of same-sex couples are just as well off as those with mixed-sex parents? What are they so afraid of?

And they can keep their "values." I really have a hard time believing Jesus would rather keep gays out of His church and ban abortion than feed the hungry, clothe the poor and cure the sick. Remember those values? You won't hear about those at your local WASPy mega-church these days. "God is Love" doesn't quite ring as true any more, does it?

America is at a dangerous crossroads: We, as a nation, could remain old-ashioned, looking to a hate-filled past for our values. Or we could look to the future, embrace diversity as an ideal and move forward. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for the latter. It's our only hope. Joseph Hughes is a graphic designer and writer by day and a liberal blogger by night. Read stories like this and many more at his blog, Hughes for America.

15 posted on 12/09/2004 9:30:00 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
I'm a hetero who's about to take advantage of the domestic partners policy in my company...if it lasts. I'm getting my g-friend covered under my plan. Although I hope my company doesn't change its policies I'm definitely glad this is happening, even at the possible expense of my situation I'm still glad. For too frigging long every special interest group has had special laws written for them here, there, everywhere and all those laws did was discriminate against me, a single white heterosexual Christian late 20 male. If you think about my description you will notice that I qualify for absolutely NO special treatment because 1) I'm a man, 2) I'm white 3) I'm not gay and 4) I celebrate CHRISTmas. I'm hated even more because my parents were successful enough to bring me up in a suburb, another no-no.
In fact, 1-4 puts me directly in the cross-hairs of every single special interest group this country can come up with. I suffer because some white idiots 100+ years ago sold and bought black men,women, and children. My ancestors were in Ireland at the time, go figure. Even if they weren't from Ireland and I had slave owners as great great grandparents, what does that have to do with me? I'll tell you, it has as much to do with me as the black youth of today have to do with slavery. Prejudice this, and prejudice that, everyone has been discriminated against. Are there people out there stupid enough to believe that white heterosexual Christian males aren't discriminated against? A) No one can publicly celebrate my religious holidays if they REALLY believe and aren't just in it for the presents. B) I could never get away with rape by citing a boner, but a woman can kill her children and make the defense that hormones in her body made her temporarily insane C) Being white actually makes it harder to get into college or even certain HS.
Why are certain discriminations okay while others are not. Women's gym's? Asian student centers? Black yellow pages? United Negro College Fund? Affirmative Action policies? Why is it okay for everyone to discriminate against me? I can't get a scholarship for being white. I can't even keep women off a golf course, and forget about celebrating ST. Pats day with a St. Pats day parade because its now the GAY PRIDE parade.
Is it because of my skin color? Yes
Is it because of my gender? Yes
Is it because of my sexual preferences? Yes
Is it because of my religion? Yes
If I were black or Arab, a woman or gay, an atheist or Mulsim all of this would be condemned loudly by every left wing news outlet from Harvard to Hollywood, but no, because I'm white, because I was blessed with a penis, because I use the word blessed every once in a while, because I celebrate CHRISTmas and worship a women's body its okay to discriminate against me. Why? I'm beginning to think its because people are jealous. I'm beginning to think that everyone deep down wishes they were a late 20's white Christian male with a deep seeded passion for beautiful women.
For all the screaming the left does against discrimination, they are the most prejudice people I know. When are they going to wake up, take heed of the old adage, "two wrongs don't make a right" and end all these special interest laws. Racism, sexism, and all the -isms will never go away until we stop discriminating. It doesn't matter against who, or for who its still all discrimination.
16 posted on 12/09/2004 9:33:51 AM PST by ReeseKev27 (Liberalism = Idealism; Conservative = Realism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Thanks. But not what I was looking for. I would like a link to a thread on DU discussing the decision by companies in MA to drop same sex benes for those who are not married.


17 posted on 12/09/2004 9:46:54 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII

Military contractors must gleefully embrace diversity to get tax money deposited in their accounts.


18 posted on 12/09/2004 9:54:54 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ReeseKev27

It's time we all read "The Communist Manifesto" & then all will understand this situation fully.


19 posted on 12/09/2004 10:02:40 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ReeseKev27

This may or may not have any relation to this post, but here in Maryland, we got some homo couples suing to get married - but the state refuses to even recognize heterosexual couples that have been living together for years as common-law marriages. How the hell is that fair.

What these cockamamy people have to realize is that homosexuality is NOT NORMAL. It's not natural and it's not what nature intended. I wish they would quit trying to normalize perverted actvity.


20 posted on 12/09/2004 10:03:41 AM PST by SeniorMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Indeed, we here at largest military contractor are so
steeped in diversity, we can get it online, instructor
lead and even the new diversity...Myers-Briggs personality
type. 16 Flavors


21 posted on 12/09/2004 10:08:59 AM PST by jusduat (I am a strange and recurring anomaly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: aShepard
Be careful what you wish for!

St. Theresa de Avila, "More tears are caused by answered prayers than unanswered ones."

