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

Skip to comments.

As Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Legal, Some Choices May Be Lost (Gays: Be Careful What You Wish For!)
New York Times ^ | July 8, 2011 | Tara Siegel Bernard

Posted on 07/09/2011 1:01:31 PM PDT by lbryce

Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, at least a few large companies are requiring their employees to tie the knot if they want their partners to qualify for health insurance.

Should companies require gay employees to marry if they want health coverage for their same-sex partners?

Corning, I.B.M. and Raytheon all provide domestic partner benefits to employees with same-sex partners in states where they cannot marry. But now that they can legally wed in New York, five other states and the District of Columbia, they will be required to do so if they want their partner to be covered for a routine checkup or a root canal.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

“Even with the complications, many people will want to get married for the reasons people want to get married,” said Ross D. Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. “But from our perspective, to hinge something as important as insurance for your family to what is still a complicated legal matter for same-sex couples doesn’t seem to be a fair thing to do.”

He said that there were a variety of reasons — legal, financial and personal — that companies should keep the domestic partnership option at least until gay marriage was recognized at the federal level. Legally speaking, getting married could create immigration issues or it could potentially muddy the process of adopting a child.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abomination; depravity; fdrq; gayrights; gays; homosexualagenda; marriage
“But from our perspective, to hinge something as important as insurance for your family to what is still a complicated legal matter for same-sex couples doesn’t seem to be a fair thing to do.”

Gays apparently can, will never be satisfied. What a sniveling fruity flock of pusillanimous namby-pamby, pantywaist hypocrites.

1 posted on 07/09/2011 1:01:38 PM PDT by lbryce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lbryce

“Corning, I.B.M. and Raytheon all provide domestic partner benefits to employees with same-sex partners in states where they cannot marry. But now that they can legally wed in New York, five other states and the District of Columbia, they will be required to do so if they want their partner to be covered for a routine checkup or a root canal.”

That seems reasonable.


2 posted on 07/09/2011 1:07:23 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

What difference does it make if they go through some sham ceremony? It doesn’t mean anything. It’s not marriage.


3 posted on 07/09/2011 1:10:15 PM PDT by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

LOL! A gay friend of mine, years ago, said that what he really liked about being gay was that he didn’t have to get married or make any commitment and he hoped the gay lobby never pushed this.

It’s going to be extremely complicated. Gay men change partners about every full moon or less, so they’re obviously going to have to decide on the legal implications of marriage and work out the cost/benefit analysis.


4 posted on 07/09/2011 1:10:36 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

It’s often difficult to think things through ahead of time.

For men and women, they must be married to claim spousal benefits. They can’t just live together or be boyfriend and girlfriend. Legal documentation is required, i.e., the marriage certificate, when proof is necessary. Otherwise, people could willy-nilly claim spousal benefits whenever they wanted. Spousal benefits can’t be based on nothing and simply there for the asking.

So if sodomites are allowed to marry in a given State, they will have to have the same documentation that a man and woman are required to have.

Allowing sodomites to marry opens up many logical “cans of worms”, but in the rush to garner votes, legislators rarely pause at all to consider unintended consequences. After all, their job is only to get re-elected, right ?

Like the kids say... duh.


5 posted on 07/09/2011 1:10:36 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (It's not difficult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

The whole gay thing is so fantastically UNreasonable that it boggles the mind.

But straights have to legally commit if they want family coverage; gays should too.


6 posted on 07/09/2011 1:11:35 PM PDT by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Should companies require gay employees to marry if they want health coverage for their same-sex partners?

IMO, yes. But this should be the company’s decision. The government should stay out of it.


7 posted on 07/09/2011 1:13:12 PM PDT by birdsman (NAAWP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
This nation will reap as a ‘whole’ what we have allowed to be perverted. Marriage has always meant man and woman established by God who is the source of all blessings and protection. The ‘sewer’ level is hip deep and the majority mob cannot see what their mushed minds and spines are willingly allowing. (oh for the sewer rats I personally could care less where you wallow, but it is a sin against the very one who said the activity is an abomination, so deal with the consequences.)
8 posted on 07/09/2011 1:13:33 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

“Ha ha...”


