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 ...
Gays apparently can, will never be satisfied. What a sniveling fruity flock of pusillanimous namby-pamby, pantywaist hypocrites.
“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.
What difference does it make if they go through some sham ceremony? It doesn’t mean anything. It’s not marriage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Ha ha...”
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 $$ will have to watch out in case the (poorer) partner opts for divorce. No quotes around divorce, because that will be REAL (as in $$$).
It will be a boon for divorce lawyers.
Gee, they whine about equality, then whine when they get it, since they lost preferential treatment.
Isn’t that something? Gay men get all the sex they want from their partners, and it still doesn’t keep them monogamous.
What do they call themselves? Husband 1 and husband 2? Spouse 1 and spouse 2? Catcher, pitcher?
It’s quite simple. Queers want their many, interchangeable, revolving door butt buddies to be covered by insurance.
Just wait until they have a domestic dispute....
They’ll have to charge them both with a hate crime and mandatory jail time!
Great observation. Makes me suspicious the whole thing is all an evil lawyer plan.
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.
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.