22 posted on 12/09/2004 10:20:44 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS", Fake But Accurate, Experts Say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
The obvious is ALWAYS glossed over. Homosexual relationships are NOT normal.

Now ... "The Goodridge decision changed everything for same-sex couples, she said, and because Baystate doesn't offer domestic-partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it created an unfair situation for them."

You can not equate a heterosexual relationship with a homosexual relationship, married or not because one is normal, heterosexual and one is ABnormal, homosexual.
23 posted on 12/09/2004 10:23:56 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
Homosexuals want special rights and for YOU to pay their health care costs - aids is killing them.
24 posted on 12/09/2004 10:24:52 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nmh
You can not equate a heterosexual relationship with a homosexual relationship, married or not because one is normal, heterosexual and one is ABnormal, homosexual.

But with the issue at hand you can and must compare them on the same level. If Company A is providing health care benes to the same sex partner of an employee because they can not legally get married and thus would never be eligible for spouse benefits then it is not only fair but proper that since they can now get married that to receive spousal benes they must get married.

To continue to provide same sex benes to unmarried same sex couples would be discrimination against unmarried hetero couples and thuse to be fair and just in their bene policies they must then offer spousal benes to ALL partners of unmarried couples.

25 posted on 12/09/2004 10:36:23 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

This is so funny!


26 posted on 12/09/2004 10:37:57 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
Or we could look to the future, embrace diversity as an ideal and move forward.

This proves it.....The entire homosexual 'agenda' is not about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance. It's not enough to say 'Look, what you do on your own time is OK, it's just not for me.' No, we need to teach our children that anything gay is OK, unless it's negative (depression, suicide, etc) and then it's not mentioned. We need to 'embrace' diversity, except for the bad parts that don't get mentioned (lower education, drug use, crime, etc.). And obviously, anyone that says different is a hateful bigot that needs to be re-educated.

I've always said that it's easiest for liberals to freely spend other people money and morality. Wife's friends are libs, and were expounding on the virtues of diversity at a recent get-together. I asked when the last time was that they spent in a soup kitchen, or volunteering at an inner city Y or school, or even just contributing $$ to a charity. Dead silence. One guy volunteered at a hospice for AIDS patients - 'safe', upper class, homosexual AIDS patients, but at least he put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, you never saw so many people shuffling and looking down at their shoes.

A liberal's definition of diversity is a white socialist, a black socialist, a gay socialist, a latino socialist, and so forth. There's all-inclusive diversity for you.

/rant off. I feel better.

27 posted on 12/09/2004 11:17:58 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
The decision by IBM Corp., the New York Times Co. and Northeastern University to offer health benefits only to "married" same-sex couples pleases some advocates, but troubles others.

How about taking all the money away from heterosexuals and dispersing it amongst the homosexual population. Would that please them?

28 posted on 12/09/2004 11:21:19 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
1. Homosexuality is a personal choice, the conscience decision to not abide by 'rites' as you call it, of those who gave up their desires for God's will, not personal will.

2. Therefore, Homosexuality, or the worship of a persons desires vs. the active will of God, is not comparable to actual worshiping Christians nor could any person devoid of a personal Saviour, even acknowledge the difference. Your diatribe is one more in a long line of unbelievers trying desperately to define what you only know vicariously, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Rites and ritual have nothing to do with Christianity, having a personal relationship with Jesus is what being a Christian is all about. Rites, and rituals may help bind us traditionally, but they have no meaning if the people doing the rituals aren't bound by the blood of Jesus, the cross and justification by faith. There is no justification, no redemption without repentance. There is no more evidence available on man's lack of redemption and repentance than to see the queer nation wanting to have it their way.

3. I didn't define the argument, the rules, or the manner of redemption. That was God's decision. IF you think that He doesn't mean what He says, then go on and do your own thing. Just don't try to ramrod YOUR GOD or YOUR BELIEFS down the throats of millions who received HIM and gave up their own free will. That is something you will never understand.

No one is keeping you from doing what's right in your mind, you have no right whatsoever to try to break apart the bonds that we have forged from Calvary. Go start your own queer cult of pseudo-salvation. and take what ever verses out of the bible that you don't like. We'll both get judged, we'll both get what we deserve. We just don't have to be judged side by side. I still have the right of association, and I also have the right to use judgement as God gave me wisdom to know what is life and what is foolishness. Your wanting to force me into a relationship with unrepentant homosexuals is no different than forcing my kids on a bus driven by an alcoholic. It may be natural to get drunk and enjoy every pleasure the body can offer, you have no right to make me join in. What comes natural is not what comes spiritual. Civilization is not built on natural law, it is built on a higher standard. If you want to live in the barnyard, go ahead, as for me and my house, we will worship, and obey the LORD. Good luck on your new religion. You'll never change mine.
29 posted on 12/09/2004 11:43:02 AM PST by panzer1 (In His Grip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: panzer1

That isn't the writing of crushelits. He mearly posted an article written by someone who supports the homosexual agenda over at DU.