9 posted on 07/09/2011 1:14:39 PM PDT by Zeppo ("Happy Pony is on - and I'm NOT missing Happy Pony")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

Exactly. Most of these “marriages” will be on paper only. Open (in terms of partners) and probably different addresses too. Of course, the one with the $$ will have to watch out in case the (poorer) partner opts for divorce. No quotes around divorce, because that will be REAL (as in $$$).


10 posted on 07/09/2011 1:15:24 PM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

It will be a boon for divorce lawyers.


11 posted on 07/09/2011 1:21:14 PM PDT by glock rocks (Wait, what ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Between gay marriage laws and laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, companies may legally be required to either give only married gays family benefits or open up benefits to straights who are just shacking up.
12 posted on 07/09/2011 1:22:46 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Tea Party extremism is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce; Chode

13 posted on 07/09/2011 1:28:37 PM PDT by Morgana (I never said a thing.....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Gee, they whine about equality, then whine when they get it, since they lost preferential treatment.


14 posted on 07/09/2011 1:37:08 PM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

Isn’t that something? Gay men get all the sex they want from their partners, and it still doesn’t keep them monogamous.


15 posted on 07/09/2011 1:37:24 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

What do they call themselves? Husband 1 and husband 2? Spouse 1 and spouse 2? Catcher, pitcher?


16 posted on 07/09/2011 1:40:16 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

It’s quite simple. Queers want their many, interchangeable, revolving door butt buddies to be covered by insurance.


17 posted on 07/09/2011 1:46:30 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Just wait until they have a domestic dispute....

They’ll have to charge them both with a hate crime and mandatory jail time!


18 posted on 07/09/2011 1:54:28 PM PDT by esoxmagnum (The rats have been trained to pull the D voting lever to get their little food pellet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
It will be a boon for divorce lawyers

Great observation. Makes me suspicious the whole thing is all an evil lawyer plan.

19 posted on 07/09/2011 2:00:11 PM PDT by The Good Doctor (Democracy is the only system where you can vote for a tax that you can avoid the obligation to pay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Homosexuals are attention hungry, money hungry, lawsuit hungry, drama queens, with the relationship attention span of gnats, introducing all this law, codification of relationships, and legal baggage into their carefree, sex based pick-up world is going to be a bitter wake up call for them.


20 posted on 07/09/2011 2:08:01 PM PDT by ansel12 (America has close to India population of 1950s, India has 1,200,000,000 people now. Quality of Life?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: esoxmagnum
mandatory jail time

Mandatory jail time, you say? Hmmmm. Guess what happens a lot in jails? Mmmmmm... So both partners might have a good time!

21 posted on 07/09/2011 2:43:42 PM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
That seems reasonable.

Yeah, that was what I thought. Before the advent of these same-sex partnerships, you could never get your shack-up babe's root canal paid for by insurance. You paid for that sort of thing out of pocket, like her apartment.

22 posted on 07/09/2011 2:43:54 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Oh, well, any excuse to buy a new gun is good enough for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Should companies require gay employees to marry if they want health coverage for their same-sex partners?

I've wondered about this. Same-sex "partners" have been getting benefits that opposite-sex partners have been been allowed because they have an opportunity.

More companies will start this as a cost-saving move.

23 posted on 07/09/2011 2:44:19 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

BTW, I always had a proper plan for shack-up babes: You have to have your own job with bennies. No freeloaders. I did that one time, and I felt soiled.

:^)


24 posted on 07/09/2011 2:47:29 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Oh, well, any excuse to buy a new gun is good enough for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius; lbryce
Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 3:10:36 PM by livius: “It’s going to be extremely complicated. Gay men change partners about every full moon or less, so they’re obviously going to have to decide on the legal implications of marriage and work out the cost/benefit analysis.”

Much of the support for toleration for homosexuality rests on the idea that homosexual partnerships are more or less like heterosexual dating relationships and engagements, except that the partners can't legally “tie the knot.” That simply is not true. While we have a major problem with divorce in America, homosexual bed-hopping is much, much worse.

Maybe we can now get positive proof from court records of what has been an open secret for a long time — promiscuity is rampant among male homosexuals, and there will be a serious cost to society in allowing “gay marriage.”

This could get interesting, and might just be a blessing in disguise.

25 posted on 07/09/2011 2:51:01 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
"But from our perspective, to hinge something as important as insurance for your family to what is still a complicated legal matter for same-sex couples doesn’t seem to be a fair thing to do.”

Even if not recognized by Feds, these people are no better or worse off, by getting married but they would be fulfilling their responsibilities in the states that do recognize their marriage. To do otherwise smacks of trying to get away with something.

26 posted on 07/09/2011 2:54:09 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought ("The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

I always wondered what prevented someone with a “domestic partner” from being married and having a 2nd wife who was their “domestic partner”.


27 posted on 07/09/2011 3:25:24 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Hey, hey! They’re not a flock.


28 posted on 07/09/2011 3:45:38 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

““Corning, I.B.M. and Raytheon all provide domestic partner benefits to employees with same-sex partners in states where they cannot marry. But now that they can legally wed in New York, five other states and the District of Columbia, they will be required to do so if they want their partner to be covered for a routine checkup or a root canal.”

That seems reasonable.”

If I were seriously interested in addressing the rising costs of Heath-care, I would outlaw health insurance.


29 posted on 07/09/2011 3:54:01 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
It will be a boon for divorce lawyers.

I can't wait for "Gay Divorce Court" it will be a hoot.

30 posted on 07/09/2011 4:04:00 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Pelosi: Obamacare indulgences for sale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

The next thing they’ll try to get is the elimination of adultery as grounds for divorce.


31 posted on 07/09/2011 4:24:10 PM PDT by AdaGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

You’re right. They will never be satisfied because what they want is to be considered normal. This is impossible. By definition, they are deviants.


32 posted on 07/09/2011 4:25:42 PM PDT by AdaGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Alimony will be interesting... wait, who gets HALF!

It’s gonna take a Solomon of a judge to parse the Subaru/Miata gap. Oh my.


33 posted on 07/09/2011 5:42:39 PM PDT by glock rocks (Wait, what ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: livius

It’s going to be extremely complicated. Gay men change partners about every full moon or less, so they’re obviously going to have to decide on the legal implications of marriage and work out the cost/benefit analysis.

There needs to be some clarity about homosexual male relationships. There’s a larger degree of concern about whether your significant other is faithful to you in the traditional marriage than in homosexual relationships. In fact, trends have shown that homosexual men often can stay in their domestic relationships for some time while cheating on their partner with other men. It happens more often than you think.


34 posted on 07/09/2011 6:13:09 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
i am stunned... i worked for Corning for years and they always bent over backwards for the FDRQ

this is a good thing

35 posted on 07/09/2011 7:04:13 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Mr. Silverback; little jeremiah; narses; Coleus

Ping!


36 posted on 07/10/2011 2:34:16 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce; NYer; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; BabaOreally; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

37 posted on 07/10/2011 2:42:54 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Gays apparently can, will never be satisfied.

They want all the reward without any of the sacrifice, all the benefits without any of the responsibilities. They take selfishness and self centeredness to the extreme. The terms perverse and disordered cover more than their choice of sexual acrobatics

38 posted on 07/10/2011 2:49:35 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Any “loss” that sodomites realize to their egotistical little lives will be a fair trade for their true goal: the destruction of the Judeo/Christian values of this nation and the ultimate ability to persecute Christians to prison and death. No, not an exaggeration.


39 posted on 07/10/2011 4:32:37 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Oh please get Judge Judy on it— she’s devastatingly witty with normal people!


40 posted on 07/10/2011 5:10:45 PM PDT by sthguard (The DNC theme song: "All You Need is Guv")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
They want all the reward without any of the sacrifice, all the benefits without any of the responsibilities.

That's why they went gay in the first place. Reproductive fitness is too big a responsibility.

41 posted on 07/11/2011 8:46:26 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (To ACLU & its plaintiffs: Stop dragging the public into your personal struggle w/ God. -Mark Baisley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: The Good Doctor

Homosexuals seperate too fast for any property claims. With a 1 year or less “marriage” with seperate jobs, bank accounts or lives then there is no money for the lawyers.

If lawyers had been smart they would have kept marriage as solid as possible to keep divorce expensive.

The ABA’s model law group is infested with feminists and homosexuals which sold out the law.


42 posted on 07/11/2011 8:58:37 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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