30 posted on 12/09/2004 12:09:54 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

Thanks.!


31 posted on 12/09/2004 1:07:03 PM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeniorMoment

....."the state refuses to even recognize heterosexual couples that have been living together for years as common-law marriages. How the hell is that fair."........

Hey, no problem. 1. Get the car keys, 2. Get in, close the door, and drive to the local town hall. 3. Fill out form, dig $25 out of your wallet, get blood test, then, 4. Stand there with your partner while some guy pronounces you man and wife.

Every one of us heterosexuals have been doing this for centuries, some with lots of flair and fancy, some with none, but all it takes is the guts to make a decision.

Fair, Absolutely!


32 posted on 12/09/2004 3:17:16 PM PST by aShepard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeniorMoment
Oppps!

I ranted , then I reread your post. The hypocrisy for the gay agenda vs the live in heteros is disgusting.

Sorry for the rant!
33 posted on 12/09/2004 3:22:13 PM PST by aShepard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TASMANIANRED
The law of unintended consequences at work.

Yes but others in states without the wonderful laws of that state are now, after giving benefits to "same sex partners", are now offering benefits to "opposite sex partners" to avoid lawsuits!!

And then they wonder how to make a profit....

34 posted on 12/09/2004 3:28:51 PM PST by Johnny Crab (Always thankful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

I agree unmarried couples don't deserve benefits but you missed the point. Assuming a homosexual is a NORMAL "couple" is where you begin to compare apples and oranges. The day will probably come when a person will be allowed to marry a pet - so should vet bills be covered? I would hope not but suggesting that a homosexual union is normal is as normal as a man marrying his dog.


35 posted on 12/09/2004 6:47:01 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: aShepard
Umm...you just can't use any old guy. He or she must be authorized to perform Holy Matrimony. And you two have to pledge "to be true to each other in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love each and honor one another so long as they both shall live." It's not that simple; you actually have to believe in God for a priest to join you before Him in Holy Matrimony.
36 posted on 12/09/2004 6:54:06 PM PST by dufekin (Four more years! Liberals, learn: whiners are losers every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Military contractors must gleefully embrace diversity to get tax money deposited in their accounts.

And this government position ought to be recinded. When you want a good engineer, it matters not a whit if he is a homosexual, a woman, a minority or a majority. All that matters is that he is the best and wants to do the job.

All diversity does is ask the company to take a candidate who is one of the mascots of the left and pretend he is the best candidate and give him the job. This is silly and has been reducing the effectiveness of American firms since the policy got approved in federal contract law. It was dumb then and it is still dumb. Its time to look at it again.

37 posted on 12/09/2004 7:13:43 PM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping. Good news or bad? You decide. I always like it when firms don't offer domestic partnership or whatever it's called benefits.

Astute comment:

***Unless the whole exercise was about somehing other than "having the right to marry" ...


DingDingDing! Winner!

Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.


38 posted on 12/09/2004 7:19:39 PM PST by little jeremiah (What would happen if everyone decided their own "right and wrong"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom

I agree with you, but I doubt that social engineering using tax dollars will stop in our lifetimes.

Heck, the current tax structure is social engineering.


39 posted on 12/09/2004 8:05:42 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

This is hilarious. :-)


40 posted on 12/09/2004 8:38:34 PM PST by BlessedBeGod (George W. Bush -- The Terror of the Terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dufekin

.....Umm...you just can't use any old guy........

Think


Justice of the Peace---

God doesn't need to enter into your situation to get married.


41 posted on 12/10/2004 5:38:12 AM PST by aShepard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Again, there's no army of homosexuals on the prowl to ruin someone's religious rite!

Homosexuals are not after the children. They just want to be Boy scout leaders because they know better than most how young boys should grow up to be responsible decent citizens and role models.


42 posted on 12/10/2004 5:59:29 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (Perversion is not a civil right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

43 posted on 12/10/2004 6:23:26 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Writers of hate GW/Christians/ Republicans Articles = GIM=GAY INFECTED MEDIOTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

44 posted on 12/10/2004 6:29:52 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Writers of hate GW/Christians/ Republicans Articles = GIM=GAY INFECTED MEDIOTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Speaking of unintended consequences, One of the arguments AGAINST same-sex marriages is that the benefits gay people claim to need are already available to them with civil unions and domestic partner coverage. By taking away those benefits, gay people now have a legitimate argument in favor of gay marriage.


45 posted on 12/10/2004 6:40:48 AM PST by Attillathehon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

ping pong


46 posted on 12/10/2004 6:54:50 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I am not suggesting that the relationship is normal, only that when it comes to employment benefits if a gay couple can get married in Mass then to receive spousal benefits from the company they damn well better get married or not get the benes.

And to our benefit, complaints about having to do so or a reluctance to do so on the homosexuals part will further expose them for what their radical agenda is really all about.

47 posted on 12/10/2004 6:55:00 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson